Sitting of 4 March 2002

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

    Attendance Allowance
    Vernon Coaker: What recent assessment he has made of the take-up of attendance allowance. [36324]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): There has been an increase of 21 per cent. in the number of people aged over 65 receiving the extra cost benefits since 1996.
    As eligibility for attendance allowance depends on the effects of an impairment on a person's care needs, not on the existence of an impairment per se, it is difficult to predict the right level of take-up among the over-65 population.
    Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will know that this is a most important benefit, and that although there is much concentration on the take-up of the minimum income guarantee the take-up of attendance
    2
    allowance is often not discussed so much. Will she consider whether the new pension service can signpost older people towards ensuring that they claim attendance allowance? In particular, will it focus on the fact that attendance allowance has not only a lower rate but a higher rate, on which significant numbers of people may miss out unless they are properly informed and advised?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. The number of people who claim successfully is increasing. In fact, there is evidence to show an upward drift from the lower to the higher rate. In 2001, 47 per cent. of those on attendance allowance received the higher rate, whereas in 1996 the figure had been only 42 per cent. We are always trying to make it easier to claim and to encourage take-up. Our Bristol office is today beginning a three-month trial of a shorter form—16 pages, instead of the current 34—for over-75-year-olds.
    Michael Fabricant: I am very relieved to hear that, because I spent the weekend before last filling in two of the forms—one was 12 pages long and the other was 18 pages long—for a 91-year-old constituent. I went to four universities and found them hard enough to fill in—and I am under 65. I do not know how the Minister expects someone over 65 or 75, let alone a 91-year-old, to fill in the forms. Has she ever tried?
    Maria Eagle: I could have saved the hon. Gentleman the trouble, because he would be eligible only if he was over 65—he clearly is not, so he will be turned down. There is always a difficult balance to strike with the size of the form. The important thing to remember is that we are not testing whether people have a certain condition or impairment; we ask them what effect the impairment has on their care needs. [Interruption.] I must speak up—I am sorry to be so short. The form must give our customers the opportunity to let us know the effect of the impairment on their care needs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are trying to get that difficult balance right. The general trend recently has been to decrease the size of the forms, which we hope will continue.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why people, especially elderly people, do not take up attendance allowance is probably that many of them think that it is income related and therefore worry about it affecting their minimum income guarantee, income support or other benefits? Perhaps we ought to try harder to make it clear to them that it is not income related.
    Maria Eagle: I hope that everyone can hear me now. My hon. Friend makes another important point, related to the point made by hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the pension service. We hope that the pension service will be able to signpost elderly people more coherently towards their eligibility for this benefit. Some 20 per cent. of new claims are unsuccessful, so an awful lot of 75 and 85-year-olds—
    Michael Fabricant: And 91-year-olds.
    Maria Eagle: Yes— and 91-year-olds fill in long forms but end up not getting the benefit. We hope that the personal and tailored service that the pension service is designed to give elderly people will enable us to be much clearer in advance about those who are likely to be eligible for the benefit and to ensure that people do not fill in the long form to no purpose.
    Annabelle Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the take-up of attendance allowance in Scotland will be substantially reduced shortly, as a result of the United Kingdom Government's shameful decision to withdraw some £23 million of attendance allowance from those who will qualify for free personal care? Are the Minister and her colleagues prepared, even at the eleventh hour, to reconsider that unjust decision?
    Maria Eagle: Unsurprisingly, the hon. Lady is wrong. We are not withdrawing any benefit from anybody in Scotland. What is happening there is a result of policy choices made by the Scottish Parliament and has nothing to do with eligibility. We have not changed eligibility for attendance allowance in any way whatsoever. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish policy makers need to take into account the effect of their policy on people's benefit entitlement.

    Carers
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What steps his Department is taking to improve work opportunities for carers. [36325]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Last April, we increased the earnings limits for invalid care allowance so that carers who combine some work with their caring responsibilities can keep more of their earnings. The earnings limit will now be increased regularly in line with changes to the lower earnings limit. However, ICA is not designed to be an in-work benefit. Carers are also benefiting from the introduction of our new Jobcentre Plus service. In pathfinder areas, a personal adviser will
    4
    help carers who are making new or repeat benefit claims to look for employment or training that suits their circumstances and provide support to them.
    Dr. Palmer: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does she agree that there is still a problem with income support and carers allowance, because, above a fairly low level, the benefit is withdrawn, pound for pound, if the carer takes paid work? Does she agree that a policy review would be in keeping with our policy of encouraging people to take at least part-time work where that is possible?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend refers to the interaction between different benefits. People on income support lose their eligibility if they work more than 16 hours a week. as such work is full-time. He should remember that the income support carers premium is payable only to people who are receiving ICA, which, as I said, is not an in-work benefit. Eligibility for ICA depends on spending at least 35 hours a week undertaking caring responsibilities. However, as the average length of time spent on ICA is, I am told, two to four years—I do not quite understand why it is not three years—we are keen to ensure that recipients can stay in touch with the labour market.
    The ICA earnings limit is intended to allow carers to undertake part-time work. My hon. Friend should also remember that the earnings limit is calculated only after allowable expenses, which might include tax, national insurance contributions, half of any superannuation payments and help with the disabled person's cost of care, are taken into account. In practice, therefore, someone on ICA can earn much more than £72 a week and retain their entitlement to that benefit.
    Miss Anne Begg: Last week, I was visited by a constituent who is looking after her daughter, who has ME, but is working and is obviously over any of the limits that my hon. Friend described. What help can she expect? She is clearly saving the taxpayer money by looking after her daughter at home, and it would cost the taxpayer a great deal more if her daughter moved out and lived independently. She is obviously looking for some help from the Government. Can they give her any help at all and reward her for looking after her daughter at home?
    Maria Eagle: The assistance that we could give would depend very much on the individual circumstances of my hon. Friend's constituent. I would be perfectly happy to make some suggestions if my hon. Friend wants to write to me and we can get a full account of those circumstances. ICA is not primarily an in-work benefit and the rules on earnings are intended to allow people who have to undertake at least 35 hours a week of caring responsibilities to keep in touch with the labour market and gain some part-time earnings. There may be other benefits or tax credits from which her constituent could gain some advantage, so if she would care to write to me with the full details I shall look into the case.

    Housing Benefit
    Syd Rapson: What steps he is taking to reduce housing benefit fraud. [36326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are working with local authorities on many fronts to reduce fraud and error in housing benefit. Most significantly, in 1998 we introduced a framework for local authorities to make proper checks on claims. We have now made it easier for councils to adopt the framework; 77 per cent. of them are now operating it and that proportion will increase. So far, net savings from the verification framework are estimated at about £100 million.
    Syd Rapson: I thank my hon. Friend for that very informative answer, but I am sure that he is aware that most of the problems with housing benefit fraud are caused by the administration of the scheme. What steps is he taking to ensure a higher standard of administration? How will he also ensure a spread of good practice across the country?
    Malcolm Wicks: My hon.Friend takes a great deal of interest in this matter. He is right to emphasise the fact that better administration is the key to getting rid of fraud from the system. A performance standards framework, including standards to prevent, detect and punish fraud wherever it occurs, will be published in the spring. A help team is available to help local authorities with particular difficulties. The benefit fraud inspectorate has published the results of its inspections of 115 local authorities. I take this opportunity to thank Chris Bull, the head of the inspectorate, and his team for the important work that they are doing.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: How many cases of housing benefit fraud were there last year?
    Malcolm Wicks: Local authority prosecutions and sanctions against fraud have more than doubled during the past two years. The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of cases. For the first time in many years, we are carrying out research to verify the amount of housing benefit fraud in the system, and we will publish the results when we can. We are not complacent about fraud. We have already saved the £100 million that I mentioned and we are working in many ways to get fraud out of the system—an objective that can be shared by the whole House.
    Glenda Jackson: Are not many people losing their homes because of the incompetence of private companies that administer housing benefit for and on behalf of local authorities? My local authority, Camden, has received two chartermarks for the efficacy of its housing benefit system. Is it not time for the Government to insist that those at Camden should assist their local authority colleagues, many of whose residents are losing their homes?
    Malcolm Wicks: I pay tribute to the good system of housing benefit administration in my hon. Friend's borough of Camden, which I twice visited to listen and to learn. One of its key officials has been transferred to Hackney, which has had particular difficulties, and is doing good work in tackling housing benefit fraud. Standards in Camden are being maintained. A local
    6
    authority must decide whether to administer housing benefit in-house or to contract it out. Either way, it must insist on the highest standards.
    Mr. David Willetts: What does the Minister have to say to the couple I met in Birmingham on Thursday—[Interruption.] Labour Members would benefit from doing the same. The couple had been to their local council office to say that they believed that their neighbours were working while fraudulently claiming housing benefit and income support. They were overheard giving their suspicions and the information got back to their neighbours. A gang came round, beat them up and sprayed CS gas at the guy. They were driven out of their house, taking as many possessions as they could manage to take in two taxis; what was left behind was subsequently stolen. They virtually became homeless as a result of telling their local council office that they suspected someone of welfare fraud.
    Does the Minister believe that local authorities and the Government have an obligation to protect people who complain about welfare fraud? Does he accept that everyone involved manifestly failed in their responsibilities to protect that couple? Does he regret the fact that many of the advertisements used in the Government's advertising campaign on welfare fraud give no telephone number, so people cannot phone the confidential anti-fraud hotline?
    Malcolm Wicks: The number of the fraud benefit hotline is widely published.
    The incident that the hon. Gentleman describes is very serious. I should like to talk to him about it to ensure that everything that should be done as regards rehousing and police action is being done. Much of it will be a matter for the police. There seems to have been a breakdown in confidentiality. We need good citizens to report benefit fraud—there should be no question about that—and those who do so have a right to confidentiality and, if in extremis things go wrong, a right to proper protection by the local authority and police service. The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious matter and I take it very seriously.
    Mr. Andrew Love: Surely the problem lies in the complexity of the benefits system introduced by the Conservatives. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to simplify its administration and the complexity of its rules?
    Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is easy for the Opposition to huff and puff about fraud, as they now do, but it blows away no fraudsters. They did very little in government over 18 years; we are doing many things to detect and rid the system of fraud.
    Bob Spink: It is getting worse.
    Malcolm Wicks: It is not worse. We are taking action, and we have already reduced housing benefit fraud by £100 million. We have a performance framework, the benefit fraud inspectorate is doing its work, and we are taking a number of steps. Are we winning the war against fraud? Yes, we are. Are we complacent? No; there is much more to be done.

    Annuities
    Mr. Michael Jack: How many people with annuities are claiming benefits. [36327]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Approximately 200,000 households receive income from pension annuities and are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Nearly all those households will, of course, gain from the pension credit, which is designed to reward their saving.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but nobody wants anyone with an annuity to have to fall back on income-related benefits. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the review of annuities that the Government recently carried out only scratched the surface of the problem? At a time when final salary pension schemes are going down like ninepins, there is real fear abroad that hard-saving people will not get enough money from their current annuity to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living in their retirement. Will the Secretary of State work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on the Bill he has introduced, and will he try to be more constructive in addressing the problem?
    Mr. Darling: The Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon would do nothing to improve the incomes of the vast majority of people in this country. It is designed to help a minority of people who have retired; the vast majority would not benefit from its provisions.
    The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised two matters. On the first, the Government are consulting on the annuities consultation paper, the period for which still has some time to run. On his second point, he is quite right: we need to ensure that more people save more towards their retirement. One of the reasons that we are introducing annual pension statements is that people will be able clearly to focus on how much they are likely to have to retire on. One of the reasons that we introduced new measures such as stakeholder pensions is that they are designed to ensure that more people can accumulate greater savings for their retirement. The right hon. Member for Fylde is quite right; our objective should be to make sure that as many people as possible retire on good incomes. The proposals to which he refers in his right hon. Friend's Bill would not address the problem at all.
    Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the consultation paper, which will, I hope, promote wider debate on flexibility and choice in annuities. Does he agree that the issue is how to convert pension savings into retirement incomes? Will not the CAT standards introduced in April 1999—reasonable charges, easy access and decent terms—be as important for the new annuities as they are for ISAs and mortgages?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. One of the objectives of our policy has been to ensure that as much money as possible that people have saved goes into their pension. We found in the past that too many pension contributions were being eroded by high charges, which
    8
    is one of the reasons that stakeholder pensions introduced a 1 per cent. cap on charging. I am glad to tell the House that the latest figures show that just under 700,000 stakeholder pensions were sold in the first nine months of this year. There is no doubt that the reduced charges introduced by stakeholder pensions are having an effect right across the pensions industry, resulting in more people seeing more of their money going into their savings rather than being eaten up by red tape.
    I am determined that we should do even more to reduce regulatory costs—compliance costs—in the pensions industry. I believe that we can do much to reduce the complexity of the present system, which was introduced for the best of reasons by successive Governments. The time has now come to reduce that complexity so that more money goes into pensions, which is why I asked Alan Pickering of the National Association of Pension Funds to look at this matter last year.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Given that annuities are becoming more important, with the closure of final salary pension schemes and what the Government hope will be the growth in stakeholder pensions, will there not be a problem for women because annuity rates are lower for them than for men? Will it not put women at a disadvantage if the Government rely more on private provision? What are the Government going to do for women, specifically with regard to private provision?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman, being a professor and a clever man, will know that one of the reasons why annuity rates for women are different from those for men is that women live longer, and annuity rates are calculated, among other things, by reference to the likely age to which someone will live. The state second pension, which will be introduced from April, will benefit a further 18 million people, many of whom will be women. Indeed, half the beneficiaries of the pension credit, when it is introduced, will be women, too. The pension credit benefits people who have annuities, precisely because it is designed to reward saving. I should have thought that, when he has thought a little further on these matters, he will welcome the pension credit and the state second pension, which probably do more than any other reform of the pension system for man) years to help women.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: May I, too, welcome the consultation document on reforming annuities, which is a useful contribution to the debate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when considering changes to the rules and increasing flexibility, we should do nothing to undermine the tax terms under which contributions are made, and nothing to undermine fairness to other taxpayers?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that one of the problems with the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is that it is primarily designed to help those who have very large pension savings. It would do nothing to help the vast majority of people. I am concerned that if that measure were to be passed, it might have an adverse effect on annuity rates for most people, which would not be desirable. We have therefore made it clear that, in our reforms, we want to make sure that we do the best that we can to improve annuity rates, to prevent abuse of the system—which

    9
    would always be a risk of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—and to do more to encourage people to save more so that they have more money when they retire.
    Mr. David Curry: First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the criticism that a Bill might help minorities is relevant to most of the legislation that the House passes? Secondly, is he aware that the Government have approved a scheme for which the entry fee is £250,000 and which is based offshore in Gibraltar? Will he therefore not persist in saying that there is something wrong with helping only people who are rich, as that will be precisely the effect of the Government's proposals? Furthermore, will he agree that the minority to whom he refers will get bigger as companies cease to provide pension schemes and people have to make private provision? A much larger number of people will therefore be funnelled into the straitjacket of annuities. Does it therefore make sense not only to improve the existing rules but to look for a way of breaking out of the straitjacket of annuities and amending the structures more imaginatively?
    Mr. Darling: I agree that the annuity rules need to be improved, and the Government are consulting on precisely that. However, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman admits that his proposals are designed to look after the interests of a minority of people. The main thrust of this Government's policy has been to make sure that all pensioners gain, that we tackle pensioner poverty and that the vast majority of pensioners, who have modest means and savings, are helped. The pension credit enables us to achieve that.
    It is worth reminding the House again that the average amount of money used to buy an annuity in this country is not £250,000 but £25,000. The House will therefore appreciate that the measures on which we ought to concentrate are those that are designed to ensure that the vast majority of people in this country have a decent retirement income, whether they are in a final salary scheme—which we want to support—or a money purchase scheme through stakeholder pensions or other measures. Across the piece, our efforts should be directed towards helping the majority of people, as they must surely be the first call on our resources.
    Mr. David Willetts: Reform of annuities is an important measure to encourage people to contribute more to their pensions, and we need reliable figures on how much people are contributing to their pensions in total. Does the Secretary of State endorse the figures given to the House by the Minister for Pensions last week when he claimed that contributions to non-state pensions had gone up by £19 billion—from £50 billion to £69 billion a year? Does the Secretary of State accept those figures, or does he think that they should be reviewed by the Office for National Statistics alongside the reviews of its appalling mistakes on the assets of pension funds?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend gave the latest figures that the Government have, which was the right thing to do. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that savings have increased since 1997. It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that pension sales increased by about 50 per cent. last year. Almost 700,000 stakeholder pensions have now been sold, which represents £1 billion
    10
    of new savings. There is evidence across the piece that many people are saving more, but the problem that we face is ensuring that people save more generally and that we build on our reforms to strip away some of the unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies and individuals. We must also ensure that we and companies do more to support people who save and that incentives in the system are working as intended, because they are all designed to increase people's incomes.
    Mr. Willetts: I have to tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe that the figure for the supposed increase from £50 billion to £69 billion is any more reliable than the figures he quoted on the value of pension fund assets that got him into such trouble the other week. I suggest that he is so complacent about the state of our funded pensions because he believes his propaganda that pension contributions have increased from £50 billion to £69 billion, when they have not. The figures are wrong, the Government's policies are wrong and the first thing he needs to do is to review the figures so that he has an accurate sense of the scale of the crisis facing our funded pensions industry.
    Mr. Darling: It was not me who used those figures in the debate two or three weeks ago: the hon. Gentleman issued a press release, but the figures on which it was based turned out to be utterly wrong, so he had to shift his ground. It is no wonder that he spoke in the debate for only about seven minutes, as his entire argument had been shot away.
    On the funded sector, the hon. Gentleman will know—I assume he watched the programme yesterday on which he and I appeared, even though it was recorded at different times—that I have made it clear that the Government need to do more on final salary schemes and to build on our reforms. Once we have the recommendations from Alan Pickering and Ron Sandler, which we hope to receive in June, the Government will publish proposals that will encourage more people to save, reduce the regulatory burden, simplify some of the complexity in the present system, and help companies to support people who save towards their pensions. We must ensure that we are doing the right things in the right way to get more people to save.
    We are taking action. The problem for final salary schemes has been building up over the years: they have been in decline since the 1960s. We saw the problem arising, which is why we took action and why we shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that we have a pension system that encourages and rewards saving. That never happened in the 18 years in which the Tories were in power.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. David Rendel: How many pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee are not claiming it. [36328]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): As at November 2001, 1,200 pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were receiving minimum income guarantee, and 16,000 were receiving winter fuel

    11
    payments. The latest estimate of the number of pensioners who fail to claim the minimum income guarantee is reported to be upwards of 390,000 nationally.
    The research report that contains those figures warns that care must be taken in interpreting them, as they come from estimates from data that are less than perfect. We have therefore commissioned further research so that we can better identify the people who are entitled to benefits, especially pensioners.
    The figures pre-date the latest MIG take-up campaign, which has had a huge response, and produced some 127,000 new successful claims. As a result, those pensioners are on average £20 a week better off.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which revealed that up to a third of all pensioners who are eligible for MIG are not currently taking it up. Does he acknowledge that his colleague in the other place recently revealed that a third of pensioners who will be eligible for the pension credit will not take it up? Does he accept that, in spite of the efforts that he and the Government have been making to increase benefit take-up by pensioners, they are not working if a third will not take up pension credit?
    Mr. McCartney: That is a misrepresentation of what my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis said in the other place. She made it clear that, at the commencement of the new benefits system, we expect more than two thirds to take it up, and we will build up that figure. That is in line with what has happened when new arrangements have been introduced previously, such as tax credits. The main point is that we are the first Government in the last three generations of Governments to do something about pensioner poverty. The Liberal Democrats whinge to deceive. They whinge, whinge, whinge. The Government have made an effort to eradicate pensioner poverty, but the Liberal Democrats have opposed every measure that we have taken, whether it be winter fuel payments or the minimum income guarantee. The truth is that they talk a good game, but it is the Government who do something about it.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although take-up is not perfect, measures such as that introduced in October last year under which every fresh pension application is automatically assessed for the minimum income guarantee will help to ensure that it improves?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government have never concealed the fact that the minimum income guarantee is a rough and ready measure, but it needed to be taken and 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty as a consequence. I am not going to apologise for that. Why should a Government who are taking 2 million people out of poverty apologise for it?
    We made it clear that the interim measures would be replaced by the pension credit, which, for the first time since the creation of a national pension system, will give pensioners a minimum income guarantee and pay them a reward for saving too. Under the current system, thrifty pensioners who save lose out, but the new system will
    12
    ensure that we deal not only with poverty, but with those pensioners with small savings who lose out—a good deal for all pensioners under this Government.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: As the minimum income guarantee, like so many Government credits, depends on means-testing, by what date will the Government achieve the aspiration set out by the Chancellor when he said:
    "I want to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people"?
    By what date?
    Mr. McCartney: By October 2003, the introduction of the pension credit will mean that new pensioners coming up to claiming their—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. Unlike Opposition Members, I do not have to spin. I tell it as it is.
    By October 2003, for the first time, pensioners claiming their basic state pension will claim for the pension credit at the same time. This Government are targeting pensioner poverty, not pensioners. As a consequence, 2 million pensioners have already been lifted out of poverty—and, I may say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), pensioners were pushed into poverty by the last Tory Government.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Despite all the success of the Government's measures in recent years in trying to tackle pensioner poverty, I know from the former mining communities in my constituency that many pensioners still feel reluctant to claim the minimum income guarantee because they worry about the stigma attached to it. What further practical measures can we take, especially in former mining communities, to ensure that every pensioner is lifted out of poverty by claiming the minimum income guarantee?
    Mr. McCartney: I also represent a mining constituency. The winter fuel payment and the creation of the new pension service and the pension credit are designed to assist retirement pensioners, including those abandoned by the last Conservative Government in the coalfield communities. In addition, we are working with the National Union of Mineworkers pension trustees to improve basic pensions from the mining fund. It is important that all those building blocks are put in place and we must also improve investment in services in local mining communities, which older people use more than others. Pensioners' income, environment and social and health care are all getting big investments under this Government, and they will continue to get big investments.
    Hywel Williams: Will the research to which the Minister referred look at take-up in areas such as Wales, the north of England, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland? If, as I suspect, it shows that the deficiencies of the minimum income guarantee are more apparent in those regions, what steps will the Government take regionally and nationally to increase take-up?
    Mr. McCartney: The research covers the whole country. This Government are concerned about and interested in pensioners wherever they live in Britain. The purpose of the new pension service is to maximise

    13
    Government involvement with pensioners and their organisations, so the research will inform us on how best we can work more closely with those organisations and on take-up campaigns over the next few years. That is the focus of the new pension service.

    Equal Opportunities
    Siobhain McDonagh: What recent studies he has undertaken to identify the obstacles facing women returning to work. [36330]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions has identified four main constraints that affect women who want to return to work: child care; ill health and disability; a lack of relevant skills and work experience; and housing costs. The Government have several measures in place to alleviate those problems, including the national child care strategy, and the introduction of more than 1,000 lone parent advisers in our jobcentres.
    The Government recognise the part that employers have to play in encouraging a healthy work-life balance, in addition to our own campaign on that. We also know that women from ethnic minority groups are much less likely to be in employment. Next month, we are introducing a new service in five areas to reach out to people from ethnic minorities, who face a disadvantage in the labour market.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. Friend comment on Opposition Members' assertions that the Government's plans to increase maternity pay and leave will make it even more difficult for women to continue in work?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that that is right. Indeed, employers themselves stand to benefit: if only 10 per cent. of those who currently do not return to work stayed in work, the savings to employers on recruitment costs would be about £39 million. We have also extended relief for small employers. About 10,000 firms are now entitled to recover 100 per cent. of the payments, and they also get an extended contribution to cover the costs.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of workless lone parent households are women-led and that his new deal for lone parents has proved an abject failure, making it more difficult for women to return to work? That, plus the obstacles that the Government are putting in the path of women claiming pensions, is making it more and more difficult for women in the workplace.
    Mr. Brown: The first part of the hon. Lady's assertion is of course correct—the majority of lone parent households are headed by women—but I do not accept that the new deal for them is a failure. In fact, it has had substantial successes. Moreover, there is no alternative—a phrase that will no doubt echo with her. The fact is that, if we want to abolish child poverty and enhance the
    14
    income of lone parent households, by far and away the best way of doing it is to get them an income from work rather than leaving them dependent on benefits.
    Mr. Terry Rooney: A major obstacle to moving from benefit to work, especially for single parents, is the loss of the free school meal entitlement. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any moves to extend that entitlement to recipients of working families tax credit?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot make an announcement now, but I am aware of the issue. The most commonly asked questions are about the effect of returning to work on people's housing benefit and on council tax rebate, and for single parent households with a substantial number of children, school meals are clearly an important factor. We are considering what more can be done, but I cannot make an announcement yet.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the list that he enunciated, which is clearly right, many women of a certain age would like to go back to work but cannot do so because employers discriminate against them because of their age? I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to do anything about that, but will he assure us that he takes the matter seriously and tell us what steps he has taken to alleviate the situation?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right: there are still discriminatory practices, often based on subjective perception and not rationally founded, against older people, including those who seek to return to work. Older people have a great deal to contribute. I often discuss the matter with private sector employers. The many services provided by Jobcentre Plus are, at least in part, available to older people who want to return to the labour market.

    Rapid Response Service
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on the work of the rapid response service for people made redundant. [36332]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): The rapid response service works closely with Jobcentre Plus helping people who are affected by redundancy: 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have already opened and are working well. Later this week, I will announce that a further 225 offices will open in the coming year, 2002–03. I shall arrange to place a list of the areas where the offices will be in the Library, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work will write to all hon. Members with offices in their constituencies setting out the details.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank the many people from the rapid response service who assisted my constituents last year, when Plaxton's bus factory faced closure. Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the service will link up with agencies such as citizens advice bureaux to give debt counselling to those who face redundancy, and to help them manage associated domestic finance problems?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend's point about the rapid response service is important. It is sometimes overlooked

    15
    that, after redundancies are announced—last autumn, a number were indeed announced—the Employment Service and its specialist services work closely with employers to help get people back into work as quickly as possible. The Employment Service was very active when Plaxton's faced closure in his constituency.
    The whole object of the new Jobcentre Plus regime. which brings benefits and job searches together under one roof, is to ensure that we can turn round people who lose their jobs as quickly as possible. I was just asked about the difficulties of the over-50s. Jobcentre Plus is a new and better way to help back into work people who, in the past, were left out and in some cases simply written off when they lost their jobs. Jobcentre Plus and the rapid response service will continue to do everything that they can to help people such as my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. David Heath: Given that the number of notified compulsory redundancies is increasing quite rapidly in some parts of the country, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rapid response service is welcome and necessary? Does he also recognise the need to do something specific about the imbalance between manufacturing and the service sector, and what has he urged the Chancellor to do in the Budget to correct the exchange rate problems and to increase industrial regional aid budgets?
    Mr. Darling: The exchange rate issue is probably beyond the scope of this question. As I said, redundancies were announced, particularly last autumn, but the number who went back into work was encouraging. Indeed, a record number of people are in employment. That is due primarily to a strong and robust economy and to the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but also to the supply-side measures that we have taken. We have improved people's skills and training, reformed the Employment Service, established the new Jobcentre Plus regime and the rapid response service, and implemented a raft of measures designed to ensure that we get people who lose their jobs back into work as quickly as possible.
    Coupled with a strong economy, those measures have made a big difference; it is just an awful shame that the Liberal Democrats opposed almost every provision that brought them about.
    Ms Dari Taylor: I know that my right hon. Friend understands the trauma that affects an individual who is made redundant, especially if he or she—Ido not want to exclude women from this ball game by any means—is in his or her 40s. Can he reassure me that the job transition service, which is currently in project form, will be universally available by April 2002, and that it will build confidence in such people so that they can face new jobs and training for new skills? That confidence is invariably missing in families who face redundancy.
    Mr. Darling: It is important to do everything that we can to help people in their 40s or 50s who face losing their jobs. At the moment, nearly a third of people aged over 50 are out of work, and most of them depend on benefits for the majority of their income. There is no doubt that that situation is far from satisfactory. It is a legacy of the events of the 1980s, when people who lost their jobs were written off.
    16
    My hon. Friend asked about the job transition service and the rapid response service. We want to ensure that that help is available where it is needed. Some services, such as the Jobcentre Plus regime, will be nation wide. Measures such as the rapid response service have been taken to deal with specific circumstances; they are not intended to deal with every situation because that would not be appropriate.
    I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that the idea of bringing together benefits and job searches under one roof is to get rid once and for all of the artificial distinction between those who are looking for work and those who sign on for benefits—disability benefits, lone parent benefits or any other benefits. This is a far better approach, which will build on our efforts to get more and more people into work.
    My hon. Friend has the assurance that she seeks. We will do all that we can, particularly for older workers. We need to redouble our efforts in that regard, for obvious reasons given by Members on both sides of the House today and in the past.

    New Deal for Disabled People
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What recent discussions he has had with disability organisations about the implementation of the new deal for disabled people. [36333]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We consulted widely with organisations of and for disabled people, and with disabled people themselves, during the development of the new deal for disabled people. Some 88 organisations contributed to the consultation on the national extension of the new deal. We continue to meet organisations of and for disabled people to discuss its implementation, and to design improvements.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, which will be of particular benefit to those of my constituents who are disabled. I have more than the national average, as do many other seaside towns where disabled people are now looking for work.
    What additional support and assistance might be made available to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to take on people with disabilities? According to recent research on pilot new deal schemes, employers found awareness of the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be one of the most helpful aspects of the process.
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to work with employers as well as with disabled people. Part of the job brokers' role—this is one reason why the scheme is so innovative—is to liaise with local businesses and build up a relationship with them, as well as getting to know local disabled people who want to work and who participate in the scheme. That enables the brokers to convince local businesses of the advantages of employing certain disabled people.
    The Department has a range of measures to help disabled people who are disadvantaged in the job market. There is, for instance, our access-to-work budget, which

    17
    can help to meet the additional costs of employing a disabled person, such as communications support and travel to work.
    One of the innovations in the new deal for disabled people is the attempt to broker between a disabled person who is looking for work and local employers who are looking for employees to find that person a suitable job.
    Mr. James Clappison: We all share the objective of helping disabled people into work, but should not the new deal take on board the lessons of last week's National Audit Office report on the new deal for young people? It showed that far from reducing youth unemployment by 250,000 as Ministers have claimed, the new deal achieved a reduction of at best no more than 45,000, and possibly as little as 25,000. May we have a proper, objective evaluation of the new deal for disabled people and of the other new deal programmes to see what difference they are really making? And can Ministers remove the need for us to divide by 10 when we hear the claims that they make?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is being churlish. Of course there are always proper evaluations of our schemes. That is particularly important in the case of schemes such as the new deal for disabled people, which is highly innovative. It is developing new ways of delivering services to a group that was completely ignored by the last Tory Government. People who were disabled were dumped on to benefits and given no help whatever to obtain work.
    Of course it is important to have proper evaluation when we consider whether our scheme has worked and how well it has worked, and of course we will have that evaluation. We shall need to learn from our experience to design improvements, but we are determined to bring about effective services and help a group of people who have been ignored for too long.
    I have visited many new deal job brokers, and the enthusiasm of participants in the scheme—both disabled people looking for work and staff looking for jobs for them—is palpable. They welcome this help. It is about time that they received it; they certainly never did when the Conservative party was in power.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that although we have moved a long way towards helping people with a disability to get back into work, there needs to be a fast track to enable employers to carry out the adaptations and get into place the extra equipment that is needed so that people can begin a job as speedily as possible?
    Maria Eagle: When employers consider taking on disabled staff, it is important that they do not feel that they will be disadvantaged by doing so. It is therefore important that the necessary help be provided as soon as possible. Disabled people face not only multiple disadvantages but often discrimination. Our agenda on civil rights—to get rid finally of disability discrimination in the work force and the work place—is going ahead. It is vital that we take forward those two strands so that we help disabled people into work, overcoming the disadvantage under which they find themselves, and overcome the discrimination that is sometimes directed at
    18
    them. One way in which we do that is by having programmes such as access to work that assist in overcoming those problems.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What targets his Department has for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. [36334]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): We have no targets for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. Where people are capable of returning to work, the Department will give them every assistance to do so.
    Our new Jobcentre Plus service ensures that people who make new or repeat claims for incapacity benefit have the opportunity of work-focused advice and support from a personal adviser so that they can be helped to move into work when they are ready to do so.
    From this April, we are introducing new, fairer and more flexible permitted work rules. Any incapacity benefit recipient will be able to earn up to £20 per week for an unlimited period or work for less than 16 hours and earn up to £66 a week for 26 weeks. The new rules are more flexible and give all people in receipt of incapacity benefit the chance to get back into work.
    Mr. Hoban: I suppose that it is no surprise that the Government have no targets for getting people on incapacity benefit back into work. More than 50 per cent. of those claiming incapacity benefit have been doing so for more than four years. In addition, the ONE interviews for sick and disabled people have been shown by the Department's own research to be failures. When will the Government come forward with effective measures to increase the number of people in work and decrease the number of those claiming benefits?
    Mr. Brown: I strongly disagree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. Incapacity benefit is there for a purpose, because the people claiming it are ill and not able to work. We should not have targets for forcing people to work if they are sick and cannot do so. That would be completely unfair. However, when people can work, the services of the Employment Service, such as Jobcentre Plus, are there to help them back into work. Moreover, when they are capable of doing some work, the new discretionary sums of money are available for them if they are capable of doing only a small amount of work or if it is of therapeutic value. That seems to be the right approach. To suggest that people should be compelled to work, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman advocates, is very wrong, and would not, I am sure, be endorsed by his Front-Bench colleagues.
    David Winnick: I wish to refer to those who are disabled and cannot work. I have a constituent who suffers from a form of heart disease for which only a transplant will lead to any recovery. He had his disability living allowance reduced from the higher to the lower rate and when he lodged an appeal, it was taken away altogether. Why should my constituent be treated in such a shabby manner? Obviously I have written to the Secretary of State. The Benefits Agency and the hospital

    19
    that is treating him. Surely this is an illustration of the Benefits Agency making decisions that are impossible to understand.
    Mr. Brown: I am reluctant to discuss individual constituents' cases on the Floor of the House, and even more reluctant to do so without having the full details of the case. However, I give my hon. Friend this assurance—I will look at the case that he raises and write to him about it.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not the Minister concerned, as I hope we all are, that about 3,000 people leave the labour force each week for incapacity benefit and only a very small proportion return to work? Was it not entirely predictable that numbers on incapacity benefit are rising again?
    Has the Minister read the Department's own research report, No. 127, showing that respondents in the sick or disabled group who had not participated in the
    20
    work-focused interviews were more likely to be in work than those who had participated? Has he also noticed the extraordinary situation whereby vocational rehabilitation is his responsibility in this Department while occupational health sits in the Department of Health? Is it not high time for Ministers collectively, in this most sensitive of areas, to put less emphasis on presentation and more on joined-up thinking?
    Mr. Brown: Although we have to be adversarial at Question Time, the hon. Gentleman makes two fair points. First, we need to do more on rehabilitation, and he is right that responsibilities are split between the two Departments. That is why Ministers are talking together to see what more can be done, and we ought to explore that. Secondly, he noted the rising number of people coming on to the benefit. I say to him gently that it is possible to overstate the problem because there are demographic factors at work. Nevertheless, I accept that if one wants to try to intervene, by far and away the best thing is to intervene early with a programme of rehabilitation, where that is appropriate.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said in this House:
"I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere—
he was talking about Martin Sixsmith—
"in the civil service and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr. Sixsmith should continue."—[Official Report. 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 564.]
Over the weekend, Mr. Sixsmith published an 18,000-word dossier that is in direct conflict with that statement. Either Mr. Sixsmith was lying to the press or the Secretary of State was lying to this House. Has the Secretary of State made any moves to set the record straight regarding this, because it puts the Secretary of State and this House in some danger of losing their credibility?
Mr. Speaker: There has been no approach to me.
Andrew Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Question Time that has just gone, we completed only nine questions. It is not so long ago that, at Social Security questions on a Monday, we often got up to Question 20. Is it not deplorable that only nine substantive questions were dealt with today? Could I suggest that you consider taking some action on this, and that instead of letting the next Social Security questions run for one hour to 3.30 pm, you let it run until Question 20 has been reached so that individual cases, like that of my constituent dealt with in question 18 today, can be reached?
Mr. Speaker: I have no such powers. However, I have said before that there should be brief questions and, of course, brief replies. That will allow us to get down the Order Paper. I am conscious that hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have waited patiently for their particular question to be reached. It is a pity that we are only getting to Question 10.
Hywel Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to contact the police in south Wales on no fewer than four occasions regarding a case that was under their active consideration? I refer to the case of Mr. German, the sometime head of the Liberal party in Wales and a former Deputy First Minister. Was it in order for the hon. Gentleman to interfere? Have you received a request from him to come to the House to explain himself?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that has taken place outside the House and has nothing to do with me.

Orders of the Day

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  3.34 pm
  Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to delay the House, but while I understand that amendments were not published until Friday so that as many hon. Members as possible could contribute them, that has made it hard for Opposition parties to prepare our responses. We saw the selection list only after 1 pm today. Will you use your considerable influence, Mr. Speaker, in passing on to the powers that be our request for a little more consideration about the amount of time that we are given to examine complicated Bills such as this one?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I selected the amendments at the Speaker's conference at 12 noon. The Officers of the House disseminated the information as quickly as they could thereafter.
  3.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move,
  That the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 and 5, Schedule 3, Clauses 6 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 and 13, Schedule 5, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 6, Clauses 21 and 22, new Clauses relating to Part 2, amendments relating to Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 7, Clauses 30 to new Clauses relating to Part 3, amendments relating to Clause 45, Schedule 8, Clauses 46 to 50, Schedule 9, Clauses 51 and 52, new Clauses relating to Part 4, amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 62, Schedule 10, Clause 63, Schedule 11, Clauses 64 and 65, new Clauses relating to Part 5, amendments relating to Clauses 66 to 80, remaining new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 81 to 84, Schedule 12, Clause 85, Schedule 13, Clauses 86 to 92, new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration.
  The motion proposes minor amendments to the previously agreed order of consideration. It is intended only to reorder the business so that it conforms more closely with the order of the Bill. The proposed grouping is designed for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Opposition have no problem with the motion, although we do have long-standing and considerable arguments against the amount of time made available for discussion of the Bill. Important amendments have been tabled by the Government. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has pointed out how difficult it is to respond to Government amendments published on Friday and selected by your conference at 12 noon today, Mr. Speaker.
  Clearly, the passage of the Bill has been thoroughly unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman's concern is but the latest example, although I must point out that it would have helped if he had not voted for the original programme motion and the knives inserted during Committee. If he had not done so, we might be considering on Report a Bill of which we had at least read

  23
  the 32 clauses that we must now deal with today. I fear that important Government amendments may not be discussed in spite of their immense significance to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a great many clauses—possibly the majority of them—were not discussed in Committee and that tens of amendments and new clauses also went undiscussed because of the programme motions?
  Mr. Blunt: To be precise, 32 clauses and 7 schedules were not discussed. That is plainly unsatisfactory. The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is examining the way we legislate, and the Bill provides an example of our profound failure properly to do our job as legislators.
  I do not hold the Minister responsible for that in any way. He conducted himself well in Committee, seriously considering amendments and replying to points with care and courtesy. I am delighted to see that many of the substantial number of amendments that I tabled on Wednesday were adopted by the Government as their own amendments on Thursday, which is a proper way to reflect what happened in Committee.
  It remains a pity that the Committee was not able to complete its business. Indeed, that is more than a pity: it is a scandal. If I go on any longer about that, however, we shall have even less time. I am happy to support the motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Important matters lie at the end of the list of amendments. It would be a tragedy if those matters were not discussed in the House. No real public discussion would have taken place of matters that all parties in Northern Ireland, no matter what view they take of the Bill, require to be debated.
  It would be a terrible tragedy if the House had no opportunity to hold a thorough discussion of matters that are currently in the arena of controversy. This is the place where controversy should be aired and arguments put and debated if we believe in democracy.
  Lembit Öpik: In supporting the motion, I want to make two brief points. First, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification about the understandable restrictions on your time, although that indicates something that we should consider in future: it has been a tremendous strain on the Opposition parties to prepare our responses in the two and a half hours that were available. However, perhaps that matter is one for the Modernisation Committee rather than for us.
  Secondly, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) rightly said, it was clear in Committee that the Under-Secretary took seriously the representations that were made, although I was concerned that, sometimes, the Government seemed a trifle inflexible about taking those points on board. I deduce from the Government's willingness to consider several of the amendments that were discussed but not accepted in Committee that they want to make amends on Report. That is healthy.
  I hope that the Government will be able to provide clear justification where there are still differences between us. I am sure that will be achieved as the debate progresses.
  24
  As regards the limitations on time in Committee, it is true that at the beginning we supported the Government's programming timetable. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate, the Conservatives could have been a little more co-operative when there was an opportunity mid-way through the Committee stage to extend the time. It is perhaps disingenuous for the Conservatives to criticise others when they did not accept that opportunity, although we do not want to pursue that matter in detail now. I hope that, given the spirit of constructive dialogue that we enjoyed in Committee, the Report stage will be similarly constructive.
  Question put and agreed to.

New Clause 1

  APPOINTMENT OF QUEEN'S COUNSEL
  '(1) Her Majesty may from time to time, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, appoint members of the Bar of Northern Ireland, Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland.
  (2) The power of the Secretary of State to make recommendations under subsection (1) is exercisable only after consultation with a Committee of the Judicial Appointments Commission consisting of all the judicial and legal profession members under a procedure to be determined by the Committee.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has had enough time to consider his response to the new clause as it was tabled in Committee, although we did not reach it.
  The new clause has been proposed because there was no consideration of the appointment of Queen's Counsel in the review and the matter is not dealt with in the Bill. However, the Bar Council of Northern Ireland wants to sort out the problem. In the course of my preparation for dealing with the Bill for Her Majesty's Opposition, I visited Northern Ireland. One of the people I met was Éilís McDermott, the chairman of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland, who briefed me in detail on the issue.
  The immediate concern of the Bar Council of Northern Ireland is that the Lord Chancellor has announced a new Judicial Appointments Commissioner for Northern Ireland and has given him a role—as set out in the Lord Chancellor's letter of 9 July 2001 to the chairman of the Bar Council. It states:
  "I consider the appointment of a Commissioner with specific responsibility for auditing, overseeing and monitoring all aspects of the existing Silk and Judicial appointments procedures in Northern Ireland would be a very positive step and intend shortly to announce my decision to appoint a Northern Ireland Commissioner".
  It was envisaged that the role would include
  "the audit of the existing processes and policies for appointing Queen's Counsel and the handling of complaints resulting from the application of those processes and procedures."
  As that is an important matter, one would have expected the Lord Chancellor to have received a reply on the detail from the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the letter from the Lord Chancellor emerged only when people went through the papers of the

  25
  late chairman of the Bar Council after his untimely death. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that there was no reply.
  The vice-chairman, Henry Toner QC. Wrote to the Lord Chancellor on 21 December:
  "We do believe that changes need to be made. However we believe that we were entitled to be consulted about any changes in the procedures before decisions such as those indicated in your letter of 7 July 2001 were made. This has not happened.
  Taking silk is inter alia promotion in our profession. The profession is therefore entitled to have a considerable input into how such promotion should be arranged. Even at this late stage, the Commission's role in this process should be put on hold until the profession has been allowed the opportunity to know precisely what you are proposing and until you have had our comments on those proposals and have had an opportunity to study our 'Silk Report'."
  I have had an opportunity to study what the Bar Council of Northern Ireland calls its "silk report", and my new clause is an attempt to meet as closely as possible its recommendations for the appointment of Queen's Counsel within the set-up of the Judicial Appointments Commission established under the Bill. Specifically, the new clause says that the sub-committee for appointing Queen's Counsel should consist of the members of the Judicial Appointments Commission who come from the judicial and legal profession. That comes as close as is reasonably possible to the proposals in the Bar Council's report.
  In paragraph 25, the silk report, which was finalised on 20 March 2001, says:
  "The Committee accordingly recommends that the recommending authority charged with responsibility for the entire procedure from the publication of invitation to apply for appointment to the making of the recommendation should he a panel of persons comprising:—
  (i) The Lord Chief Justice as Chairman.
  (ii) A second Judge of the Supreme Court of judicature in Northern Ireland.
  (iii) The Chairman of the Bar Council (or a nominee, being a Queen's Counsel, of the Bar Council if the Chairman for the time being is a member of the Junior Bar).
  (iv) On the nomination of the Bar Council a second barrister of senior standing and having a significant practice preferably in an area different from that of the other barrister member.
  (v) The Chairman of the Council of HM County Court Judges or a County Court Judge nominated by it.
  (vi) A lay person appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on the advice of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland if it is willing to accept such advisory role."

  I accept that my proposal is not identical with that put forward by the Bar Council of Northern Ireland, but, given the constraints under which we are operating, it is as close as it could reasonably be.
  Lady Hermon: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the Bill is designed to implement the recommendations of the criminal justice review in Northern Ireland, not those of the Bar Council. What he suggests would be outside the terms of the Bill and beyond its proper jurisdiction.
  Mr. Blunt: Plainly it is not outside the terms of the Bill because you, Mr. Speaker, have been kind enough to select the new clause for debate—and for Division if it is pressed and opposed. My suggestion certainly falls within the scope of the Bill. Its main purpose may be to
  26
  implement the review, but that is not its only purpose. We now have an important opportunity to address related issues, of which this is a precise example.
  I do not want to detain the House any longer. Under the structure that we have established for the appointment of Queen's Counsel, my proposal comes as close as it reasonably could to the Bar Council's recommendations. The Government may have reasons to resist the new clause at this stage, and I shall not wish to press it to a Division. However, I think that the structure I have suggested is workable. If the Minister suggests that it is not, we shall go away and think again; there may be an opportunity to reconsider the matter in another place.
  This is an appropriate moment to examine the appointment of Queen's Counsel, and the role of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State. It was the present Lord Chancellor who, to put it delicately, "expropriated" that duty from the Labour Government's first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1997. He removed those responsibilities from her, for reasons on which we could speculate—although probably that would not add much to the present debate. The new clause would meet the Bar Council's need for an independent process run by the legal profession. As such appointments constitute the key promotion for barristers, this is an appropriate point at which to consider the subject.
  Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief because I more or less agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said.
  The Bar of Northern Ireland, or the corps of advocates of Northern Ireland, has the advantage of being much smaller than that of England and Wales, so it is easier to conduct the peer review necessary for those appointing Queen's Counsel to he satisfied that they are of a suitable quality. The Bar of Northern Ireland and possibly the Bar of Scotland—the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us about that—are still very much smaller than the Bar of England and Wales, so those who practise before the senior judiciary know each other and are more likely to be well known by the proposed membership of the body of which my hon. Friend spoke.
  The only small point that I would make to my hon. Friend concerns the fact that Queen's Counsel from Northern Ireland appear in cases before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords from time to time and probably more regularly than their counterparts in England and Wales. If the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland were agreeable, it might be thought sensible for the Commission to consult the Judicial Committee to see whether those being considered for silk were known to its members and whether they had anything interesting or useful to add to the deliberations.
  By and large, however, I am happy with the general thrust of what my hon. Friend has reported to the House, following his discussions with the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. To be a pedant, and to grease up to you, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the long title says that the Bill is to
  "make provision about the law officers and other legal officers and the courts in Northern Ireland".
  That seems to provide a perfectly good way in for this discussion because advocates and members of the Bar of Northern Ireland and of the Law Society of Northern Ireland are, in addition to being members of their

  27
  profession, officers of the court. I should have thought that that was quite sufficient, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you agree.
  Mr. Browne: I infer from the contribution of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that, among other things, he seeks clarification of the role of the Judicial Appointments Commissioner in the process for appointing Queen's Counsel. I shall endeavour to give him that clarification in this short contribution.
  The criminal justice review recommended that the Judicial Appointments Commission be established to deal with appointments to the judiciary and the magistracy only. The Bill implements that recommendation in full. The hon. Gentleman made the point, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) reinforced, that the review made no recommendations concerning appointments to Queen's Counsel. These are not judicial appointments, and I do not consider that it would be appropriate for them to be dealt with by the Judicial Appointments Commission. That is my fundamental objection to the new clause.
  Furthermore, as the appointment of Queen's Counsel is made in the exercise of the royal prerogative, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, I see no reason why Her Majesty's powers to make the appointment should be placed on a statutory footing or why existing ministerial responsibility should be transferred from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State.
  The review separately recommended the appointment of a Judicial Appointments Commissioner in the period running up to devolution. John Simpson, who has been appointed to the post, has a broader remit, which will include looking at the process for appointing QCs.
  The hon. Member for Reigate sought to extrapolate the commissioner's role and remit by reference to a letter that had been sent to the Bar Council of Northern Ireland. In fact, the commissioner's role is properly set out and includes, among other things, monitoring existing processes and procedures for appointing QCs, handling complaints that result from the application of those processes and procedures, and recommending improvements and changes to those procedures to the Lord Chancellor.
  That work has commenced, and having inquired today I understand that, as one would expect, Mr. Simpson is carrying it out in a fiercely independent and careful manner. No doubt he will make recommendations, as he is requested to do, to the Lord Chancellor in due course. That process is at an early stage, so it would be premature to anticipate his recommendations.
  I have every confidence in the impartiality of the appointments process, but I hope that the commissioner's role will further enhance public confidence in that process. I would expect that the commissioner, in fulfilling his remit, will consult the Bar Council of Northern Ireland widely and in depth. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I shall accede to his request to withdraw the motion. I am also grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the
  28
  Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for reminding me that a particular concern has to be addressed relating to the size of the Northern Ireland Bar and how the system operates. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in any input that he has in the commissioner's consultations.
  When the system operated under the aegis of the Secretary of State, before the Lord Chancellor came into play, it took only about two or three months from the application for silk to the conclusion of the process. It now takes a considerable length of time—more than eight months in the case referred to in the Bar Council's report. It is important to consider the Bar Council's concerns. It said:
  "With such a small Bar as soon as an invitation to apply for appointment as Queen's Counsel is published speculation becomes rife not just amongst banisters but also amongst their major professional clients, namely the members of the Solicitors' profession. This can have very real adverse effects such as a decision on the part of a Solicitor forthwith to cease to instruct a Junior barrister regularly instructed in the past because of a perception on the part of the Solicitor that the Junior barrister has in fact or has in all probability applied for appointment as a Queen's Counsel and so will shortly be no longer available to render service as a Junior barrister. Such a disadvantage may always be the companion of the publication of such an invitation but in a small jurisdiction that disadvantage is much compounded if a very long period of time is allowed to elapse between the date of publication of the invitation to apply and the date of intimation of the outcome of application."
  I would not have expressed that at quite such length. However, the point is that we are discussing a small Bar that can deal with such things rapidly in Northern Ireland, but it has now become ensnared with the processes that involve the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the debate on the new clause will have at least prompted further consideration of that issue, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  GUARANTEE OF CONTINUED JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
  Mr. Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after "judiciary", insert "and the legal profession".
  We return to this subject following a debate in Committee during which I withdrew a similar amendment because the Minister was about to have further consultations with its main proponent, the Law Society of Northern Ireland. Without wishing to detain the House at length by recapping the debate in Committee, it is important for us to note just how wide is the alliance ranged against the Minister—unless, that is, he tells us later that the Law Society of Northern Ireland has withdrawn from the field.
  The amendment has been signed by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who were the only members of the Committee apart from the Minister to express even a smidgen of doubt, but who have plainly now been convinced by the arguments that we adduced in that debate.
  4 pm
  The amendment arises from the very strong view expressed by the Law Society of Northern Ireland—in written submissions, and also orally, to me and others who

  29
  have taken its advice on the provisions—that there should be a duty on those responsible for the administration of justice to uphold the independence not only of the judiciary but of the legal profession. I refer the House to the key element of the society's submission:
  "The safeguarding of human rights standards is not just a matter of judicial independence nor (in the specific context of the criminal justice system) of an independent prosecutorial structure. The existence of a genuinely independent legal profession is vital in the protection of human rights, not only in so far as this involves the framing of just laws and procedures but also in the robust and independent application and defence of those laws and procedures".
  The society also said:
  "The LSNI recommends strongly to the Government that an equivalent guarantee of the continued independence of the legal profession should be included within the Bill."
  The amendment seeks to achieve that aim in the simplest possible fashion, by appending in respect of the legal profession a guarantee such as that which the Bill already seeks to provide with regard to the judiciary.
  The Minister found that arguments weighed heavily against him in Committee, especially in his exchange with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who intervened on the arguments that the hon. Gentleman sought to adduce about the consequences of including the word "independence" in respect of the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman could not speak in detail about any specific consequences that would flow from the introduction of a duty to uphold the independence of the legal profession. He said that he wanted to explore in consultation with the Law Society of Northern Ireland the question of whether the society, as the main promoter of the original amendment—and, indeed, the clause—would find that it had created a rod for its own back. He sought to present himself to the Committee as looking after the best interests of the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Bar by suggesting that specifying the proposed duty in the Bill might somehow cause problems for them.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. He is well aware that the amendment deals with one of the issues on which there has been welcome unanimity across the entire field in Northern Ireland. The ad hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly managed to find an alliance ranging from Sinn Fein to the DUP and including all views in between.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman refers to the ad hoc Committee. Can he give any indication how many of the people who served on the Committee were lawyers, and whether that has any relevance to their independence?
  Mr. Blunt: No and no; I do not have the slightest idea about the status of legal education of the members of the ad hoc Committee.
  It is plain that the Law Society of Northern Ireland has found it extremely easy to convince a very wide range of people that upholding the independence of the legal profession and making that a duty in the Bill is a sensible way of proceeding. I am still waiting to hear from the Minister arguments that convince me otherwise. We did not hear such arguments in Committee, where I withdrew the amendment because the Minister had the opportunity subsequently to speak to the Law Society of Northern Ireland, but where I said that if, following those
  30
  conversations, he failed to convince me, I would table and press an amendment on Report. I note that Liberal Democrat Members have put their names to the proposal and I have no reason to believe that other parties have changed their position.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Mr. Blunt: I hope that I am not about to be corrected.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I dearly wish to support him because independence should run from top to bottom in the process that we are considering. However, what might the legal profession be independent of?
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman deliberately tries to draw me into difficult territory. It has been alleged that both sides of the community in Northern Ireland have exerted some influence on the legal profession. An example was given in Committee of a dispute between two clients and their lawyers. The law requires papers relating to one side to be discovered. It is plainly in the interest of the client whose papers are to be discovered for that not to happen. However, the lawyer who represents him would have a duty as an independent member of the profession to abide by the law and make the papers available to the other side. In that example, the lawyer-client relationship becomes subservient to the lawyer's duty to be independent and to stand up for his role as an independent member of the legal profession. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough for the example.
  I cannot give specific instances and I shall therefore deal in generalities. That is probably best. However, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is plainly referring to the fact that allegations have been made that some members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland got too close to their clients in their political views and objectives, abused their legal position and did not maintain the independence of the profession.
  The clause is aspirational rather than detailed. However, the amendment, which would provide for a duty to sustain the independence of the legal profession, is another prop to support such independence. It could work in many circumstances, but it is important in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough asked what would be the consequences if we were considering not the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, but a Justice (Zimbabwe) Bill. The legal profession in Zimbabwe has to operate under different pressures to maintain its independence. It is under pressure from the state and from armed terror from other semi-state organisations. The case for trying to sustain the independence of the legal profession in those circumstances is beyond peradventure.
  Everyone supports the independence of the legal profession. I have not presented arguments that went over exactly the same ground in Committee, but the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will remember the discussions about the United Nations declarations and the special rapporteur. The Government must present a case against the amendment to convince hon. Members that it is not worth including in the Bill an exhortation to support

  31
  the independence of the legal profession. After all, the measure places a duty on all those involved to sustain the independence of the judiciary.
  I note that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh did not say that he would not support the amendment, although I am not wholly convinced that I have his full support, and I would be grateful if he could clarify the position. The hon. Gentleman was, however, convinced—as were his party and all other parties in this House and in the Assembly—of the merits of putting such a measure into the Bill, so I hope that the Government will be as well. I look forward to hearing the report of the Minister's conversations with the Law Society of Northern Ireland, to see whether he has been able to identify with them whether the proposals would have any unintended consequences. I cannot for the life of me see that there would be any, and if the Minister is unable to convince me of his argument, I shall wish to press the matter to a vote.
  Mr. Mallon: I want to make one brief point on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), both in Committee and today. I find it difficult to understand the type of society that he is envisaging in which the legal profession would be independent. I would first have to understand what it is to be independent from. I do not see any difficulty with members of the legal profession not being independent politically. As a matter of fact, when one looks around this House, and most other political forums, one sees quite a number of highly independent-minded members of the legal profession who have party allegiances. So the hon. Gentleman cannot be referring to that. If it is not that, what can it be?
  We must be very careful, because on a previous occasion in a previous Committee, reference was made to members of the legal profession in the north of Ireland and, less than one week later, one of them was shot dead. I always have that in mind and I have no doubt that that is not what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand what this independence is. The legal profession is, by its very nature, aligned in many ways, and it always will be.
  Let us posit the kind of question that will immediately be asked post-devolution. There will be appointments to be made, and those appointees will be drawn from people who have lived and worked in Northern Ireland all their lives. Does that mean that someone who was aligned with the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Fein. The Social Democratic and Labour party or—dare I say it—the Alliance party would automatically be disqualified from consideration for such appointments? I do not believe that that would be the case. Nor do I believe that that has happened in the past, from the foundation of the state to the prorogation of the Stormont Parliament, when the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland was de facto a practising member of the then Unionist party, which became the Official Unionist party and subsequently the Ulster Unionist party.
  None of those Attorneys-General was independent in the political sense to which I think the hon. Member may be referring. Perhaps he could again try to help me with my difficulty in understanding what the independence to which he refers is independence of or from. I would be
  32
  inclined to support him if he could give an indication of precisely the effect that the amendment would have, and of the reason behind it. I hope that he will take the opportunity to clarify the matter before the debate concludes.
  Mr. Blunt: I am able to answer the hon. Gentleman directly. The best way of doing so is to quote paragraph 3.53 of the review, which states:
  "Principal 16 of the Basic Principles"—
  the United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers—
  "also provides that governments shall ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference. In his report on his mission to the United Kingdom in 1998, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Mr Param Cumaraswamy, expressed particular concern about the fact that lawyers in Northern Ireland who had represented those accused of terrorist offences had been subjected to intimidation, harassment or improper interference and had been identified with their clients or with their client's causes. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the Northern Ireland Law Society's decision to establish a complaints procedure to enable solicitors to complain to the Society about any agency within either the criminal or civil justice system which had allegedly impugned or threatened their independence, professionalism and integrity."
  I cannot put it better.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his compelling reply. I am grateful that he has had the opportunity to clarify the matter. I am totally at one with him—and with the Cumaraswamy report—in terms of the protection of members of the legal profession against the threats, intimidation, physical violence and, indeed, death that has been meted out to people in the north of Ireland. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his research and for the clarity with which he explained the matter to the House, which has brought much more definition to it.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the responsibility to maintain the independence of the legal profession is entirely different from the responsibility that all Governments maintain of giving protection to the legal profession? Is not the weakness of the amendment that it does not clarify who is responsible for maintaining the independence of the legal profession? It is clearly the Government's responsibility to maintain the independence of the judiciary, but I fail to understand, perhaps because I have no legal training, how the Government can take on the responsibility of maintaining the independence of the legal profession. Surely that is completely different from maintaining the security and physical protection of the legal profession.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Surely, however, it is the Government's objective to ensure that the legal profession is independent. And how better can one enshrine an objective than to put it in legislation? The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a clear distinction between the responsibility of a Government to protect those who are involved in the implementation of law and the profession's responsibility to protect its independence. In normal societies, that distinction would apply, but the north of Ireland has fallen in between those two positions for the past 30 years. On balance, it might be necessary to have the type of

  33
  protection and influence—the good that the Government might provide—that the hon. Member for Reigate recommends.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a provision to ensure the independence of the legal profession is perhaps out of place in a Bill such as this, as it is an aspiration rather than a course of action that the Government can pursue? Is not this type of amendment therefore completely out of place in a Bill such as this?
  Mr. Mallon: Again, the hon. Gentleman is right in terms of the drafting of Bills. However, if he had had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill, he would have known that we were often told that aspirations are not the stuff of which legislation is made.
  Mr. Harris: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that I would have been delighted to serve on the Committee, but that I was otherwise detained on the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill?
  Mr. Mallon: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for not serving on the Committee, although I take his remarks today to mean that he is volunteering to serve on a similar Committee in the future. The question to which he has drawn our attention will raise its head in almost every debate that we have about independence, and especially the independence of the judiciary. The same points will arise when we debate later amendments, and I hope that those who are nailing their colours to the mast of the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession will reflect such views on later amendments. It is essential that we do not consider aspirations as something for which we cannot legislate—neither should we consider principles as something for which we should not legislate simply because of the difficulties of drafting.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) has spotted a difficulty with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Reigate. I sympathise with the amendment, and I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for his clarification of it.
  Lady Hermon: It would be helpful if I could quote further from paragraph 3.53 of the review, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). The review team said in heavy, bold type that it agreed
  "with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers that government has a responsibility to provide the machinery for an effective and independent investigation of all threats made against lawyers and note the role of the Police Ombudsman if such allegations relate to the actions of police officers. Further, we endorse his recommendation that training seminars should be organised to enable police officers and members of other criminal justice agencies to appreciate the important role that defence lawyers play".
  However, having considered Mr. Cumaraswamy's report, the review team did not follow it up by recommending that a provision should be written into the Bill upholding the independence of the legal profession. The review team specified other ways of dealing with intimidation.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. It is possible that the legal draftsmen advised that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find the wording to meet
  34
  the objective that the hon. Member for Reigate has identified. On balance, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a valid point and, on balance, I will support it.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: It would be helpful if we could know what has been done, following the recommendation in paragraph 3.53, to train the police on the issues mentioned. The independence of the legal profession is of the utmost importance, and its members should not be intimidated in any way.
  I was on a Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when the statement was made that was followed some time later by the death of Pat Finucane. We know from what they have said themselves and from public documents that the people responsible for the intimidation in that case were, in fact, employees of the state and of the Government. We know that intimidation of Rosemary Nelson also took place and we also know—this is well documented—of the comments made about defence solicitors on both sides of the divide and about who they were and what they were doing. It was said that messages should be conveyed. That is an important point.
  It has been suggested that the Bill is aspirational. The whole of clause 1 is declaratory and aspirational. If we are to defend the independence of the judiciary, we must equally defend the independence of the legal profession from which the judiciary is drawn. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), in moving the amendment, did not give more details. He mentioned the discovery of documents, but it would be the responsibility of the solicitor to follow the procedures of the court.
  I should like the Minister to tell us what protection is given to solicitors, who, after all, are officers of the High Court. Presumably they fall under the declaratory part of the clause dealing with the independence of the judiciary, because I am sure that it applies not only to judges but to all those involved in the administration of justice, with the judges at the top and the Lord Chief Justice at the apex. We need further exploration of precisely what is meant by the independence of the judiciary; how far it goes; and what its limits are. Does it apply merely to the person sitting on the Bench, or does it extend to the whole question of administration?
  Mr. Browne: The debate on this comparatively small amendment shows how interesting these discussions can be, and how interesting they were in Committee. Minor amendments can engage us for a significant time. The Bill requires those with responsibility for the administration of justice to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. It is not possible for me to answer in a few sentences the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about how far that stretches. In any event, I would not wish to be prescriptive, as that would be unhelpful. However, the meaning seems to me to be quite extensive. I am certain that anyone who tried to interfere with officers of the court would be in breach of their responsibility to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.
  This provision was recommended by the review because of the paramount importance of an independent judiciary. Amendment No. I deliberately goes beyond the review and would extend the protection to the legal profession. The amendment was debated in some detail in

  35
  Committee, and I said then that I could not accept it until I understood more clearly what it was intended to achieve and until it had been tested to show its potential consequences. I do not accept for a minute that it lies with me to flesh out the amendment's intended or unintended consequences: it lies with those who seek to change the law to explain why it is necessary and what it is intended to achieve. I have endeavoured to do that at some length and in detail on other parts of the Bill.
  It goes without saying that the Government fully support the independence of the legal profession, but it is another matter to include in the Bill declaratory statements that have unpredictable effects. I cannot agree to include such statements in the Bill unless I am confident that they are needed and that they will have the desired effects, and that, importantly, they will have no unintended consequences. I was not convinced by the examples given in Committee, even though they came from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is an experienced practitioner in the courts. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), he gave the rather lame example of the discovery of documents. I was not convinced by that argument, and I believe that the other examples that have been given are already covered by existing law.
  Above all, I am far from clear what this duty is supposed to mean. It is clear enough and accepted internationally that ensuring the independence of the judiciary is part of the duty of every state, but ensuring the independence of the legal profession has the potential to take us into all sorts of tricky regulatory questions. The example in the report of the special rapporteur is instructive. He commends internal regulation—self-regulation by the profession—as the answer to the problem, not a statutory provision.
  4.30 pm
  It seems to me, and I have heard nothing to the contrary, that if the amended clause is to mean anything it must imply an extension of Government regulation to this area. Although I do not think that that is the profession's intention, the Law Society has expertly promoted support for an amendment along those lines.
  I repeat what I said in Committee: I have read some supportive submissions and although I have yet to be convinced that the Law Society gave anybody detailed and adequate reasons as to why they should back the amendment, it has managed to raise that support. Consequently, I agreed to invite the Law Society to meet me to discuss the points for which it has gleaned support. I did so, and we had a constructive discussion on a number of matters, including my concern that there may be unintended regulatory consequences, which it would not welcome, from such a statutory provision.
  The Law Society confirmed to me that it jealously guards self-regulation of the profession and thinks that important to its independence, which I understand and support. I also asked it to consider why it seeks to restrict the statutory provision to its members, as officers of the court, thereby excluding other officers of the court. Why are its members in a different position from other officers of the court? I am not saying that I convinced it, but I am
  36
  pleased to report that I was persuasive enough for it to agree to reflect on those points and come back to me with responses.
  I have yet to receive a response or any further representations from the Law Society, however, so my discussions with the amendment's principal promoter are not yet concluded. I remain to be convinced by its or any other arguments, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. Blunt: The Minister has not advanced the position at all since we discussed the matter in Committee. He says that the Law Society of Northern Ireland agreed to reflect and that he may have convinced it, but that, I fear, simply reflects its politeness. Indeed, had I been in discussions with the Minister, I might well agree to reflect on his point of view so as not to leave him with a disagreeable impression.
  The Law Society of Northern Ireland put its points with singular robustness and force. Its submission says:
  "The independence of the judiciary and the prosecution process is correctly identified as a key issue in maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in this jurisdiction. This is no less so in respect of those charged with the assertion of rights within the judicial process. In a situation such as Northern Ireland where it is thought necessary to have a statutory statement and guarantee of the independence of the judiciary, there is a parallel need in the same context to affirm the independence of the legal profession."
  For precisely the reasons to which the Minister and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) alluded, I shall not get drawn into individual cases. The very example, the suggestions and the accusations that have been thrown around relate to previous discussion of individual cases. We all know what we are talking about.
  The Minister alluded to unpredictable consequences—unintended regulatory consequences—but did not identify any. The Law Society places great value on the amendment and has managed to convince every single party in Northern Ireland that it is the right thing to do. The Bill is to assert the independence of the judiciary in the Northern Ireland situation and there appear to be no concrete reasons for rejecting the amendment.
  Lady Hermon: I want to tease out the hon. Gentleman's difficulty with the clause as drafted. Is his concern that people will not get a fair trial?
  Mr. Blunt: No. The central purpose of the amendment is to protect the independence of the legal profession. The hon. Lady's party colleagues, along with all the other members of the Assembly ad hoc Committee, agreed the following statement:
  "In their evidence to the Committee, representatives of the Law Society of Northern Ireland … highlighted the important role that is played by solicitors in the criminal justice system. One of the key aspects of their role is that they exercise their responsibilities in a manner 'free from political, financial or other influences that may affect [their] independence'. This was recognised by the CJRG"—
  the review group—
  "in their report, which made particular reference to the role played by defence lawyers and the nature of their relationship with their clients, and the negative impact of a misunderstanding of that relationship."

  37
  Indeed, the second recommendation of that Committee, supported unanimously, was:
  "That a new clause be inserted which acknowledges and safeguards the continuing independence and impartiality of the legal profession."
  The Minister has not even begun to make a case against that.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 275.

  Division No. 175]

  [4.36 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Allan, Richard

  Heath, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hendry, Charles

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hoban, Mark

  Bacon, Richard

  Horam, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Baron, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Breed, Colin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burl, Alistair

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Lidington, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Loughton, Tim

  Cameron, David

  Luff, Peter

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Maples, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cotter, Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Doughty, Sue

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prisk, Mark

  Francois, Mark

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  38

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tyler, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Bob

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spring, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Bill

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Swire, Hugo

  Willis, Phil

  Syms, Robert

  Wishart, Pete

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  noes

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cooper, Yvette

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Austin, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baird, Vera

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Barnes, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Best, Harold

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blackman, Liz

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Borrow, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Efford, Clive

  Bryant, Chris

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burnham, Andy

  Fisher, Mark

  Burnside, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Cairns, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Casale, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Caton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cawsey, Ian

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Challen, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles(Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  39

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mole, Chris

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Hermon, Lady

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Heyes, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hood, Jimmy

  Norris, Dan

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Organ, Diana

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Owen, Albert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Hurst, Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Pound, Stephen

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Purnell, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kelly, Ruth

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, Ernie

  Kidney, David

  Roy, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruane, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ryan, Joan

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Salter, Martin

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Sawford, Phil

  Laxton, Bob

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lepper, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sheridan, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Simon, Siôn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lucas, Ian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Luke, lain

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCabe, Stephen

  Southworth, Helen

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McDonnell, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McFall, John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McKechin, Ann

  Stringer, Graham

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tami, Mark

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McWatter, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McWilliam, John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Touhig, Don

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Trickett, Jon

  Mann, John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Marris, Rob

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Tynan, Bill

  Miliband, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Moffatt, Laura

  Watson, Tom

  40

  Watts, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wray, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, on 26 February, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made a statement in the House in which he led Members to believe that personnel problems in his Department had been resolved. I learned this afternoon that Ian Jones, head of press at that Department, had been suspended. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any indication from the Secretary of State that he wishes to come to the House and make a further statement about this worrying development?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have no knowledge of the matter to which the hon. Lady refers, and I have had no indication that a statement is intended.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a tight schedule today, and that this is taking time out of it.
  Mr. MacKay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall bear in mind the fact that, as you say, we have a very tight schedule within which to deal with an important Bill; but is it not outrageous that three separate heads of press and media at that Department have been sacked or forced to leave? Is it not essential for the Secretary of State, immediately after our debates on the Bill—which I agree should be conducted speedily, and concluded by 10 pm—to return to the Dispatch Box? I am not suggesting that that should interrupt the main business, but it would enable us to get to the truth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I have nothing to add to the statement that I made earlier.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have an extremely tight schedule, and we must move on. [Interruption.] I have dealt with the point of order. I do not wish to deal with further points of order relating to a point of order with which I have already dealt.

Clause 2

  INTRODUCTORY
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
  '(other than the office of Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal),'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 174.
  Amendment No. 169, in clause 5, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
  '(8A) Without prejudice to subsection (8), the Commission must, as far as practicable, exercise its functions to select persons to be appointed or recommended for appointment in order to secure that the judiciary is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland.'.
  Amendment No. 28, in clause 6, page 5, line 33, after "office", insert—
  'for a maximum of three months'.
  Amendment No. 70, in clause 8, page 6, line 23, after "by", insert "the Lord Chancellor or".
  Amendment No. 29, in page 6, line 23, after "jointly", insert—
  'with the agreement of the Prime Minister'.
  Amendment No. 30, in page 6, line 30, leave out—
  'the Lord Chief Justice or'.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): Everyone is leaving. Was it something my hon. Friend said?
  Mr. Browne: And to think that I imagined they might be interested in legislation.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) expressed a fear that the First and Deputy First Minister's order-making power in clause 2 could be used to bring the offices of Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice of Appeal within the remit of the Judicial Appointments Commission. I assure the hon. Lady that that was neither the intention of the review nor that of our policy. Furthermore, any attempt to make the Judicial Appointments Commission responsible for those senior offices in the future would require a cross-community vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.
  Although those are in themselves strong safeguards, I have decided to put the matter beyond all doubt by means of amendment No. 104. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing it to my attention, so that I could concentrate on it. The amendment would make it clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may not use their order-making power to bring the office of Lord Chief Justice or that of Lord Justice of Appeal within the commission's remit.
  Let me now deal with amendment No. 174. In Committee, Members expressed concern about the fact that sub-committees of the Judicial Appointments Commission could be made up entirely of members who were not members of the commission itself. The thinking behind the original drafting of schedule 2 was that if committees and sub-committees were always required to include commission members, an unfair imposition could
  42
  be placed on their time. However, we are now in a better position to assess the commission's likely work load, and accept that the degree of flexibility envisaged in the original drafting may not now be required. The amendment therefore makes it clear that when the commission delegates any of its functions to a committee or sub-committee, the committee or sub-committee must always include a member of the commission and, unless that member is a lay member, a lay member or person eligible to be one.
  I turn now to amendment No. 169. The review suggested that those responsible for judicial appointments should seek to ensure that the judiciary is reflective of Northern Ireland society. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) proposes putting that in the Bill. In drafting the legislation, we have included the merit principle which the review made clear should be the overriding criterion in making appointments. Unlike the various statutory commissions on which we have placed the statutory duty to ensure representativeness, I see some difficulties in applying the same requirement to the appointment of judges. I recollect that on more than one occasion in Committee I went into these difficulties in some detail.
  The amendment makes it clear that merit is the overriding principle, but that is immediately put in jeopardy in the amendment. It is vital that the judiciary continue to be viewed with respect and high regard by all sections of the community. I fear that the amendment would allow insidious suggestions to be made about future appointees—for example, that they were appointed not on merit but to even up the numbers. That is not in the interests of justice in Northern Ireland.
  I share the sentiment behind the amendment and I, along with all Members, wish the judiciary to reflect the community that it serves. The best way to ensure a reflective judiciary is by ensuring a suitably balanced pool of eligible candidates who apply for vacancies as they arise. My hon. Friend will know that the judges of the future come from the pool of lawyers—whether they be solicitors or barristers—Queen's counsels and law students of today. This collective group is already highly mixed in terms of gender and community background. With time, the strict application of the merit principle will automatically lead to where we want to go. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
  Lady Hermon: The Minister will recall that on at least one occasion in Committee I mentioned that we already have a High Court judgment in the Evelyn White case in which the judge, quite rightly, took the interpretation of the words "representative of the community" from the context of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Will the Minister therefore go some way towards including words such as "representative" or "reflective" in the Bill, so that women and ethnic minorities will be included in judicial appointments?
  Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. This issue exercised us on more than one occasion in Committee and I will endeavour to make myself clear. I repeat that I share the aspirations of all Members that the judiciary of Northern Ireland should be reflective of the community that it serves. However, I am adamant and convinced that that is best achieved by an

  43
  appropriate fair and transparent system that operates on the basis of merit. I am reinforced in that view by the people who are coming through in the profession and their reflectiveness of the community of Northern Ireland. In my view, the future for reflectiveness and representativeness should be left to the principle of merit and the infrastructure set out in the Bill that ensures a transparent system which will allow the best lawyers who want to be judges, wherever they come from, to become judges.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's giving way again. This is just a small point. He said that the people coming through would be representative, and I take it that that means representative of women and ethnic minorities. How many women and members of ethnic minorities are coming through at any stage, at any level, in the judiciary in Northern Ireland?
  5 pm
  Mr. Browne: I do not have the precise figures and I will write to the hon. Lady with them. She will have her finger on the pulse of this better than I do, having taught some of those concerned recently. But having made inquiries, I am assured that, if anything, women make up more than 50 per cent. of those who have been seeking to join the profession; I say that from memory. It would probably be better for me to write to her about the precise figures. She is persistent and consistent on this issue, and rightly so.
  The issue must be addressed across the legal profession and not just at the top. Unless the matter is addressed by the Law Society, the universities and the Bar Council, we will get at the top tokenism of the worst kind, which will interfere with the independence of the judiciary. It is my job in terms of the Bill to create an infrastructure and a process that will fiercely and jealously guard the independence of the judiciary. I do not believe that including in the Bill provisions that will allow people to argue that, whatever the merit of an individual candidate at some point in the future, he ought to be appointed to even up the numbers to create some perception of balance, will serve the people of Northern Ireland. I do not think that the hon. Lady is unconvinced by that argument, but I will write to her on her questions.
  Amendment No. 28 would place a time limit of three months on the suspension of the Lord Chief Justice in a situation where the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor were considering making motions for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty for his removal. We expect action under this clause to be a rare event, if ever. If action were ever taken, we hope that the necessary steps would be taken quickly. However, it would be a mistake to tie our hands too much in the way proposed. Clause 6 is only ever likely to be invoked in extremely serious cases. We cannot know for sure how much time a tribunal might take to report. I would therefore urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
  The effect of amendment No. 70 would be to give the Lord Chancellor a role in the removal from office of the Lord Chief Justice. The process of removal from judicial office is very much linked to the process of appointment. Given that the Lord Chancellor, after devolution, will not
  44
  have a role in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice—or, for that matter, of any member of the judiciary—it would seem inappropriate that he should have a role in considering removal from this judicial office. In Committee it was argued from some quarters that the Lord Chancellor should continue to have a role in the appointment of judges, even after devolution.
  The Government's position was clear then and remains so now. It would be inconsistent to devolve that function while retaining a role for the Lord Chancellor. It would be equally inconsistent to retain the Lord Chancellor's involvement in the removal process once the responsibility for judicial appointments had been devolved. I ask therefore that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Lady Hermon: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, have to convene a tribunal for the removal of the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judicial post in Northern Ireland. What will happen if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are unable to act jointly and cannot agree? Surely we should have a fall-back measure, under which the Lord Chancellor is able to convene such a tribunal. "We are not planning for failure" is not an appropriate answer.
  Mr. Browne: The answer will not be my stock answer, which was, "We are not planning for failure." This is a serious and important step that it is envisaged will be triggered in circumstances where the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can act jointly.
  Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek to retain an inappropriate role for Westminster in regard to setting up a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice after devolution. As I have said, the Government recognise that tenure is of central importance to judicial independence. We fully support the principle of giving full-time judges and magistrates tenure during good behaviour until statutory retirement. A properly constituted judicial tribunal is, however, a key part of securing a transparent and accountable judiciary, and clause 8 provides for such a tribunal.
  Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek to replace consultation with the Prime Minister with a need to obtain his approval before a tribunal can be convened to consider removal of the Lord Chief Justice. The amendments are contrary to the spirit of the review and, more importantly, to the spirit of devolution. Although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can convene a tribunal to consider removal of the Lord Chief Justice, clause 6 makes it clear that they cannot remove him on the basis of that tribunal alone. Only the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor may do that, under clause 6, by making a motion for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty.
  I am slightly mystified as to why the Prime Minister's approval should be required twice. It is sensible that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should consult the Prime Minister when they consider convening a tribunal to remove a senior judge in Northern Ireland, but it would be unnecessary to require his approval at that stage as well as when a motion was to be made.
  Mr. Blunt: I support the Government amendments, which improve the Bill. The Government have recognised a difficulty by tabling amendment No. 104 to protect the Lord Chief Justice and the lords justice of appeal against

  45
  being included in a schedule by any First Minister and Deputy First Minister with whom their relationship was unsuccessful. Equally, Government amendment No. 174 improves the Bill and I am greatly reassured that members of the commission will sit on the sub-committees. That is necessary, and I am grateful for it.
  I assume that that change follows consideration within the Minister's Department of the work load that will be placed on the Commission rather than of how much delegation will be required. That provides satisfactory evidence that proper consideration in Committee improves legislation. It is a great pity that we shall shortly move on to discuss clauses that we never debated in Committee.
  Amendment No. 28 raises issues about the length of time for which suspensions may take place. It deals with circumstances in which the Lord Chief Justice has been on the wrong end of a tribunal decision. Clearly, that would be extremely serious, and one hopes that it will never occur, and certainly that it will not happen regularly. Clause 6(8) states:
  "If the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are considering the making of motions for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty in relation to the Lord Chief Justice, the Prime Minister may suspend him from office".
  The point is that simply "considering" an address will give them the authority to suspend the Lord Chief Justice. If we are to protect his position against politicians who may act unfairly, and if we seek to uphold the independence of the judiciary, it is necessary to put a duty on those politicians to place the address before Parliament in a timely manner.
  I can be persuaded that three months is not the right period. Producing the address may take longer, although I think three months fairly generous, given that the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor would present an address only after a tribunal had taken place and most of the evidence on which Parliament would make a decision about suspension would already be in the open.
  The purpose of the amendment is to protect the Lord Chief Justice from the arbitrary use of power under the Bill. I do not want to press the issue now; it can be considered at a later stage and the Government can decide whether they want to pick it up and run with it, as they have done with their amendments Nos. 104 and 174. They can make a judgment as to whether the position of the Lord Chief Justice would need protection in the extreme and rare circumstances to which I referred. I think that the Lord Chief Justice would need protection. The period of three months may be too long, too short or about right. That point can be subject to further reflection.
  I hope that the Government will reflect on the matter and that they may be persuaded to consider it in another place and table amendments to protect the position of the Lord Chief Justice from the arbitrary use of power in extreme circumstances. One hopes that the provisions would never be used—I fully acknowledge that—but if they are to be set up, we must consider the protection of the independence of the judiciary. A provision along the lines of amendment No. 28 would do that.
  Amendment No. 29 would require the agreement of the Prime Minister if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wanted to initiate a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice. That distinguishes the position of the Lord Chief Justice from that of lords
  46
  justice of appeal by making a higher test, as the requirement is only to consult the Prime Minister about a tribunal to remove a lord justice of appeal.
  My argument runs counter to the Minister's. His point was that as the Prime Minister would have to agree to present an address to Parliament to effect the result of the tribunal we did not need to ask him at the beginning of the process. However, the removal of a Lord Chief Justice is an immensely serious matter, so there is a necessity for the Prime Minister to be convinced—at least prima facie—that he would be minded to present such an address following a tribunal. It would be extremely unfortunate if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consulted the Prime Minister, set up a tribunal to which the Prime Minister was opposed and—after consideration of the evidence—he did not want to make an address to Parliament.
  Before a tribunal takes place, the case against a Lord Chief Justice is, in essence, the case for the prosecution. Usually, the tribunal would offer the Lord Chief Justice an opportunity to make the case that he should not be removed from office. Such a state of affairs would, of course, be extremely unhappy. It is therefore important that the Prime Minister's consent be obtained at the beginning of the process. The private or public evidence of misbehaviour by the Lord Chief Justice would be available to the Prime Minister—as it would be to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—before the proceedings were initiated. The position of the Lord Chief Justice can only get better once he has the chance to answer the allegations made against him.
  The Prime Minister should have the opportunity to say, "I am convinced of the weight of the case against the Lord Chief Justice before the start of the formal proceedings. I therefore do not agree to them." That is why I have proposed amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
  I do not intend to press these matters at present. We did not get the chance to discuss them in Committee, but I have put them on the record. I hope that the Government will reflect on the amendments and adopt them as their own—as they have adopted other amendments and ideas during the Bill's proceedings. Obviously, our purpose here as legislators is to improve the legislation, and this is an opportunity to put those matters on the record and debate them.
  5.15 pm
  On amendment No. 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I fear that I find myself in agreement with the Minister. I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady—
  Lady Hermon indicated assent.
  Mr. Blunt: It is indeed a frightful position to be in, and I am much more comfortable when I agree with her.
  On the provisions and amendments concerning the role of the Lord Chancellor in the justice system of Northern Ireland, there is a difference between the hon. Lady's party and Her Majesty's Opposition. We take the same view as the Government's—that if justice is to be devolved and the Lord Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, he must assume all the proper responsibilities. We will have another chance later

  47
  today to explore some of the other duties that the Lord Chancellor retains under the Bill, and the Minister will be able to explain exactly what happens when justice is devolved.
  On amendment No. 169, in the name of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I again found the Minister's arguments convincing. I am pleased that he is able to report to the House that the shape that the legal profession is taking in Northern Ireland will deliver the objectives that we all share. The people who today are law students, or young barristers and solicitors, will form the judiciary of tomorrow, and in the course of time the judiciary will inevitably reflect the community as we all want it to.
  I accept the Minister's arguments about the potentially pernicious consequences of amendment No. 169, which would be wholly unintended. Merit must remain the first principle and rule in the appointment of the judiciary. That is connected with the arguments that we had in Committee about protecting the religious and cultural identity of members of the judiciary, and about tracing such information only for the group rather than for individuals. That is aimed at protecting their independence as far as possible.
  I hope that the arguments in support of our amendments will commend themselves to the Minister—upon reflection. I also hope that that reflection will be rather more detailed than that which I suspect the Law Society undertook on the previous question.
  Mr. Browne: I shall be polite, at least.
  Mr. Blunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more than polite; I hope that he will reflect on what we have said and come back with amendments to address our concerns in another place.
  Mr. Mallon: I listened with interest to what the Minister said about my amendment, and I find it increasingly difficult to understand his underlying fear. Mine is not a pernicious amendment in any sense; it is a benign, gentle amendment, which reflects what the Minister says is the Government's intention. It also adequately reflects the position represented in the criminal justice review.
  I feel that I should address two points that the Minister made earlier. He said that this gentle, innocuous little amendment, which is in tune with his objectives and those of the Government, could put the merit principle in jeopardy—I believe that those were his words. I am trying to think how that could happen, and I shall listen further to the Minister to find out. I await his explanation with interest, because I would have thought that, far from placing anything in jeopardy, my gentle, innocuous little amendment would do something else.
  The Minister also said that he is convinced that the merit principle will automatically lead to a situation in which such an amendment will not be necessary. We have all thought that at certain times in our lives. Those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland for a long time thought it not just for a few years but for decade after decade. There are those in many walks of life who are still buying that idea and to whom it is still being sold,
  48
  and quite effectively. We are told that the merit principle will automatically lead to changes in the civil service in the north of Ireland—changes in gender, ethnic groupings and community divisions. The reality is that those changes will take much longer than my lifetime, or what is left of it. We should not buy the notion that if we take these measures and say nothing about them, they will automatically lead to changes such as those described by the Minister.
  I challenge both of the Minister's assertions because at the heart of the amendment is one word, "legitimacy"—the legitimacy of what we are trying to do. If the measures are to enjoy that legitimacy, there should be representativeness of the community in Northern Ireland. The review pointed that out clearly when it said:
  "the extent to which the composition of the judiciary reflects the society which it serves is a confidence issue and has implications for its legitimacy in the eyes of many of the community. If there is a perception that judges come predominantly from a narrow pool, then there is liable to be concern that the way in which the law as a whole is developed may be unduly influenced by one particular set of values."
  Those are profound words, and they are even more profound when they are applied to Northern Ireland because at the moment, regrettably, the judiciary is not representative of society as a whole. The Minister has no figures on that; the Government have no figures on it, but all the Members from the north of Ireland who are sitting here know that the judiciary is not representative. Let me be more explicit: women are almost completely unrepresented in the judiciary; ethnic groupings, which are large and growing in the north of Ireland, are largely not represented; nationalists are not fully represented and nor is the wing of Unionism which would tend towards a more robust approach to the Union. Those are facts of life, and they will not automatically change.
  That is supposition because the Government do not monitor such data. They monitor such data in every other walk of life but there is a remarkable mystique surrounding this part of life which is reflected in the Bill. The Bill says that a lay appointment must be not only reflective but representative of the community, but an appointment to the judiciary cannot be either reflective or representative of the community. It is okay for the layman; it is not all right for the judge. Frankly, that is not all right for the people of the north of Ireland because we are all ultimately equal and we should all be treated with equality.
  It goes without saying that I fully accept the importance of merit in making judicial appointments. Clause 5(8) states that the selection of a person for judicial appointments
  "must be made solely on the basis of merit."
  I agree with that. However, I and many others are concerned that, taken alone. The requirement to make appointments solely on merit might limit the ability to take the appropriate affirmation action recommended in the review.
  Certainly, without a duty to secure a representative judiciary, in so far as is practicable, there would be no obligation to engage in those affirmative action measures, yet not one of them derogates from the merit principle in any way. The Government themselves have stated that

  49
  they are committed to implementing those measures, and they are set out specifically in paragraph 6.85 and 6.11 of the review.
  Lady Hermon: I rise simply to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a provision in the agreement that clearly states that the British Government will have a duty
  "to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race",
  among other things. Those words clearly impose a positive duty on the Government to take action to promote equality of opportunity for women and ethnic minorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard that as helpful.
  Mr. Mallon: I take the point that the hon. Lady makes, but I am not convinced. The agreement also obliges both Governments to ensure parity of esteem, but we shall discuss that matter later. To answer the hon. Lady directly, we are dealing with legislation and we have a duty to ensure that those who make such appointments have a duty to do so in a way that is not contrary to the merit principle, that is in tune with that principle and that reflects the community in the desired way. As the Minister said earlier, that has been done previously by imposing a duty on the appointing authority to ensure representativeness in so far as is practicable.
  For example, the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure representativeness in so far as is practicable when making appointments to the Policing Board, the Parades Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. I do not regard that as pernicious, nor do I regard any of those boards as pernicious in the sense that people were not appointed on merit. I believe that there is a substantial weakness in the argument that proposes that, if a Government face their responsibilities in legislating, somehow or other they derogate from the highest standards, including the merit principle.
  I do not believe that the Policing Board was appointed on anything other than the type of merit standards that are required to keep that board afloat in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the Parades Commission, the Human Rights Commission or the Equality Commission derogated from the merit principle in any way. I believe that we should challenge the Government's assertion that a gentle and innocuous amendment such as mine would somehow devalue the merit principle. It does not derogate from that principle; if it did so, whether in terms of the Policing Board, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission or the Parades Commission, it would be illegal. I am not for one moment suggesting that the Government are acting illegally in respect of any of those bodies. However, we must ensure that proper regard is given to taking appropriate measures to help to ensure representativeness. Such measures could relate to public advertising, the operation of boards and the appointments process. The purity of the position that has been argued might emerge and what has been proposed might be effective, whatever it leads to over time, but I do not believe that that will happen. That has not been the experience in Northern Ireland.
  5.30 pm
  My amendment is designed to impose a duty on people who make appointments to the judiciary. I do not think that they should be without such a duty; they should not
  50
  have 52 cards to play with. They should not have a free hand because they have a duty to ensure that the judiciary is not only appointed on the merit principle, but reflects the community that it serves. Is that asking too much of any legislation? Is it imposing too much on any commission? I do not believe so. My amendment is fully consistent with the review's recommendation that
  "it should be a stated objective of whoever is responsible for appointments to engage in a programme of action to secure the development of a judiciary that is as reflective of Northern Ireland society, in particular by community background and gender, as can be achieved consistent with the overriding requirement of merit."
  What better way is there to state such an objective than to enshrine it in legislation? I believe that my amendment, gentle and innocuous as it is, achieves that and I recommend it to the House.
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: As it turns out, I want simply to express my support of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has been infinitely more eloquent than I could possibly be.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister use the word "reflective" on at least half a dozen occasions. I am very pleased that he did so, given the arguments that we had in Committee about reflectiveness versus representativeness when we discussed the need to ensure that lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission reflected the community. I am pleased if he has accepted the arguments that were advanced. I hope that he has done so, as the word "reflective" is more precise in doing what we are trying to achieve and perhaps less ambiguous than "representative".
  I would like to support the views expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I agree that merit must be the principle on which judges should be appointed. But to argue that having a reflective group of people doing that job might mean that we end up with people who are not of the highest quality is to argue that women and people from ethnic minorities are less intelligent or less able to do their jobs. That is the current position, and it is nonsense. In Committee we argued strongly that positive action is needed to ensure that merit is recognised, because at the moment, in all sorts of ways, it certainly is not.
  Mr. Browne: What does the hon. Lady think that part I of the Bill is about?
  Mrs. Calton: I am sure that the Minister intends that merit should be recognised, but the problem is that leaving it out of the Bill means that it may not be. I hope that he will have another change of heart.
  Mr. McNamara: I was surprised by my hon. Friend the Minister's comments, especially on the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I found nothing in it that seeks to undermine the independence of the judiciary or to prevent the appointment of men and women of merit from different communities.
  I am worried about the fact that the very people who will adjudicate on matters involving equality, merit and the whole paraphernalia of human rights law in Northern Ireland will be the only people who are not subject to that legislation. It is nonsense to turn things upside down in

  51
  that way. Nobody is trying to suggest that merit should go out of the window; certainly, my hon. Friend's amendment does not do so. It is in nobody's interests not to have judges of merit, distinction and independence. We want them to have all those qualities, but we also want them to be women and from ethnic minorities, to reflect the composition of the whole of society. As my hon. Friend said, they may have a background in the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Fein, or whatever. If they have the qualities of experience, training and intellect, they will get through on merit, but they should also be reflective of society.
  Judges will consider matters such as fair employment, human rights, the composition of the civil service and of local government and the operation of equality law in the private sector and in the professions, yet they will not be appointed under equivalent criteria. That is nonsense.
  Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend neatly encapsulates the contradiction in his argument. One cannot guarantee that an individual judge who hears such a case in any circumstances is reflective of society in himself or herself. That cannot be achieved.
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, that is not truly applicable. For a start, judges are allocated cases in a way that takes account of such factors. More important, what matters is the whole ambience of the process by which they are appointed. It is nonsense to argue that that should not apply to judges, but should apply to the upper echelons of the civil service, the police, the Policing Board and various other organisations, and then to say that middle-aged, mainly Protestant people are going to be judges and that we are not going to try to change that reflection of society.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he suggest that when more than one judge considers a case, that bench of judges should be reflective of the community?
  Mr. McNamara: No, the hon. Gentleman did not understand me correctly. What I said was that, when the judges are selected, there should be an ambience that accepts this particular method, in which they are reflective and representative of society as a whole.
  Lembit Öpik: Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that this is a matter of having a strategic commitment to reflectiveness in the entire system? To look at an individual case and say that a judge has to be one thing or another at that point does not negate the point that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh have made. Does he not also agree that the Minister's resistance to this proposal is a good example of unjoined-up thinking, given that he himself has argued this case at other points in this debate?
  Mr. McNamara: I could not have put it better myself.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Lady Hermon.
  Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman had finished, so I was playing safe.
  52
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) if I did not appear to be helpful. I quoted from the Belfast agreement with the strong intention of being helpful to him. I believe that the Government should have a positive duty to promote equality of opportunity for women and ethnic minorities, and that that should be incorporated into the Bill by including words such as "representative" or "reflective". It was my intention to be helpful.
  I want to go back to Government amendments Nos. 104 and 174, and to move the debate along a little. I appreciate the amendments that the Minister has tabled to deal with the ambiguity in clause 2—a subject that was raised in Committee. The clause states:
  "The First Minister and deputy First Minister,"—
  I hesitate to read the next two words—
  "acting jointly, may by order amend Schedule 1 by—
  (a) adding an office".
  The amendment makes it clear that "adding an office" refers to an office
  "other than the office of Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal".
  I appreciate that, but the Minister and other members of the Committee will recall that I was concerned that High Court judges were listed in schedule 1 rather than being treated as being among the "most senior judicial offices" in Northern Ireland, as I think they should be.
  The Minister was good enough to clarify the earlier ambiguity. Will he now clarify the ambiguity that still exists? If the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could, on a good day, agree to act jointly, could they omit an office such as that of High Court judge? If they were to omit such judges, what would happen to that office? Would it automatically fall into the category of most senior judicial appointments? What would happen if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister decided, by order, in their wisdom, to omit High Court judges? That appears to be an ambiguity that has been left unaddressed.
  In tabling amendment No. 70, I proposed the alternative arrangement of the Lord Chancellor setting up a tribunal in the unlikely event of the removal of the Lord Chief Justice. I know that I do not have support for that proposal, but there seems to be a genuine problem here. It has been written into the Bill on so many occasions that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be obliged to act jointly. With the best will in the world, those posts might be occupied by two politicians who might not be able to act jointly, and there should be an alternative arrangement for very serious occasions such as the removal of the Lord Chief Justice. The fact that such an occurrence would be most unlikely gives me some reassurance that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would take the responsibility seriously and reach agreement. In the light of that, I am quite happy not to press my amendment, although I should like the Minister to address the ambiguity that remains in clause 2(2).
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: I take no particular exception to Government amendments Nos. 104 and 174, but I want to allude briefly to amendment No. 169, tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission caused considerable discussion

  53
  not only in Committee but among many people in Northern Ireland, because of the proliferation of commissions there and because of Her Majesty's Government's clear failure in the past to make any serious effort to ensure that commissions reflect the community.
  I listened with interest as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh outlined his perception of the difficulties arising from that failure accurately to reflect the community in Northern Ireland. I found myself asking in what other society there would be a fair and accurate reflection of the community in its judicial appointments, but I can only follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the commissions that he mentioned.
  Within the last month the Government have accepted the need to redress the imbalance that existed in the Human Rights Commission. Rather than redressing it, however, they compounded it by appointing a number of people, none of whom reflected the community that my party represents. Unfortunately, the same applies to the Parades Commission. I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the Judicial Appointments Commission will, as reasonably as can be expected, be truly reflective of the community divisions that exist in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Browne: I rise to deal with some of the points that have been raised in this debate. If I am not comprehensive in my answers, I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members on whose points I have not picked up.
  I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for his support for the Government amendments. In relation to his own amendments, I am happy to give him the undertaking that I will reflect upon them. As he knows, when I say that, it is more than just being polite, although he periodically defines it as such to score political points. He knows that throughout my stewardship of my portfolio, I have considered everything that he has put before me. That does not mean that I have to agree with everybody, but I shall reflect on the issues that he has raised.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) ought not to read too much into my use of the vocabulary in the amendment. She sought to invite me into an area into which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might chastise me for going, as it is not necessarily relevant to the amendments before us. The hon. Lady ought to be conscious of the fact that the use of the word "reflective" in this debate was a reflection of the use of the word in the amendment. I caution her not to read any more into it than that: the matter certainly does not bear extending in the way that she sought.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked a specific question, and I have had the answer to it confirmed. Should the First Minister and Deputy First Minister seek to legislate to omit any judicial office from the list in the schedule, they would be required to make alternative legislative provision for such an appointment. That legislation would, of course, require cross-community support, so it would not be possible for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—by omitting only—to leave High Court judges in a position in which there was no appointments procedure for them. The judges would not automatically fall into the senior appointments category. The hon. Lady asked whether that would be the case, but it is perfectly clear from the Bill
  54
  it would not. Alternative arrangements would need to be legislated for by those who sought to omit the judges in question.
  The bulk of the debate has been concentrated on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The more he told me that his amendment was innocuous, the more I suspected that he did not believe it. Whether or not it is innocuous, the sentiments behind it are shared throughout the House and by the Government. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for seeking to achieve his objective, but I chastise him a little for slightly misrepresenting—totally accidentally—my argument in my opening remarks.
  I did not seek to say—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give the House the impression that I did—that the merit principle alone would resolve the problem. That was why I intervened on the hon. Member for Cheadle. We cannot debate this issue except in the context of the Bill. The whole of part 1, which is extensive, detailed and ground-breaking in terms of United Kingdom legislation, is designed to achieve a detailed and important infrastructure to ensure a transparent, open appointments system that allows those of merit to move into high judicial office, and other judicial office, in Northern Ireland.
  To claim that I am saying to the House, directly or by implication, that if we have faith in the merit principle, it will deliver, is to misunderstand entirely the Government's position and mine as the Minister responsible. The review accepted that change, modernisation and a new structure were needed, and the objective of that new structure was the very one that the hon. Gentleman seeks. We want to attain that shared objective by the use of the merit principle in the context of that infrastructure.
  Mr. Mallon: I sincerely apologise if I have misrepresented the Minister's words in any way. I did not intend to. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that I did not, but we shall leave that to further judgment.
  I agree with the Minister about the objective—there is no question of any hon. Member being at odds with the Government about that. Surely the best way to set about achieving an objective is to put it in the legislation rather than leave it floating in the ether, hoping that some of it will stick.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that when he checks the Official Report tomorrow, he will discover that my recollection of what I think he said inadvertently is correct. However, we can now move on in the spirit in which we have debated these matters.
  Mr. Bill Tynan(Hamilton, South) rose—
  Mr. Browne: Let me first expand on my point. There is a shared objective—and a shared sentiment—but a debate about how best to achieve it. The Government have firmly nailed their colours to the mast of the review's recommendations, and we endeavour to follow them as closely as possible. There will always be a difference of opinion about whether the recommendations have been properly translated into legislation. I accept that there is room for debate at the margins. However, the review recommended in elaborate detail an open and transparent

  55
  Structure to apply the merit principle—by which the Government have set their stock—to the appointment of the judiciary,
  Mr. Tynan: There is a deep feeling that using the merit principle alone will exclude the possibility of a truly representative judiciary in Northern Ireland. On the basis of the argument that has been put, would it not be wise to give comfort to those who feel so strongly about the issue that they have tabled this amendment?
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position further. 1 think I have made it clear in Committee and in the House on more than one occasion that I have faith in the review body's recommendations, but it is important to recognise that the review body dealt with the issue of the reflectiveness of the judiciary, as submissions were made on the matter.
  As hon. Members including the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh have pointed out, recommendations 69, 89, 90, 91 and 92 deal with aspects of the issue raised in the amendment. Including aspirations in the Bill—my arguments have not been accepted, but there is merit in them—may accidentally have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman seeks. The innocuousness of the amendment may mask that problem, and the judiciary may be dragged directly into issues of political balance as a result. The contribution of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) may be a forerunner to such a debate if we start to use such descriptive nouns collectively or individually in relation to judges.
  Instead of depending on a statement of principle, as I am being urged to do, the Government set out their response to the recommendations on page 40 of their implementation plan. That response is to accept those recommendations: to accept that the Northern Ireland court service should take the lead responsibility in delivering them, and to set out in general terms what steps would be taken to achieve the objectives set out in the recommendations. Our response is not one of inactivity but of taking the issues forward in exactly the way that the review recommended.
  Mr. Garnier: I was interested in the Minister's criticism of putting aspirations into the Bill, which is exactly the line of argument that I deployed against him when we considered clause 53 and the aims of the youth justice system. He took a different view then, but I shall not detain the House on that point.
  The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asks for a quota system, but one cannot have justice by quota system. One can have justice only by having dispassionate judges applying the law. The hon. Gentleman simply wants to include in the Bill his aspirations and political hopes concerning the appointment of the judiciary, rather than applying his mind to the real issue of how best to ensure that judges apply the legislation presented to them by the House and the common law.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution. He is a paid-up member of the school of thought that there should never be a statement
  56
  of principle in any piece of legislation. Other hon. Members in Committee and in the House always want statements of principle, and would be happy to replace all specific legislation with a series of such statements. I am happy to occupy the middle ground. When principles are appropriate and serve a purpose, they can be included. When they do not serve a purpose and they are just hot air, there is no point in including them. However, when there is potential for statements of principle to pose a danger—for the reasons pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman—it is better not to include them.
  The Government's argument is that the appropriate way to respond to the review commission's recommendations is to legislate when there are good and persuasive arguments for legislation. That point applies to the whole of part 1. However, when issues such as reflectiveness are better addressed in other more practical ways, we should move to take other steps. I think that our position is sustainable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  6 pm

Schedule 1

  LISTED JUDICIAL OFFICES
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 71, line 9, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 110, 7 to 15 and 132.
  Amendment No. 16, in clause 15, page 10, line 31, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Government amendment No. 133.
  Amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 32, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  Amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 33, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  Government amendment No. 134.
  Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 34, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Government amendment No. 135.
  Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 37, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Government amendment No. 136.
  Amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 38, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 39, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Government amendment No. 137.

  57
  Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 2, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  Government amendments Nos. 24 to 26, 141, 149 and 164.
  Mr. Browne: These amendments relate to the Bill's provisions to rename resident magistrates as "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)".
  Essentially, there is only one substantive amendment in this group and that is amendment No. 110, which deletes clause 9, thereby retaining the title of "resident magistrate". The rest of the group are consequential on that. Reversion to the title of "resident magistrate" was suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in Committee and the proposal was supported by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am grateful to both for their contribution in that debate.
  The Bill's provisions follow the review recommendation that was intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. The review group concluded that the term "resident" had no meaning or relevance in the modern context. These arguments, as with the other recommendations of the review, have some merit.
  However, I have also listened to the view raised in the two consultation periods on the review. During the consultation exercise, the Resident Magistrates Association opposed the name change, pointing to the long history of the resident magistrate in Northern Ireland and, before that, in Ireland more generally. It is not our intention to cause offence to resident magistrates and remove a name that has been synonymous with effective justice evenly applied over the years. The title "resident magistrate" also has the advantage of being clearly understood and recognised. In addition, the resident magistrates do not feel the need identified by the review to demonstrate that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. That point undermines the reasoning for making the change.
  For these reasons, we have decided that, on balance, the greater merit lies in preserving the title "resident magistrate". I ask that the amendments be approved.
  Mr. Blunt: It is an enormous pleasure to speak to amendments that, last Wednesday and Thursday, stood in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am delighted that the amendments have now received the support of the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
  The debate on this issue was one of the most entertaining in Committee. We were diverted slightly by a discussion of the cultural history of the resident magistrate and of the books and the television series that relate to the post. The Minister and I were characterised as a couple of the protagonists in the stories, but I shall not go down that path as the discussion was not necessarily advantageous to me. I was characterised according to a brief summary rather than detailed knowledge.
  The Minister has listened to the arguments and the House, resident magistrates and all those in Northern Ireland who understand the term "resident magistrate" owe him their thanks. He has been prepared to listen to sensible argument.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is not still of the mind that he had in Committee. It is appropriate to remind the House that,
  58
  in Committee, I read out paragraph 6.142 of the review as a classic example of the bureaucratic tidy mind at work. It is the origin of the recommendation to do away with the historic and well understood name of "resident magistrate" and to replace it with whatever ghastly appellation was thought up. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman was not in Committee when I spoke, but he soon returned to say:
  "It is worth remembering that a strong justification for that exists."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2002; c. 47.]
  He then referred to paragraph 6.142 and read it out again.
  I wish to caution the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to support the bureaucratic tidy mind, he may have a problem. If such a mind gets to work on the policies of the Liberal Democrats with all the inherent contradictions that exist, there might not be much left at the end of the process.
  Lembit Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman continues to insult my party, I warn him that I may read out his speech in its entirety yet again.
  Mr. Blunt: I would be very happy for the House to be so enlightened, but I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not support the hon. Gentleman through the whole of that process.
  The Minister and I have come at this issue from separate directions, which is why several of the amendments that I tabled on Wednesday now appear with the Secretary of State's name attached to them. However, one or two of them do not have his name attached to them, and, although I condemned the bureaucratic tidy mind a moment ago, I am slightly concerned about the bureaucratic tidiness of the exercise. For example, I draw the Minister's attention to what is now Government amendment No. 132 and amendment No. 16. The difference between those amendments appears to be whether the term "resident magistrate" should take capital letters in the way that it normally does in the Bill.
  It has also struck me that there were one or two minor complications with the Government's approach. I imagine that the Minister will ask me to withdraw the amendments that are in my name and those of my hon. Friends alone on the assumption that the Secretary of State's approach is utterly comprehensive. In an effort to ensure that the exercise that I undertook was thoroughly comprehensive, I called upon the assistance of servants of the House in drawing up my amendments. I do not want to pay disrespect to them, but I will accede to the request that I assume that the Minister will make. However, I suspect that the servants of the House may be right on one or two matters that the Minister and his officials may have got wrong. That point may best be settled over a small wager in one of the bars of the House.
  Mr. Browne: Unfortunately, as I am never in the bars of the House, I will not be able to have that wager with the hon. Gentleman. He anticipates my advice, which is that the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State will be comprehensive in their effect. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, such matters are constantly reviewed and reconsidered so, if my advice turns out to be wrong, there will be an opportunity to correct things.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I will therefore not press the amendments to a

  59
  vote. However, the provisions are worth checking and, if it is necessary to get them technically correct, it might be appropriate to do that in another place.
  The debate on this issue—particularly the one held in Committee—and the way in which the Minister has listened to the representations made to him is an exemplar of how the House should go about its business. The friendly tone of the debate was not what many people outside the House expect from legislators with different philosophical views and from different parties. I think that we have come to the right answer. I am glad that the Government support the amendments that we originally tabled, and of course we will support them.
  Mr. Mallon: I am against the amendment for three reasons. First, the review body was to the point:
  "We recommend that legislation be passed to redesignate resident magistrates as district judges"—
  full stop, clear, sharp and unambiguous. The recommendation was
  "intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary."
  It is an inherent, working part of the judiciary, not some quaint adjunct to it that lives on in literary nostalgia. That is an important point.
  The second reason is that the term "resident" has its origins in the 19th century, when there were particular reasons for wanting office holders to live in the district where they held office. The review makes that point, and there are interesting reasons for it. In the 19th century, it was difficult to live in parts of rural Ireland, north and south. That coincided with what became known as the famine, when the population of Ireland went from 8 million to 4 million.
  That was not the only reason why the term "resident magistrate" was introduced. It was also to ensure that during that period those living in the country were available to dispense law. I do not mean living in the area or the region, but in the country of Ireland, however it is designated. What is the relevance of the term "resident" as of now? The review says:
  "It has no meaning or relevance in the modern context."
  Charming though it may be in Somerville and Ross and the Irish RM television programmes, it is not the folk experience of many. I am against the amendment for those two important reasons.
  The third reason is that we are involved in change, which will help to provide confidence in and a new beginning for criminal justice in Northern Ireland. To some the term "resident magistrate" has the air of big house justice about it: justice dispensed on the community, not from within it. The term may have been appropriate at some time, but I believe that it is inappropriate now. That is a much more important consideration than the fondness that "resident magistrates" have for their traditional name. I fully understand that they like to be known as RMs, because if the legislation stands as the Government have written it, they will be known as DJs, and that would not be quite the same.
  6.15 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I feel betrayed by the Government on these amendments. I shall not read out paragraph 6.142 of the review again, as it can be read twice within two pages of the Official Report of the Standing Committee. I defended what I thought was the Government's position only to be betrayed and have the political rug pulled from under my feet by the Minister. who decided to support the Conservatives after all. I have smarted from that, because although the Government have been persuaded by the Conservatives, like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) I have not. It would be a bridge too far for me to flit like a flag in the wind merely because the Minister has decided that the hon. Member for Reigate was correct and has followed him down this path.
  As I said in Committee, the serious point concerns symbolism. Symbolism can appear anywhere and can be interpreted in any way that people choose. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has made the substantive point on this subject. I do not think that it is the core issue in the Bill, but I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance and consolation at this difficult time, because like him we feel somewhat betrayed by the Minister. However, we shall find it in our hearts to hate the sin and love the sinner.
  Mr. Garnier: Debates on Northern Ireland are littered and all too frequently larded with expressions such as "betrayal", and it is wholly inappropriate for the debate on this clause to be concerned with betrayals. The fact that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland has been wrong-footed does not constitute a betrayal, although I congratulate him on being in Committee rather more often than the Prime Minister is in the House of Commons, which in both cases is not very often.
  The issue is not about 19th century big house justice.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Of course it is.
  Mr. Garnier: Simply to shout back "Of course it is" is not an argument, especially from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is worried about acronyms and about RM reminding people of 19th century big house justice. DJ may to youngsters such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North mean disc jockey, but to those more familiar with the big house it may mean dinner jacket, so I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is getting much further.
  Mr. Pound: What is a dinner jacket?
  Mr. Garnier: Something worn by waiters.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sorry to return to this point, but I think I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman imply that my attendance in the House was not very frequent. He may be interested to know that according to a Plaid Cymru survey I was the Member of Parliament who made the most speeches and the most interventions from anywhere in Wales.
  Mr. Browne: What about from here?
  Lembit Öpik: From the House. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments were meant in jest, not to cause offence.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sure that plenty of sheep in Montgomeryshire make more noise and more sense than

  61
  the hon. Gentleman, but there we are. The point I made was not about his attendance in the House, about which I know very little, but about his attendance in the Standing Committee. However, on the few occasions that he was present, he made extremely valuable contributions.
  Let me come to the only serious point that I want to make on these amendments, in addition to congratulating the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Government and the official Opposition on their ability to agree something. In the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Government changed the designation of stipendiary magistrates to "district judges (magistrates courts) " for a number of reasons, one of which was that the old stipendiary magistrates wanted to be redesignated as district judges. The Government are being consistent and are listening to the judicial officers in Northern Ireland, who want to remain as resident magistrates. Why disappoint or annoy them when there are plenty of other more important and interesting matters to discuss.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely not implying that the Government should satisfy the whim of the resident magistrates. The Government should implement a system of criminal justice based on the recommendations of the criminal justice review, which is quite clear on the matter. They should listen to the views of the people whom they represent, and those of the resident magistrates should not take precedence.
  Mr. Garnier: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, up to a point, but let him answer this point if he will. He says that the review recommendation is clear, sharp and right. I take a different view; it is clear, sharp and wrong. He may wish to push the matter to a vote and it could be tested in that way, but that would not be a terribly useful exercise of our time and I hope that he does not do so. He and I have different views. So be it.
  Lady Hermon: On a number of occasions in Committee, the Minister described himself as a Minister who listens to representations. In this example, he has listened to strong representations from resident magistrates and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and from me in Committee.
  A lot of the confusion arose, certainly in Committee, over a comparison that was drawn several times. The Patten report is entitled, "A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland", but the criminal justice review and the implementing legislation are there to modernise the criminal justice system in the biggest shake-up in 30 years by making it more transparent and more accountable and by modernising it. That does not mean that we must have this new beginning even in language. Changing "resident magistrate" to "district judge" would be a cosmetic exercise, as there will be no change to the functions of resident magistrates. The change is unnecessary and I am delighted that the Minister has listened to the representations.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 71, line 10, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 3
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]
Schedule 2

  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 174, in page 75, line 12, leave out "lay member or" and insert—
  'member of the Commission and, unless he is a lay member,'.— [Mr. Browne.]
  Amendment proposed: No. 169, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
  '(8A) Without prejudice to subsection (8), the Commission must, as far as practicable, exercise its functions to select persons to be appointed or recommended for appointment in order to secure that the judiciary is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Mallon.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 302.

  Division No. 176]

  [6.23 pm

  ayes

  Allan, Richard

  McNamara, Kevin

  Baker, Norman

  Mallon, Seamus

  Beggs, Roy

  Pugh, Dr John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Rendel, David

  Breed, Colin

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

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

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Stunell, Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Tyler, Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Webb, Steve

  Doughty, Sue

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Willis, Phil

  Heath, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hume, John

  Lembit Öpik and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Eddie McGrady.

  noes

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Austin, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bryant, Chris

  Baird, Vera

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Burnham, Andy

  Beard, Nigel

  Burnside, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cairns, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Best, Harold

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Betts, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Blackman, Liz

  Caplin, Ivor

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Casale, Roger

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Caton, Martin

  63

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Challen, Colin

  Heyes, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Chaytor, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles(Norwich S)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hurst, Alan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cohen, Harry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coleman, lain

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cooper, Yvette

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dobbin, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lepper, David

  Doran, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Farrelly, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Lucas, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Luff, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Luke, lain

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  McFall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Garnier, Edward

  McKechin, Ann

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gilroy, Linda

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mann, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marris, Rob

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hendrick, Mark

  Miliband, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Miller, Andrew

  64

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mortey, Elliot

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Spink, Bob

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Norris, Dan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stringer, Graham

  Owen, Albert

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tami, Mark

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purchase Ken

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purnell, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  White, Brian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Williams. Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Ross, Ernie

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wills, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wray, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shepherd, Richard

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that there is nothing to prevent a Minister from approaching the Chair, even at this stage in our proceedings, and requesting that a statement be scheduled at the conclusion of our business at 10 o'clock? This is an important Bill, and I could understand Ministers not wanting to interrupt our consideration of it, but you will be aware that here has been some fresh news concerning the suspension on full pay of the head of media at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—a matter referred to by the Secretary of State in his statement last week—and I wondered whether

  65
  you could confirm, to help Ministers, that there is no procedural obstacle to a statement being scheduled for 10 o'clock, to keep the House informed of developments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The right hon. Gentleman has been helpful in setting out that point, and there is very little that I can add, other than that the Speaker would have to be consulted about any such arrangement.

Schedule 3

  APPOINTMENT TO LISTED JUDICIAL OFFICES
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 77, line 8, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  No. 6, in page 77, line 11, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".—[Mr. Browne.]
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 77, line 23, leave out "expenses" and insert "salaries".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 155.
  Mr. Browne: Post devolution of criminal justice, determination of judicial salaries is to remain an excepted matter, but the remuneration will be paid from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund rather than the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. Paragraph 10 of the schedule amends section 168(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, which provides for the payment of salaries to resident magistrates. The original drafting of the paragraph referred to the payment of "expenses" being transferred from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The amendment, which is technical, reflects the fact that the payment of salaries will be transferred by the Bill.
  Amendment No. 155, which is also technical, provides for removal of the revocation of section 75(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which deals with the appointment of the official solicitor. Post devolution, it is intended that the office of official solicitor will be removed from the list of statutory officers in schedule 3 to the 1978 Act, as the status of the statutory officer will be confined to posts of an inherently judicial character. The official solicitor post is not of that character.
  The removal will be achieved by subordinate legislation, which is the point of the amendment. In anticipation of that change. It is necessary to retain section 75(1) of the 1978 Act, which provides for the official solicitor's appointment by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. As drafted, the Bill did not achieve that objective, and this technical amendment is designed to put that right. That is what it achieves and I commend it to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 82, line 23, leave out "subsections (2) and (11)" and insert "subsection (2)".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 107 to 109.
  66
  Amendment No. 33, in clause 10, page 8, line 6, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert—
  'First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
  Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 9, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Lord Chief Justice".
  Amendment No. 31, in page 8, line 9, leave out from "Chancellor" to end of line 12.
  Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
  Amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 17, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert—
  'First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
  Amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
  '() No order under this section may be made without the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.'.
  Amendment No. 74. in page 8, line 27, after "body", insert "or".
  Amendment No. 71, in page 8, line 30, leave out from "creditors" to end of line 31.
  Amendment No. 43, in page 8, leave out lines 32 and 33.
  Amendment No. 72, in page 8, line 34, leave out—
  "'Prescribed" means Prescribed in the Order'
  and insert—
  'Notwithstanding subsections (4) and (5), a person shall be disqualified from appointment as a lay magistrate if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of a criminal offence'.
  Amendment No. 37, in page 8, line 41, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Lord Chief Justice".
  Amendment No. 73, in page 8, line 41, at end insert—
  '10A The Lord Chancellor must remove any Lay Magistrate from Office if they have at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of a criminal offence.'.
  Amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 42, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert—
  'First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly'.
  Amendment No. 39, in page 8, line 42, leave out "he" and insert "they".
  Amendment No. 40, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
  'out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly'.
  Government amendments Nos. 111 to 118.
  Amendment No. 41, in schedule 4, page 83, line 43, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Lord Chief Justice".
  Government amendment No. 119.
  Amendment No. 42, in page 84, line 5, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Lord Chief Justice".
  Government amendments Nos. 120 to 122, 124, 123, 125 to 130 and 156 to 163.
  Mr. Browne: The amendments are technical and concern the role and functions of lay magistrates. The criminal justice review recognised the role lay people could play in the justice process. It did not recommend major changes, but proposed removing residual criminal justice functions from justices of the peace, while consolidating the role of the new category of lay magistrates. Of course, as hon. Members know, the position of lay magistracy in Northern Ireland is rather different from that in England and Wales. England and

  67
  Wales have a small number of stipendiary magistrates, but professional resident magistrates in Northern Ireland are the norm rather than the exception. Lay people continue to have a role in the system, however, notably by participating in youth courts.
  Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 reorder the Bill to make it clear that when responsibility for paying allowances to lay magistrates transfers to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister under devolution, they must act jointly.
  Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which are technical and consequential to an amendment made in Committee, require that order-making powers relating to community safety be subject to affirmative resolution. As a result, on devolution, an order made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister concerning eligibility to be a lay a magistrate must be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly. Order-making powers relating to community safety will remain subject to scrutiny in Westminster.
  Amendment No. 111 allows the Lord Chief Justice, lord justices of appeal, High Court judges and county court judges to exercise all the functions of a lay magistrate. Currently, all those judicial offices are ex officio justices of the peace, and as such they can exercise all the functions attaching to those offices. Given that the majority of criminal justice functions will transfer from JPs to lay magistrates, we want to ensure that the judicial offices that I have mentioned can exercise the functions that will be transferred to lay magistrates.
  Amendment No. 112 reflects the review's recognition of the important role that lay persons fulfil in the justice system. The new office of lay magistrate will assume most of the functions currently performed by justices of the peace and members of the juvenile court lay panel, and will be a listed judicial office as defined in schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment is technical and defines the range and nature of functions to be transferred from justices of the peace to the new office of lay magistrate.
  6.45 pm
  In the main, those functions, which are currently performed by justices of the peace, relate to hearing complaints and first remands in special courts, with a view to issuing warrants and summonses. The amendment also identifies a number of related and ancillary powers arising from those functions. Schedule 4, which contains amendments consequential on the clauses relating to lay magistrates, deals with those functions in more specific terms. I should point out that lay magistrates will also perform certain other functions currently undertaken by lay panellists in the youth and family proceedings courts. They are of course addressed by clause 12.
  Amendment No. 163 is consequential on amendment No. 112. It will amend clause 89 and include the Lord Chancellor's order-making power under clause 11(2)(b), thereby ensuring that it is subject to scrutiny by both Houses.
  I have been asked to address amendment No. 123 in particular. The definition of a court of record in the relevant section is used for the purpose of conferring a power to bind over. Magistrates courts already have specific power to bind over by virtue of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, so there is no need
  68
  for the definition in schedule 4 to include a magistrates court. The provision is unnecessary and would constitute a duplication.
  Opposition amendments Nos. 31 to 41—which would transfer powers from the Lord Chancellor to the First Minister, Deputy First Minister or Lord Chief Justice—may be based on a misconception. They were tabled in Committee, and for reasons that I shall come to shortly, I am slightly disappointed to see them again. I gave a lengthy explanation in Committee, on being asked to do so, of how the Bill's provisions are intended to work before and after devolution.
  Clause 10 deals with the position before devolution, when the power will remain with the Lord Chancellor. Post devolution, the same appointment and removal provisions as apply to the lay magistracy will apply to other judicial tiers. At that point, responsibility will transfer from the Lord Chancellor to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by means of a transfer of functions order under section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
  On turning to schedule I, hon. Members will notice that the office of lay magistrate is included in the list of judicial offices which, on devolution, are subject to the Judicial Appointments Commission and removal tribunals. For that reason, and in the light of the lengthy explanation that I gave in Committee—the House would not thank me for repeating it—I ask that amendments Nos. 31 to 41 be withdrawn.
  Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 would give the Lord Chief Justice an order-making power—which the Bill currently gives the Lord Chancellor—to amend any provision relating to the transfer of functions of the justice of the peace. I am fascinated by the idea of an order-making power exercisable by a judge, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on this exciting constitutional innovation, particularly in the light of the need for parliamentary scrutiny of provisions at the highest level. However, I doubt whether the British constitution is quite ready for it.
  The review recommended that the criminal justice functions of the justice of the peace be undertaken by the new office of lay magistrate. The Bill accordingly sets out the likely qualification requirements for that post. Amendment No. 43 would remove the Lord Chancellor's discretion in applying those qualifications. The Lord Chancellor has, and will continue to have, that discretion in making justice of the peace appointments in England and Wales.
  If the amendment were accepted, the Lord Chancellor would be unable, for example, to appoint as lay magistrate an otherwise excellent candidate who lived five miles beyond a prescribed distance outside the county court division in question. Although it is important that lay magistrates reside in, or work in, their county court division, it is surely possible for hon. Members to envisage situations in which that might not be the case. Would they want to lose such a person's expertise? Flexibility is a vital part of any eligibility criteria, but the amendment would remove it. I therefore ask that it be withdrawn.
  Amendments Nos. 74, 72 and 71 would remove conviction of a prescribed offence as a potential bar to being appointed as a lay magistrate and replace it with conviction of a criminal offence—any criminal offence.

  69
  In addition, amendment No. 73 includes a removal provision, requiring the Lord Chancellor to remove a lay magistrate if he has been convicted of a criminal offence. It is worth noting that there are currently no absolute bars to people with convictions being appointed as a judge in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland. The review made it clear that lay magistrates should be considered part of the judiciary. It would therefore be contrary to the spirit of the review to impose a higher standard on lay magistrates than on other judicial tiers.
  In any case, the amendments are unnecessary. I am not convinced of the case for lifting the potential bar on individuals convicted of a prescribed offence and replacing it with the much wider power to remove anyone guilty of a criminal offence. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor would have to remove from office an otherwise excellent appointee who had been convicted of a minor motoring offence.
  Lady Hermon: Could the Minister explain why the disqualification of someone who has a criminal conviction from sitting as a lay magistrate is not justified, when someone who is bankrupt or who has made an arrangement with his trustee or creditors would be ineligible to sit as a lay magistrate? That seems extraordinary.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady will see from the terms of the clause that all those situations would provide reasons to remove a magistrate, but would not require his removal. The earlier part of my argument suggested the need for flexibility, not the imposition of an absolute bar. I do not accept amendments Nos. 71 to 74 because they would mean that an otherwise excellent appointee who had been convicted of a minor motoring offence would have to be removed from office. That would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice. I do not encourage magistrates or judges—or anybody else—to collect minor road traffic offence convictions, but if they were to acquire one it would not be an appropriate reason to remove them from office. That includes the offence of careless driving, the mens rea for which is carelessness, not deliberate action.
  Lady Hermon: I noted the comparative treatment of those of an equivalent status in the rest of the United Kingdom. I obtained the latest copy of the directions for advisory committees on justices of the peace from the Library—it is from July 1991, so it may have been updated—and it makes it clear that in the case of serious offences the Lord Chancellor must be informed immediately. The justice must not sit to adjudicate from the time of arrest to first appearance, and there is an expectation that the justice would resign after any further conviction for a serious offence. We can therefore make a comparative analysis with the position elsewhere.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady is right, and I have prayed in aid references to jurisdictions other than that of Northern Ireland. She is also right to say that the repeated commission of serious offences should lead to the consideration of the appropriateness and suitability of a person for judicial office, even if only as justice of the peace. However, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady is able to cite documents on the position in England and
  70
  Wales, we seek to do exactly the same in Northern Ireland. We seek to apply the flexibility of the system in England and Wales to Northern Ireland.
  My objection to the removal provision and the potential bar that the hon. Lady seeks is that it would be absolute and apply at the level of a very minor road traffic offence. I argue, with some merit, that that would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice.
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: We had a similar debate in Committee on the issue of court security officers and whether any offence, perhaps relatively insignificant, should debar a person from employment. Could the Minister confirm that if the amendments were passed they would mean that a person could be debarred from being a lay magistrate but could, for example, be in charge of education in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate, which is not about education or the structure of the Executive in Northern Ireland. My points are relevant to the Bill. I have addressed the issues raised by the amendments and it would not be in order to expand the debate into the qualifications necessary to be the Minister of Education or any other Minister in Northern Ireland. The Bill as drafted provides sufficient powers for the Lord Chancellor to exclude persons who have been convicted of prescribed offences, and I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
  Amendments Nos. 113 to 130 and 156 to 162 are of a technical nature and are consequential on clauses 10 to 12, dealing with justices of the peace and lay magistrates. They make specific textual amendments to a wide range of current legislation to ensure that the existing powers of justices of the peace are transferred either to lay magistrates or to resident magistrates. I do not think that the House would thank me for going into further detail.
  We do not of course intend to remove the office of justice of the peace. Justices of the peace will continue in office and perform several important civic and ceremonial functions, which are also included in clause 4.
  Mr. Blunt: This may not be a debate about education, but it could be, because the issues are technical and difficult. The Minister complains that he might repeat arguments that he made in Committee about which issues devolve and which do not, but those hon. Members not privileged to have served on the Committee would benefit from his instruction and education on the matter. One or two issues are still outstanding in relation to the surviving role of the Lord Chancellor, if any.
  I invite the Minister's explanation on one of the areas of complication, which I shall illustrate for him. Schedule 3, paragraph 41(1), would amend section 10 by substituting for the phrase "Lord Chancellor" the words
  "First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly".
  That would be the effect of amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. I am confused about why those provisions appear in schedule 3, and in the Government's amendments to widen them, but do not appear automatically on the face of the Bill in the provisions under which justice will be devolved. I would be grateful for the Minister's explanation on that point.
  The Minister is looking confused, and well he might. My simple question is why those provisions, which relate to earlier parts of the Bill, appear in the schedule when—

  71
  I presume—they would come into force automatically under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 when the functions are devolved. That was the burden of the Minister's argument in Committee on devolution functions.
  7 pm
  The Miniter did not deal with amendments Nos. 31 and 32, which concern the requirement for training courses to be completed before the appointment of lay magistrates. The Bill simply requires those appointed to have given an undertaking that they will attend such a course. I am not sure that is good enough: I think that those appointed should have completed the course, because that would show not just that they were committed to becoming lay magistrates by undertaking the necessary training but that there was no danger of their adopting the role of lay magistrate before being properly trained. The very undertaking of the course will show up any inherent problems.
  I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, but I invite the Government to consider it. If the Minister cannot respond now, perhaps he will table amendments in another place if he thinks it appropriate for people to be trained before becoming lay magistrates.
  The Minister has, I think, dealt with amendment No. 36, and the issue of funding. I accept his arguments about amendment No.43, although I may wish to discuss them further, but I want him to clarify what he said about amendment No. 37. This is a technical matter. Will the Minister confirm that, following the devolution of justice, it will be the Lord Chief Justice who can remove lay magistrates from office rather than the Lord Chancellor? I understand that to be the case, but I should be grateful for confirmation. Similarly, I should like confirmation, in the context of amendment No. 42, that the Lord Chancellor's role will not remain after the devolution of justice.
  This is a difficult and technical area, and I freely admit that I have struggled to understand it precisely. The Minister may feel a trifle impatient at having to explain it again, but if we are to undertake this role in an area in which there appear to be innate contradictions, we as legislators should surely understand the issues before passing the proposals.
  Lady Hermon: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 74, 71, 72 and 73. I can count, but that is the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
  I am very unhappy with the Minister's response to interventions—especially after hearing him explain Government amendment No. 112, which involves a considerable increase in the powers and functions of lay magistrates. I must say that we had not anticipated such a proposal. The functions concerned include
  "issuing a warrant or summons"
  and
  "remanding an accused who has not previously been remanded for the offence".
  I could go on, but I will not. The point is that we have significantly extended the powers of lay magistrates.
  The House has already passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. It refers to members of district policing partnerships which, for goodness' sake, have only
  72
  advisory and consultative powers; they are not involved in judicial or criminal justice functions. It firmly disqualifies a person from independent membership of a district policing partnership if he has at any time been convicted, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, of an offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not.
  The present position is ludicrous. Someone who would have advisory and consultative powers in a DPP cannot become an independent member of a DPP if he has committed a criminal offence. We are told by the Minister, however, that a lay magistrate will not be disqualified for minor criminal offences.
  Mr. Browne: The offence specified in the 2000 Act is far more serious than the sort of offence that the hon. Lady seeks to incorporate in the Bill. It attracts either a suspended sentence or a prison sentence.
  Lady Hermon: The Minister makes a good point, in that an offence attracting a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, is clearly serious; but we are talking about people who are responsible for the administration and carrying out of criminal justice functions.
  We have a criminal justice review, whose aims were stated in the Belfast agreement. One of those aims was the production of a criminal justice scheme that had
  "the confidence of all parts of the community".
  How can people have confidence in the new office of lay magistrate when, under clause 10, the Lord Chancellor may make provision about the eligibility for appointment of lay magistrates? Subsection (5) states that "in particular" orders will provide
  "that a person may not be appointed to be a lay magistrate"
  if, for example,
  "a bankruptcy order has been made against him, or his estate has been sequestrated, or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors"
  Or
  "if he has been convicted of a prescribed offence".
  "Prescribed" is defined as meaning
  "prescribed in an order issued by the Lord Chancellor".
  It seems extraordinary that, although the new office of lay magistrate involves dramatically increased powers, there is no equivalent disqualification of those with criminal convictions, although those who go bankrupt will be ineligible. I hope that I am wrong about this, and I hope the Minister will correct me.
  Mr. Browne: Let me first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
  The purpose of amendment No. 112 is to describe the functions of justices of the peace that are being transferred to lay magistrates. That transfer was always intended. It was recommended by the review, and it is what the Bill seeks to achieve. The amendment's aim is simply to set the functions in statute, rather than to confer more powers on anyone, in terms of judicial functions, than was always intended and made clear in the Bill. These functions have never been set out before.
  Both in Committee and today, the hon. Lady and I have discussed her attempts to include in the Bill a number of counsels of perfection in relation to behaviour.

  73
  Our debates have been energetic, and the hon. Lady has pursued them consistently and appropriately, but I think I have dealt with the issues that she has raised. She seeks to create circumstances in which I think it would be almost impossible to persuade anyone to take on the job of lay magistrate. If people were to be automatically removed from the job after being convicted of careless driving, with all the attendant publicity, it would surely be difficult for them to accept the post.
  I accept that certain types of offence should exclude people, and the Bill reflects that. In other circumstances, however, there must be a degree of flexibility. People can accumulate criminal records and convictions for comparatively minor behaviour. We drive motor vehicles; we have a statutory structure, built up over the years, to protect people, but also to generate circumstances in which such matters as insurance can be resolved.
  I cannot put the arguments to the hon. Lady better than I have already. I know that they disappoint her, but I do not think that it would work if any minor offence automatically barred people from such a position or removed them from it, particularly when judges higher up the judicial ladder, carrying out functions that were far more important and onerous, could have committed just such an offence.
  I turn finally to the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). The reason for my puzzlement in this very technical area is that I accept that sometimes it takes more than one saying to get the point across. It must have been my fault, but I did not at first understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It was not that I did not know the answer—I did not even know whether I knew the answer as I did not understand the point. However, I think that I have encapsulated his first point in my head and that I understand the answer.
  The hon. Gentleman wanted to know why the provisions in paragraph 41 of schedule 3 are not in the body of the Bill. As he rightly identified, the provisions are intended to enable the necessary changes to be made when devolution takes place. They could have been put in the main part of the Bill but if they had been, they would have to be capable of being read in two different ways—pre and post-devolution. Alternatively, they could have been implemented under an order under section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as we have discussed before. On this occasion, however, the draftsman chose to incorporate these provisions under paragraph 41 of schedule 3, which will become effective post-devolution.
  The hon. Gentleman's other substantive question was who could dismiss the judicial office holders post-devolution. It would be the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Will he address amendments Nos. 31 and 32 about the need for lay magistrates to be trained before they are appointed?
  Mr. Browne: I am afraid that this comes down to the old flexibility argument again. It is difficult to predict at this stage exactly what the demand will be for lay magistrates. If they are to be trained, we might not be able to train them all at the same time. We need a degree of flexibility.
  I accept the merit in the hon. Gentleman's argument and I hope that once the original difficulties are seen through and the change takes place, the norm will be that
  74
  people will not exercise this function until they have been trained to do so. However, I cannot guarantee, in all situations, that the demand for lay magistracy and magistrates courts hearings will be such that they can be serviced in a transitional period, and flexibility will be required. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and will bear it in mind. We have been able to do something about a situation when we looked at the figures in more detail on previous occasions and I will consider whether that is possible in this respect.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 107, in page 82, line 24, at end insert—
  '(4) In subsection (5), for "Lord Chancellor otherwise determines" substitute "First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, otherwise determine".
  (5) In subsection (11)—

  (a) for "Lord Chancellor" substitute "First Minister and deputy First Minister", and

  (b) for "he may" substitute "they may jointly".'.

  No. 108, in page 82, line 25, leave out from beginning to "(within" in line 27 and insert—

  '(1) Section 89 is amended as follows.

  (2) After subsection (1) insert—

  "(1A) An order under section 10(4) shall be subject to affirmative resolution".'.
  No. 109, in page 82, line 28, at end insert—
  '(3) In subsection (3), omit "10(4) or".'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 9
  RENAMING OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES
  Amendment made: No. 110, in page 7, line 24, leave out Clause 9.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 10

  LAY MAGISTRATES
  Amendment made: No. 111, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
  '(11 A) The Lord Chief Justice, Lords Justices of Appeal, judges of the High Court and county court judges may exercise any function of a lay magistrate (in relation to any matter arising within any county court division).'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 11

  TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
  Amendments made: No. 112, in page 9, line 10, leave out from "from" to end of line 14 and insert—
  'a function to which subsection (2A) applies.
  (2A) This subsection applies to—

  (a) any function of issuing a warrant or summons,

  (b) any function of remanding an accused who has not previously been remanded for the offence,

  (c) any function of ordering a person to enter into a recognisance to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour,

  (d) the function of committal under section 21 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 29 (NI)) (offence during suspended sentence etc.),

  (e) the function of committal under Article 5 of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/226 (N.I. 4)) (offence after early discharge),

  75

  (f) any function relating to perjury, misbehaviour or failure to testify in proceedings before a lay magistrate exercising any function to which this subsection applies,

  (g) any function relating to adjournment of, or any other ancillary matter concerning, such proceedings,

  (h) the function of granting a criminal aid certificate in respect of a person where the lay magistrate is dealing, or has previously dealt, with him by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (f), and

  (i) the function of granting a criminal aid certificate in relation to an appeal against anything done by a lay magistrate by virtue of paragraph (c) or (f).

  (2B) The Lord Chancellor may by order amend subsection (2A).'.
  No. 7, in page 9, line 18, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".—
  No. 113, in page 82, line 35, at end insert—
  '(za) sections 79 and 80 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c. 27) (appointment and dismissal of harbour police),'.
  No. 114, in page 82, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
  No. 115, in page 83, line 2, at end insert—
  '(ca) section 23(1) of the Government Annuities Act 1929 (c. 29) (confirmation of declaration),'.
  No. 116, in page 83, line 14, at end insert—
  '(ha) section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (appointment and swearing in of constables),
  (hb) section 1(2)(c) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4) (declaration by members of Ministry of Defence police force),'.
  No. 117, in page 83, line 34, after "peace" insert "or magistrates" courts".
  No. 8, in page 83, line 35, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  No. 118, in page 83, line 41, at end insert—
  '(c) Article 44 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)).'.
  No. 119, in page 84, line 2, leave out—
  'which confers or imposes a function on justices of the peace'.
  No. 9, in page 84, line 11, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  No. 10, in page 84, line 15, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  No. 120, in page 84, line 24, at end insert—

  '8A In section 26(4) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (NI)) (administration of oaths), after "upon a" insert "lay magistrate or".

  8B In section 189(1) of the Army Act 1955 (c. 18) (certificates of arrest or surrender of deserters and absentees), after "justice of the peace" insert "or (in Northern Ireland) resident magistrate".

  8C In section 189(1) of the Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19) (certificates of arrest or surrender of deserters and absentees), after "justice of the peace" insert "or (in Northern Ireland) resident magistrate".

  8D In section 47(2) and 110(2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53) (certificates of arrest and surrender), after "justice of the peace" insert "or (in Northern Ireland) resident magistrate".'.

  No. 121, in page 84, line 32, at end insert—

  '10A In section 21 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 29 (N.I.)) (offences during suspended sentence etc.), for subsection (2) substitute—

  76

  "(2) A summons under this section shall not be issued except on complaint; and a warrant under this section shall not be issued except on complaint in writing and on oath.

  (2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a summons or warrant issued (by virtue of section 10(11A) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002) by a judge of the Crown Court acting in consequence of a notice under section 20(3) of this Act.".'.

  No. 122, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—

  '(4) After subsection (5) insert—

  "(5A) A justice of the peace for a county court division may act as such in relation to all matters arising within that division and may so act even if at the time of acting he is in some other area of Northern Ireland.".'.

  No. 124, in page 85, line 5, at end insert—
  '13A In Article 84(6) of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1049 (N.I. 19)) (judges and justices not disqualified by being ratepayers etc.), for "and a justice of the peace" substitute ", resident magistrate or lay magistrate".'.
  No. 123, in page 85, line 5, at end insert—
  '(2) A magistrates' court is not to be regarded as a court of record for the purposes of subsection (1).".'.
  No. 11, in page 85, line 23, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  No. 12, in page 85, line 28, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  No. 125, in page 85, line 29, at end insert—
  '19A In Article 7 (clerk's immunity in respect of warrant to enforce order), for "resident magistrate or other justice of the peace" substitute "magistrates' court".'.
  No. 13, in page 85, line 33, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  No. 126, in page 85, line 35, leave out—
  'sitting" substitute "lay magistrate sitting"'
  and insert—
  '"in the words preceding sub-paragraph (a) and in sub-paragraph (b) substitute "lay magistrate", and
  (b) for "or justice of the peace" substitute "or lay magistrate".'.
  No. 127, in page 86, line 2, at end insert—
  ،, and
  (b) for "magistrate, justice or clerk of petty sessions" substitute "person".'.
  No. 128, in page 86, line 4, at end insert—
  ،26A In Article 160(1) (misbehaviour in court), for "justice of the peace" substitute "lay magistrate".'.
  No. 129, in page 86, line 9, at end insert—
  ،28A In section 244(6)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) (community service orders), for "justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions district for the time being specified in the order" substitute "resident magistrate".'.
  No. 130, in page 86, line 17, at end insert—
  '31 In section 81(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (interpretation), after the definition of "interception warrant" insert—
  "justice of the peace" does not include a justice of the peace in Northern Ireland;".'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Schedule 5

  TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 86, line 26, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  No. 131, in page 87, line 20, at end insert—
  '10A In section 75(2)(b) (directions conferring or imposing functions on Official Solicitor), for "Lord Chancellor" substitute "Lord Chief Justice".'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 15

  PRESIDING DISTRICT JUDGE (MAGISTRATES' COURTS)
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 10, line 30, leave out "District Judges (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrates".
  No. 132, in page 10, line 31, leave out—
  'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in Northern Ireland'
  and insert "resident magistrate".
  No. 133, in page 10, line 32, leave out from "other" to end of line 33 and insert—
  'resident magistrates and the deputy resident magistrates.'.
  No. 134, in page 10, line 34, leave out—
  'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in Northern Ireland'
  and insert "resident magistrate".
  No. 135, in page 10, line 37, leave out—
  'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in Northern Ireland'
  and insert "resident magistrate".
  No. 136, in page 10, line 38, leave out from "a" to "pending" in line 40 and insert—
  'resident magistrate to act as Presiding resident magistrate,'.
  No. 137, in page 11, line 2, leave out—
  'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in Northern Ireland'
  and insert "resident magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 19
  QUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 12, line 34, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 20

  JUDICIAL OATH OR AFFIRMATION
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 13, line 22, leave out from "either" to end of line 34 and insert—
  'take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath or make the appropriate affirmation.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 81, in page 13, line 28, leave out "according to" and insert "upholding".
  No. 82, in page 13, line 34, leave out "according to" and insert "upholding".
  Mr. Davies: This is an important amendment but the issues at stake are straightforward and can be simply put. We wish to restore, by means of the amendment,
  78
  the normal oath of allegiance as it is taken by judges elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There are three arguments that the Government have to address with regard to clause 20. I continue to hope that the Government will accept our view that this is a concession too far and will take the opportunity of accepting amendment No. 45 to restore the position. If they do not, they will have clearly defined the differences that separate us. Those are not nuances of differences of emphasis but differences of fundamental principle. Let me set out those three arguments as simply as I can.
  7.15 pm
  The first argument, which I hope the Government will not take issue with, is that oaths are important. They mean something; they are not symbols. Oaths create obligations—that is their purpose. In this case, the oath of allegiance enshrines the fact that justice in this country flows from the Crown. If the Minister does not think that justice flows from the Crown, the onus is on him to tell us where it does flow from. If he wishes to create an ambiguity so that although the position is not as clear as it is today, justice is not deemed to flow from any other source, he must justify that. Ambiguity in legal matters is always problematic and generally undesirable. We positively believe in the principle that justice flows from the Crown and that judges should undertake an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
  The second major issue between us and the Government is that if that principle is right—and it can be right or wrong—it should, by definition, be extended to the whole kingdom. If a principle of justice is right, it is, by definition, right for everybody. What concerns us is not the suggestion that that principle should be set aside, with republicanism introduced into our legal system and the oath of allegiance abolished. That would be a dramatic move by the Government although they have not done that. Instead, they have decided that in most of the country the principle on which our justice is based should continue while in one part of the country that principle should be changed. That is a dubious procedure; it is a discriminatory and partial approach to a fundamental issue.
  This is, by definition, a republican measure. The Government do not want, or do not have the courage—I do not know which it is—to make such a change for the country as a whole, but intend to limit it to one part of the country. That position cannot be sustained—one cannot have a principle that is valid in one part of the country and not elsewhere because a principle, by its nature, is universal and should be applied equally and fairly everywhere.
  Why are the Government doing this? There is no doubt that it is part of an agenda to erode, by stealth, the position of the Province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and that is extremely worrying.
  The Opposition are committed to the Belfast agreement, as are, notionally, the Government. The agreement says clearly that there should be no change in the status of Northern Ireland except by the vote of the people of Northern Ireland. We endorse that utterly. It is wrong and inconsistent with the principle of the Belfast agreement that a change should be effected by stealth in this piecemeal fashion. It is death by a thousand cuts; that is the approach of the Government and it is one that we reject.

  79
  Thirdly, we must look at this move in the context of the Government's general policy towards Northern Ireland, particularly over the last few months. I have characterised that policy—rightly, I am convinced, because the Government have never quarrelled with my definition—as an endless series of one-way concessions, almost all of them simply designed to appease Sinn Fein-IRA, which is just one of the parties to the Belfast agreement and to the peace process.
  I have said over and over again that we believe that is a disastrous approach to implementing the Belfast agreement. If we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, it must be based on a sense of balance and fairness. For the first time ever at the weekend, the Secretary of State—in an "On the Record" interview that I did not see but of which I have seen a transcript—actually recognised that the perception in Northern Ireland is that all of the concessions have been one way, against Unionism. He said:
  "I am aware of the perception that on balance there has been more taken away from Unionists and from those who feel British and given to those who are of an Irish background."
  The Secretary of State is entirely endorsing the analysis that we have made and which we have put before him over the last few months. The balance has been broken in Northern Ireland and there is no sense of fairness. There is simply the sense of a one-way street.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): First, I should thank the hon. Gentleman for telling me what I said; I know, since I am the person who said it. As he will see if he reads further on in the transcript—I had to correct the interviewer in the same way as I am having to correct the hon. Gentleman—I was careful to distinguish between the reality and the perception. I fully acknowledged the perception that the process was imbalanced. Quite wrongly, the hon. Gentleman is using that to justify that it is in fact imbalanced.
  Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State is perfectly right. Anyone reading the transcript can see that, subsequently, the Secretary of State fought desperately to retrieve what he appeared to have given away. I do not doubt that at all. I dare say that, within seconds of mouthing those words, the Secretary of State began to regret them. There is evidence in the interview that that is what he wanted to do.
  The Secretary of State is an experienced politician and he knows that when one is interviewed, one uses terms advisedly. Perhaps he should have thought more carefully about what he was saying. If it was a slip, clearly it was a Freudian slip. It was not a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone; I do not suppose that for a moment. If it was a slip, it was because he was too frank or candid. The Secretary of State is simply acknowledging the position that we have put to him for a long time. It is great progress that even if the Secretary of State has done so by a slip of the tongue or inadvertently, he has acknowledged that position, even in his own mind. Later this evening, we will discuss an instance where it appears that, for once,
  80
  the Secretary of State responded in deed as well as in word to the worrying situation that the Government's tactics have created in Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Reid: I want to help the hon. Gentleman and prevent him from being unintentionally disingenuous with the House. Let me quote my words exactly before and after the interviewer:
  "Secondly, I am aware of the perception that on balance there has been more taken away from Unionists."
  The interviewer says later:
  "Ah, well let's look at the reality."
  There was no slip of the tongue. That is something that I acknowledged not only yesterday, but in a speech six months ago. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard it, but he has often quoted it.
  Mr. Davies: It is obvious that I have touched the Secretary of State on a raw nerve. He is obviously concerned about this quotation, and any hon. Member who wishes to read the whole transcript will see that it is amusing to see how the Secretary of State rowed back from what he said, which was very revealing.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Given the sensitivity surrounding politics in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman think that it is appropriate for a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland to define the success or otherwise of any policy in Northern Ireland by a points system for and against any particular community? Is that really a progressive and sophisticated way to define policy in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say gently to the House that we are not discussing politics in Northern Ireland as a whole, but a particular amendment concerning the judicial oath? I would like to hear further remarks in this debate confined to that.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this concession fits into a general pattern. We care about the implementation of the Belfast agreement, and it is important that if the Opposition are convinced—as, sadly, we are—that the Government's tactics are leading in the wrong direction and away from the aim that we all share, we should draw that to everyone's attention and use our influence to try to redress the position. We are not afraid of saying what we believe should be done. I have never run away from that.
  Lady Hermon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the actual wording of the oath, as set out in clause 20? It says:
  "I…do solemnly and sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will well and faithfully serve in the office…and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will according to the laws and usages of this realm."
  "This realm"—those words are in the Bill. Clearly that is a reference to the United Kingdom. I cannot see how this can be described accurately as, in the hon. Gentleman's language, "a concession".
  Mr. Davies: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady listened to my remarks at the beginning, when I said that there were two ways of interpreting this Government

  81
  initiative. The first is that it reflects a republican agenda and a desire to introduce an element of republicanism and to get rid of the mention of the Crown in our judicial system in parts of the kingdom. That is a bad thing for the reasons that I have set out, and we reject it on principle. The second possible explanation is that the Government have decided to introduce an element of ambiguity and they do not want to be clear.
  Both of those things are wrong and damaging. Ambiguity is extremely bad in judicial matters, and I would have expected the hon. Lady—a distinguished professor of law—in any other context to go along with me on this matter. Difference is bad, because the Government are gratuitously introducing a distinction between the position in the rest of the UK and the position in Northern Ireland. I have rightly described that as an attempt by stealth to indicate that the status of Northern Ireland is different and an attempt by stealth to change it.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way to her because of the lack of time. It is not my fault; it is the fault of the Government and the timetable in the House. Time is limited and she would not thank me were I to prevent her from speaking either in this debate or in debates on the many clauses that we ought to get through before we end our proceedings.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I have given way to Members of the other Unionist party, so I shall be fair to the hon. Gentleman.
  7.30 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman think it strange that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should quote from the Bill a passage that she wishes to change? She has tabled an amendment to change the very thing that she has argued for.
  Mr. Davies: I felt wry amusement and surprise when I heard the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down, but I shall leave her to defend her own comments to the other Northern Ireland parties.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady feels unfairly embattled. To allow her to defend her honour and consistency, I shall give way to her, and, because I wish to be courteous to representatives of every Northern Ireland party, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) later.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's generosity. He said that the clause introduced ambiguity. How, for goodness' sake, can it be ambiguous to specify "this realm"?
  The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has doubtless made a careful reading of my amendment, which will have drawn to his attention the fact that I wish
  82
  to change "according to" to "upholding". I should not have thought that he would object to anyone being required to uphold the law of this realm.
  Mr. Davies: The second part of that intervention was addressed to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and I shall leave it to him to respond.
  The first part was directed at me, and I can only say that I do not believe that when the hon. Lady teaches law in more sober and considered circumstances at the distinguished Queen's university, Belfast, she tells her students that changing a statute from saying one thing to saying something else does not create ambiguity. Any counsel pleading a case will draw the court's attention to the fact that the wording has been changed by Parliament. He will certainly argue that if Parliament had not intended to change matters, Parliament would not have changed the wording. I know perfectly well that that is what the hon. Lady would teach me if I were in her class in Belfast. I am sorry that she thinks that lower standards of intellectual rigour are appropriate in the House of Commons.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way again to the hon. Lady, but will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mallon: This is an interesting family squabble, but may I broaden the debate slightly? The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says that his party is in favour of the Good Friday agreement. In the context of this and other amendments, does he fully agree that
  "parity of esteem and…just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations"
  of the two communities in Northern Ireland is essential? Does he fully support that principle, clearly enunciated in the Good Friday agreement?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I do, wholeheartedly, sincerely and without ambiguity. I do not believe that that principle is in conflict with a system in which we are all equal subjects of Her Majesty and equally subject to the justice of the realm. On the contrary, I believe that it would be strengthened by it. We should all be equally liable to be judged by judges who have taken the same oath of allegiance throughout the United Kingdom.
  We have far too little time to debate these matters. The point before us is one of the most crucial and our amendment would restore the position in a way with which everyone in Northern Ireland can feel comfortable. Unless the House wishes to signal that the concessions being made to one side in Northern Ireland are to go even further, and if the balance is not to be even further destroyed and the sense of fairness further undermined, it is absolutely necessary that there should be nothing ambiguous about the source of justice in Northern Ireland or, unless the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise under the Belfast agreement, the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I spoke on Second Reading in January but was unfortunately unavailable to serve on the

  83
  Standing Committee because of other commitments. I hope that hon. Members who served on the Committee will bear with me as I catch up with the latest moves.
  Given your earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not deviate from the amendments. I had intended to comment on the fact that the consensual approach to Northern Ireland that was evident early in the debate had ended when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) stood up, but I shall refrain from doing so.
  It is a pity, and it is somewhat amazing, that the hon. Gentleman believes that his amendment is the best way to secure the trust of all the people of Northern Ireland. In spite of the history of Northern Ireland, he believes that retaining the royal oath in preference to the words in the Bill will somehow generate trust and security among all the people of Northern Ireland. That is incredible. It would be interesting to know what definition of republicanism the hon. Gentleman would offer. The oath contained in the Bill reads:
  "I…do swear that I will well and faithfully serve in the office of…and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or according to the laws and usages of this realm."
  That, according to the modern Conservative party, is a statement of republicanism.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman quotes the passage quoted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and with exactly the same emphasis. Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Lady, since the hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear it. There are only two possibilities facing us. First, the Government intend to change something, in which case they are introducing an element of republicanism to the legal system in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, they do not intend to change anything but the wording, in which case they are creating uncertainty and ambiguity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can get away from that analysis.
  Mr. Harris: It ill serves the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman to talk in terms of introducing republicanism or caving in to republicanism when we are discussing such a sensitive and important Bill.
  I was not a Member of the House when the legislation that set up the Northern Ireland Assembly was enacted. I do not know what the Conservative party's position was when the clauses concerning the oath to be taken by parliamentarians in Northern Ireland were debated. I understand that, unlike Members of this House, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly do not have to swear the royal oath. That may provide the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford with a good example of how rules can be different for Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Governments of both shades have legislated over the years for different provision in Northern Ireland. It would be madness to say that because members of the judiciary in mainland Britain swear a royal oath, the same must apply throughout the United Kingdom. Surely the Conservative party has realised by now that Northern Ireland is different: that is why we are discussing the Bill. Circumstances and politics are different, and the oath should be different too. We must apply ourselves to the
  84
  different culture and history of Northern Ireland, and we can surely do so without saying that something is a concession to republicanism.
  In principle, the royal oath is right for judges in Great Britain, but it would be immature to say that we must extend that principle throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and that if we do not do so we are betraying the royal family and the Crown and giving in to republicanism. That is not the reality; it is not a mature attitude and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford does Northern Ireland and his party grave disservice by conducting the debate in the terms that he has used tonight.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not concerned with the argument put at the beginning of the debate as to who has gained or who has lost—either in perception or in fact; but I am concerned with the integrity of the judicial system and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that I do not undermine anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) when I say that I am reasonably sure that judges in Northern Ireland, and indeed any other part of the United Kingdom, will do their duty as judges irrespective of whether they take an oath. If they were simply to be sent a letter by the Lord Chancellor, or in Northern Ireland—following the devolution of justice—by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, which stated, "Dear Bloggs, As from Monday 1 May you will hold the following appointment," I am reasonably confident that all those who were up to the job would do it to the best of their ability and fully in line with both the current oath and the one proposed in the Bill.
  I cannot speak with 100 per cent. confidence, but I am fairly sure that at the moment I am the only person in the Chamber who has taken an oath of allegiance on appointment as a recorder. I took an oath of allegiance when I took silk, and I take such an oath every time I am returned to this place after a general election. I have managed to do that three times and hope that I may be allowed to do so a few more times.
  I understand and value the oath of allegiance for several reasons, and I regret—to put it mildly—the fact that the Government have seen the need to make a change. I regret it because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said—justice flows from the Crown. I apologise for paraphrasing my remarks in the Standing Committee, but there is misunderstanding both about the word "Crown" and about the institution to which people swear allegiance when they take the current judicial oath.
  It is often thought by people who disagree with me—those who are embarrassed that in the 21st century we have a hereditary head of state—that we take the oath of allegiance only to a particular human being. We do not: we take an oath of allegiance to the structure of the state—if I may diffidently say that. It just so happens that in our country the monarch—the sovereign—is the human representation of the integrity of the state. That reminds us that we are democrats accountable to something bigger than ourselves, and that the Government are smaller than the state.
  Over the past few years, the Government have sometimes tended to forget that. It is a truism to say so, but none the less the Government are here at the request

  85
  of the majority of the voting public. Despite the Government's huge power, they are smaller than, and subordinate to, the Crown—not the Queen herself, but the state and the constitution.
  7.45 pm
  Although we do not have a written constitution unlike some modern republics or the United States, that does not mean that our constitution is not worth remembering and upholding. It is written down, but not in a single document—it is to be found in several places. One of our most important sets of constitutional instruments are unwritten conventions whereby officers of the state—be they Cabinet Ministers or members of Departments—recognise their place in the constellation that is our constitution. I am fearful—perhaps too fearful—that the way in which the change to the oath is being approached is an indication that the Government misunderstand our constitution and do not want to preserve, or are careless of, the integrity of our United Kingdom and the constitution that rules it.
  Despite the comments of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), I can see a distinction between the use of the word "realm" in the proposed oath and in the oath of allegiance. I agree that realms normally have a monarch, but the word "realm" is, by and large, a geographical description, whereas the oath of allegiance to the Crown demonstrates a commitment to something beyond geographical definition.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I rise to clarify a point about my contribution. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that I had emphasised the word "realm", but I am not aware that I did so. I expressed support for the wording in the Bill, but not especially for the word "realm". The rest of the oath is perfectly acceptable, reasonable and sensible—regardless of the inclusion of the word "realm".
  Mr. Garnier: Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman took the oath, when he became a Member in 2001, he faced an intellectual or emotional difficulty, but I am delighted to see him here. Should he be fortunate enough to be re-elected, I trust that he will find no difficulty in taking the oath as he did recently—but I digress. I was making the short point that there is a difference between the word "realm" and what is implied by, and lies behind, the oath of allegiance to the Crown.
  In essence, we take an oath to that non-political institution—the state—which is the provider and protector of laws and protects the citizens who live within the realm. There are any number of obvious connections between the Crown and the administration of justice. For example, criminal cases are brought in the name of the Crown, as in the case of Regina v. Smith or Bloggs. In this part of the United Kingdom, we have the Crown Prosecution Service. I agree with the amendments proposed by the Ulster Unionists: Public Prosecution Service is a desperately dull name, as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of the nature of our constitution.
  The police are servants of the Crown. Judges are servants of the Crown. Prison officers are servants of the Crown. The armed forces are servants of the Crown. Members of the civil service—I used to believe—were servants of the
  86
  Crown. To return to my own self-important existence, the expression "Queen's Counsel" connotes some connection with the Crown.
  The quality of our justice system has not been adversely affected by that connection with the Crown. I am concerned that by diluting the connection with the Crown that the oath of allegiance represents, the Government are saying that they are happy to see what is good and ought to be respected replaced by something less good.
  This discussion reminds me of the debates that we had just before Christmas that led to the Sinn Fein Members being admitted to the precincts and offices of this place, and given access to the financial advantages of being Members of Parliament. One of my complaints then was that the Government motion to admit those four Members from Northern Ireland to this place created two classes of Member of Parliament, which is constitutionally abhorrent.
  I fear that in addition to that, we are now creating two classes of judicial officer within the United Kingdom. I dare say there are all sorts of politically convenient reasons for doing that. However, although I see why the Government have devised the scheme, I am not sure that I wholly understand or respect those reasons, even though the Government rightly claim to be following the recommendations of the criminal justice review.
  The mere fact that a review says something does not of itself mean that we as thinking Members of Parliament should necessarily accept it. There is a recent example of the Government, after consideration, deciding not to accept one of the recommendations of the review. That was about the designation of resident magistrates, as opposed to whatever the other name is; I have forgotten it.
  Mr. Mallon: DJs.
  Mr. Garnier: Yes, DJs—dinner jackets—the hon. Gentleman is right. We were discussing them earlier.
  One of the Government Whips, who was being unusually voluble, once accused me of being the Member for Pompous, North.
  Shona McIsaac: It was the Daily Mail.
  Mr. Garnier: It was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), a Government Whip who felt it appropriate to absent himself from the Front Bench and go to the Back Benches to encourage his otherwise feeble colleagues to support the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
  I willingly accept that I am pompous and out of date, and that I am seen as a hugely inconvenient lawyer who is concerned with justice, our judicial system and the integrity of the administration of justice. So be it. I am happy to take that on the chin. What I am not happy about is the diminution in the apparent regard of the Government and those who support them for the justice system in Northern Ireland. That system seems to me to be under great strain, and in need of all the support that it can get—if not from the Government, at least from the Opposition.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland take this matter most seriously, as the Secretary of State well knows. We have heard some talk about perceptions,

  87
  but the right hon. Gentleman himself has perceived—if we can use that word—that Northern Ireland is getting cold for Unionists; I believe that I am quoting what he said.
  Why does the Secretary of State perceive that? Why do the people of Northern Ireland perceive it? Because the facts are crying out to them. Every day when they go out they can see with their own eyes what is happening to their country. The situation in terms of ordinary law and order is very serious.
  I am not talking about fighting terrorism. We have a rising crime rate: young ladies studying at Queen's have been savagely sexually attacked, older people are being robbed, and we have a burglary rate that we have not had for a very long time, if ever, in Northern Ireland. Those facts stand.
  Amazingly, because of what runs from the agreement, we must now do something about the people in our police force who are not full-time—the reserve men. If we lose the reserve, and if we look at the figures that have been issued for every area of Northern Ireland and see how low our police numbers are—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the amendment under discussion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was simply commenting on what has been said by others about perceptions. I was trying to say that the law and order situation in Northern Ireland is a reality. However, rather than disturbing the quiet of the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will come to the question before the House.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) talked about why we should introduce the change, but this is not an introduction; it is taking away something that has always been there. The judiciary in Northern Ireland have always taken the oath of allegiance. People who were promoted, on both sides of the religious and political divide, took the oath of allegiance.
  The oath of allegiance is to the Queen in Parliament, because the Queen as an individual is not the source of justice; the Queen in Parliament as a constitutional monarch is the source of justice. When someone takes the oath of allegiance they are taking it to what the state is and what it stands for. Because we have a constitutional monarchy, we take the oath to the Queen in Parliament. When people take an oath of allegiance they are acknowledging the state and their allegiance to it, and their loyalty to the laws of the state.
  It is a very big thing to propose—as is proposed in the Bill, although we may not reach that part of it tonight—that changes should be made to the coat of arms outside or inside the law courts, which is displayed in connection with the judiciary. I know that you will be getting a bit restless with me now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am simply using that as an illustration. The changed oath of allegiance that we are now discussing is an attempt to do away with the reality that the law that rules Northern Ireland is not Northern Ireland law, but United Kingdom law.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart was right to say what he did about the first Assembly, and other Assemblies. For example, the law commanded people
  88
  who were elected to the old Stormont Parliament to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. It was this House that decided—against the will of the majority of Northern Ireland Members here—that that should happen. It was not our doing.
  It is interesting that when someone comes from Northern Ireland to this House, they have to take the oath of allegiance. People in Northern Ireland saw that when many people who violently opposed taking an oath of allegiance in Northern Ireland were elected to this House, they still took the oath when they came here.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for democratic accountability in this House, and points out that the legislation for the Northern Ireland Assembly was voted on by the whole House—against the wishes, on some occasions, of the majority of Northern Ireland Members. Does he not agree that that is simply a case of the writ of the United Kingdom Parliament running in Northern Ireland? Is that not what he stands for in the first place?
  8 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have no objection to that, but I do object to the statement that Northern Ireland should not have United Kingdom laws. There is a proposal to alter part of the coat of arms in courthouses—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and he knows that he is treading outside the terms of the amendment. As time is limited, I appeal to him to keep within the bounds of the amendment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In that case, I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. Perhaps I will see him, although not in the bar, and discuss the matter with him then. The point needs to be made that not only is there a proposal to delete from the oath any reference to the Queen but the real oath of allegiance would be destroyed. The people from Northern Ireland who represent the majority Unionist view are told that we should not come to the House and express our concern because these matters are so sensitive, but I believe that the Assembly and this House are the place to talk about these matters. We are democratic representatives. I know that people do not like what other people say, but as we say in Northern Ireland, they have to thole it. We have to thole one another.
  This is the place where these matters need to be debated, but when people in Northern Ireland look at this House, they say, "You hardly have time to enter into a proper debate." Today, we are having the complete Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. We will not get to some of the matters that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have told me I dare not mention, yet those matters go to the heart of the conviction of the majority people in Northern Ireland. It is unfair to those people that their representatives cannot fully discuss matters in this Parliament, where they are being settled and voted on.
  The oath of allegiance sworn by the judiciary of Northern Ireland is a very serious issue because the Queen in Parliament is the source of justice. We feel that we should be like every other part of the United Kingdom,

  89
  and if we are under United Kingdom law, the judiciary should take the oath that is taken everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  Lady Hermon: As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was not generous enough to allow me to intervene on him again, I should take this opportunity to correct the suggestion that I regularly return to teaching as a law professor. I have one job and one job only, and that is as a Member of the House. I took early retirement from the law faculty at Queen's in 1988. It is always worth stating the facts correctly.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I stand corrected if the hon. Lady is no longer a professor, but I hope that she does not think that I have to apologise for insulting her. It does not seem to me to be insulting to refer to someone as a professor of law at a very distinguished university.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remark, but that is not the point that I was correcting. In his earlier remarks he said that he hoped that I would teach my students with more clarity than was contained in the points that I was making, which I thought was unfair and worth correcting.
  I want to respond to the curious point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He quoted the Belfast agreement and asked Unionist parties whether there was respect for principles such as parity of esteem and for the sensitivity of those who do not feel themselves to be British. I can speak only for the Ulster Unionist party and not for all those on the Unionist Benches—I would not attempt to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that parity of esteem and the other terms that he mentioned appear in the agreement.
  The question of whether those principles are compatible with the agreement when one recognises the constitutional position of Northern Ireland has already been tested in court. The judgment of the High Court in Belfast in the Conor Murphy case was handed down on 4 October 2001. In that case the judge had to interpret the regulations on flag flying and test whether they were consistent with the agreement. He made the valid observation that the Government are duty bound to strike the right balance between the constitutional guarantee in the agreement and elements such as parity of esteem and recognition of the identity of communities other than those who feel themselves to be British.
  The question is one of balance, and in clause 20 Northern Ireland's constitutional position is recognised in the words "of this realm". That is clearly a reference to the United Kingdom and a recognition of Northern Ireland's status as being within the United Kingdom, and is therefore compatible with the agreement. I would not like the Opposition to press amendment No. 45 to a vote because, if passed, it would remove the words "of this realm".
  The amendments in my name would substitute the words "according to" with "upholding". It makes no sense at all to say that
  "I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or according to the laws and usages of this realm."
  Will the Minister explain which laws and usages the Government had in mind when the Bill was drafted? It makes much more sense to me to replace "according to" with "upholding".
  90
  Turning again to the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I draw his attention to the judgment in the case of two young members of the legal profession who had been called to become Queen's Counsel. In that judgment and in their arguments the point was made that they felt discriminated against on grounds of religion, which was an infringement of their human rights.
  The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European convention on human rights and stands outside the agreement, provides a very strong argument. It makes it clear that everyone within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland is entitled to manifest their religion. Article 14 of the convention makes it clear that everyone should be able to manifest their religion without any discrimination on grounds of, among other things, political belief or opinion. The two barristers raised valid arguments, and serious issues had to be taken into account. Regrettably, the decision turned on a technicality so we did not get to the core of their arguments, but those points have to be taken into account when people are required to swear an oath of allegiance.
  Replacing "according to" with "upholding" would recognise the constitutional position and it would retain the words "of this realm", which would be removed by the Opposition amendment.
  David Burnside: Unlike most members of my party, including its leader and my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I did not go to the law faculty at Queen's university; I just struggled through a general degree on the arts side.
  The real problem is the totally confused exchange between the Secretary of State and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about perception and reality—that lies at the very core of this issue—and the fundamental debate that relates to the clauses on the oath and to the later amendments on arms and symbols, to which I shall not refer now. Those issues are interconnected and interrelated.
  There is a lack of confidence. The Secretary of State talked clearly and accurately in his interview during the weekend and in his earlier Cold House speech, but he does seem to think that, in our misty red, white and blue eyes of Ulster Unionism, it is our perception that he is dealing with the reality. As a non-lawyer, I can only consider the reality clearly and clinically in the Bill. As a Unionist, my bottom-line belief is that I will not support or vote for anything in the House that weakens the United Kingdom or the fundamental oath of allegiance for me, as an individual subject or citizen, and for the font of the judiciary which is the Crown.
  By making us different, we would weaken the Britishness of the people of Northern Ireland and the oath. I am not really disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but the reality now in Northern Ireland involves judging whether the Bill will weaken or strengthen us as British citizens and subjects. By any judgment, clearly and clinically, it will weaken us. That does not mean that I and other hon. Member across the Unionist Bench might not approve of some improvements to the much worse earlier proposal in the legislation. I would support the Conservative party in its amendment—the leader of my party shakes his head—as I could support the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. All three

  91
  amendments deal with the problem that the Bill will weaken our position as full British subjects and citizen. Later clauses will weaken the symbolic personification of the Crown inside and outside the courts in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mallon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this or any other Parliament should draft a criminal justice Bill to reinforce the political beliefs of any section of any community? In effect, that is what he is saying. He is not judging the merits of the Bill itself, but dealing with his perception of what Unionism should involve and demand.
  David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong on that point. I want legislation to be drafted that affects all affairs related to Northern Ireland, including those reserved to this Parliament and those devolved to the Stormont Executive and Assembly, to involve uniform, full and equal British rights and citizenship as subjects of the Crown—equality right across the board. That is not party political.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a major mistake in the pursuance of his views—a Member of the Executive made this point in debating with me on the radio this morning—because he believes that the Belfast agreement somehow gives equal treatment to the head of state, but it does not. The Belfast agreement enshrines the principle of consent. By common consent, we are part of the United Kingdom and we want equal rights. That may not be fashionable any longer and there is a debate within Unionism, but we want equality of treatment so far as we can throughout the United Kingdom.
  I have tried to combine the oath of allegiance and the debate that will take place either this evening or in the future on the symbols of the Crown in Northern Ireland. I can only consider the reality, and the reality is that our fundamental citizenship as part of the United Kingdom will be weakened, rather than strengthened.
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: In dealing with the oath of allegiance in Northern Ireland, as the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland suggested, it is important to refer to whether it is one person's reality or another person's perception, but the Conservative amendment would at least have the advantage of being much more concise without yielding anything in terms of the integrity of the nation state to which anyone affirms the oath of allegiance.
  8.15 pm
  Hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland sometimes have to grapple with the sensitivities of wordings. Only an hour or so ago during the debate, there was a reference to the term "resident magistrate", which most people would consider innocuous. The lineage back to the famine was immediately drawn, so I can imagine that some people would begin to despair if even the apparently innocuous term "resident magistrate" were almost given the standing of a swear word.
  I shall not detail all the concessions that have flowed from the Belfast agreement, but when considering Northern Ireland and the oath, the reality for many people,
  92
  especially in the Unionist community, is that the maintenance of the Bill's wording, as opposed to the concise used in the Conservative amendment, involves the replacement of the original oath of allegiance with something that is somewhat less precise. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman referred to that as a concession to republicanism, but I shall not use those words. For that reason, I shall support the Conservative amendment.
  The amendment tabled by hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) deals with the distinction between the terms "according to" and "upholding" the laws and usages of this realm. There may be a slight distinction, but I would not imagine that it would cause the House to divide on the two wordings.
  Dr. John Reid: I have obviously listened to the views expressed by hon. Members in this debate and read the views that they expressed during the consultation process and on Second Reading. It is worth saying that the oath in clause 20 replicates exactly the words recommended by the review and that the review spent a considerable amount of time discussing that matter. Of course. that is not to say that there can be no deviation from any recommendation—by definition, they are recommendations. In recommending this oath, the review group recognised the need to take account of the independence of the judiciary, as well as Northern Ireland's wider constitutional status.
  The Opposition spokesman made a point about ambiguity, but there is no ambiguity at all. Nothing in the clause casts the slightest shadow of doubt on Northern Ireland's constitutional status. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, the word "realm" reflects the United Kingdom's position as a constitutional monarchy. That word is important on two counts. To dismiss the inclusion of the word "realm", as was done earlier, as somehow being a concession to republicanism—as if people rarely spoke of anything in the pubs of west Belfast besides the welfare of the realm—is to misunderstand the word's importance. The clause brings in a more modern oath that focuses on the impartiality of the judiciary and its independence.
  The review group also sought to remove any blockages that might inhibit people from applying for judicial appointment—a key part of ensuring a reflective judiciary. I am sure that we can all agree on the importance of those principles, especially in the devolution scenario. Amendment No. 45 seeks to disregard the rationale that lay behind the recommendation for the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, choosing instead to caricature it as a republican manifesto and template. I can only say again that there will be no change to the judiciary's relationship with Her Majesty the Queen. The clause is not about republicanism, but about protecting independence, impartiality and inclusiveness, and modernising where it is useful to do so. Given all the argument that we have had on the matter, I doubt that my request that we agree on it and that the amendment be withdrawn will get a positive response. None the less, I ask again for that agreement.
  Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 seek to amend the new oath and declaration, requiring office holders to uphold the laws and usages of the realm, rather than to act in accordance with them. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for North Down said. I agree with much of the burden of her analysis of the oath itself. Indeed, she analysed it more perceptively than many others—

  93
  especially those on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I am not clear what difference her amendments seek to make by substituting the word "upholding" for the term "according to". It is clear that the wording of the oath already achieves the desired effect. Incidentally, she asked which laws and usages the provision referred to. The word "all" is already implied. Interestingly, the Scottish oath uses the words
  "after the laws and usages of this realm".
  The clause merely uses the words "according to" rather than "after"
  Although I do not object to the word "upholding" in principle, I point out that there are dozens of ways of expressing the same thing. We have stuck pretty closely to both the English and Scottish usage, as well as replicating exactly the recommendations of the review. As there are dozens of ways of expressing the meaning, if we are agreed on the underlying aim—I think that we are—there does not seem to be any point in accepting drafting changes for the sake of it.
  I would prefer, therefore, to stick to the current wording, which reflects the review recommendations, and urge the hon. Member for North Down not to press her amendments. Of course, we will vote against them if she does so, but I say to her that I shall reflect further on what she said. Although I cannot discern any important difference in the meaning that is conveyed, having listened carefully to what she has said, I shall reflect further on the matter. None the less, I cannot discern any such difference this evening, so I shall have to oppose her amendments, because we have followed not only the recommendations, but the usage in Scotland and elsewhere.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: We have had a very interesting debate. For the sake of brevity, I will say nothing about the support for my amendment expressed by the hon. Members for South Antrim (David Burnside) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), for which I am grateful. Instead, I shall address the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and of the Secretary of State, both of whom are unhappy with the amendment.
  It may be entirely my fault and my inability to understand the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down, but even though I have been wrestling with the matter for the past half hour, I am at a loss to understand her agenda. She seems to want a modification that, as the Secretary of State said, is not essential in any way. Indeed, he said that he had some difficulty in discovering the substantive difference between the Bill as it stands and what her amendment proposes. I think that the word "upholding" is slightly stronger than "according to". If the clause in its current form were included at all, I would be very happy to change the wording to include the word "upholding", but surely, at very best, it is a secondary or tertiary issue.
  The real issue is whether we should have a regime in Northern Ireland that is different from that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom: one regime in Northern Ireland, and a different one the other side of the water. We must ask whether we want to send a signal saying that the same degree of allegiance to the Crown does not apply, and that justice does not appear to flow directly from the Crown or in exactly the same way on both sides of the water.
  94
  That is the minimal effect of accepting the Bill in its current form, but the maximum effect is that of a republican agenda. I hope that the hon. Member for North Down will now concede that, as a change of wording is being made, this question is opened up: why does it have no substantive purpose? Is it merely to waste the time of Parliament? Is it to bamboozle somebody or to pretend there has been a change when one has not been made'? That is what I call ambiguity and uncertainty, and a lack of clarity, frankness and candour. The Government are expert in all those things, and no doubt that hypothesis is close to the truth. The alternative hypothesis is worse, as it is that they have an overtly republican agenda. I do not think that there is any third, fourth or fifth possibility. I am very surprised that the hon. Lady appears to place herself in the same camp as the Government on this matter.
  Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend admit to the possibility that there is another reason for making the change? It could be suggested that, where there are long-standing difficulties that are unconnected with the proper carrying out of impartial judicial activities, it is as well to be as soft with them as possible. Is it not more difficult to see the provision in that moderate way when one insists that there must be something much more extreme going on? On this occasion, I wonder whether it would be better to say that some problems are of such long standing that we have to find a mechanism that is soft enough to handle them, and that the suggestion that we are not doing that merely makes things more difficult for those who are looking for a moderate way forward.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I set out two possible explanations for what is going on: an intention either to introduce ambiguity or to make a substantive change. I said what I thought of both approaches. If he thinks about what he said, he will see that he suggested that there is some virtue in ambiguity. In other words, he chose deliberately and willingly—or would like us to do so—one of the two hypotheses that I advanced, and thinks that there is virtue in ambiguity in certain circumstances. However, he is still accepting that there is ambiguity in what the Government propose. I do not think it right that ambiguity should exist, especially in matters affecting the law of the land. I am sorry to disagree with him on that point, but at least he had the candour—other contributors have not shared it—to say, "Yes, there is ambiguity and that is what I want." That is a respectable point of view and I commend such frankness to the Secretary of State.
  8.30 pm
  The Secretary of State's first defence of the wording in the Bill was that it replicates the wording in the review. We covered that on Second Reading. I explained to the House—the point was well taken and nobody could contradict it—that as he appointed the chairman of the review body, who, like several of its members, is on the Government payroll, there is something more than a little incestuous in the Secretary of State's saying, "I have to do this because that's what the review decided." He packed the body in the first place and was in a position to influence the shape in which it turned out. There was nothing at all independent about the review. It therefore

  95
  has no status, validity or legitimacy separate from the will of the Government, which it merely represents in a different form. Parliament will not be taken in by that. We must, as always, consider the actual substance of the Government's proposals and take a view on the merits of changing the oath of allegiance.
  The points that I made in response to the hon. Member for North Down are equally valid in response to the Secretary of State. In changing the law in this way, the Secretary of State must address the dilemma of whether he is trying to change something substantively—he implied that he was not when he said that nothing in the Bill casts doubt on the status of Northern Ireland—or merely wilfully creating uncertainty. If the latter, he is doing a bad day's work for the law, for the Province of Northern Ireland and for the peace process. He will fuel precisely the kind of suspicion and concern in Northern Ireland that, as he acknowledged yesterday in his BBC interview, is in danger of upsetting and destabilising the peace process.
  In the light of the debate, I have no doubt that we should press the amendment to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 311.

  Division No. 177]

  [8.32 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Amess, David

  Francois, Mark

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bacon, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Baron, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Grayling, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bercow, John

  Greenway, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hammond, Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Heald, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hendry, Charles

  Burnside, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Burt, Alistair

  Hoban, Mark

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cameron, David

  Horam, John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Collins, Tim

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Loughton, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Luff, Peter

  Flook, Adrian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  96

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Simmonds, Mark

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maples, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Bob

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Swire, Hugo

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Paterson, Owen

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prisk, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Willetts, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  noes

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caton, Martin

  Austin, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barrett, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Cohen, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  Coleman, lain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davidson, Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burnham, Andy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Cairns, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Doran, Frank

  97

  Dowd, Jim

  Laws, David

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Linton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Lucas, Ian

  Follett, Barbara

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallon, Seamus

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Mann, John

  Heath, David

  Marris, Rob

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heyes, David

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoey, Kate

  Mole, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hume, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Organ, Diana

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pugh, Dr John

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purnell, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rapson, Syd

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lamb, Norman

  Rendel, David

  98

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watson, Tom

  Simon, Siôn

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Webb, Steve

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wishart, Pete

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stringer, Graham

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tami, Mark

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Dan Norris.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 6

  OFFICE-HOLDERS REQUIRED To TAKE JUDICIAL OATH
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 88, line 34, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".
  No. 26, in page 88, line 35, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "Resident Magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]

New Clause 3

  DISCONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS: INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS
  '(1) Where the Director has the conduct of proceedings in relation to an offence against a person and he decides to discontinue such proceedings at any stage, he must inform the victim or victims of the offence, or in the event of their being deceased or incapacitated, their next of kin.
  (2) If, following a court appearance, a person is acquitted at the direction of the court, the Director must inform the victim or victims of the offence, on in the event of their being deceased or incapacitated, their next of kin, of that action.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Blunt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Reasons for discontinuance of proceedings—
  '(1) Where the Director has the conduct of proceedings in relation to an offence against a person and he decides to discontinue such proceedings at any stage, he shall have a duty to provide the Attorney General and the Advocate General with reasons for his decision.
  (2) The Attorney General shall, if requested by the victims of the offence, or in the event of their being deceased or incapacitated, their next of kin, provide a copy of the reasons referred to in subsection (1) to those people, unless he decides that to do so would be against the interests of justice, or the Advocate General, with whom he shall have a duty to consult, decides that to do so would be against the public interest.'.
  New clause 5—Director's reasons for not instituting, or discontinuing, proceedings—
  'Where—

  (a) the Director decides not to institute proceedings against a person or discontinues such proceedings; and

  (b) a person appearing to the Director to have a legitimate interest in the matter requests reasons for his decision,

  he must provide that person with such reasons unless to do so would be against the interests of justice or the public interest.'.
  Mr. Blunt: Pressure of time will prevent me from speaking as fully as I would like about these new clauses, which are extremely important. They encapsulate the principle of placing victims at the centre of our consideration of criminal justice, which the Government address in clauses 67 to 69. I want to direct the House to the language in which clause 67 is drafted precisely to show the extent to which I want to carry that principle across to the issue of informing the victims when proceedings in relation to offences are discontinued.
  Later, the Government will invite the House to accept clause 67, which states:
  "A victim information scheme is a scheme requiring the Secretary of State to make available information about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland imposed in respect of the commission of offences ("imprisoned offenders") to victims of the offences who wish to receive it."
  That provision relates to giving victims of crime information about when the prisoners who committed those offences will be released, and we support it. However, informing victims of crime when proceedings against individuals have been discontinued is a much more fundamental duty.
  We discussed in Committee examples of how victims, who are currently not central to the process, are unable to discover, unless they are active in seeking the information, that the Director of Public Prosecutions may have decided to discontinue proceedings. When I attempted to formulate a similar new clause in Committee, the Minister correctly pointed out that it reflected only a small part of the process. I have therefore tabled two further new clauses that reflect two separate issues.
  The first issue is the straightforward passage of information to victims of offences, or, in the event of their being deceased or incapacitated, to their next of kin.
  100
  Therefore, under new clause 3, when the Director has the conduct of proceedings in relation to an offence against a person and he decides to discontinue such proceedings, he would have to inform the victim at any stage of the process. Equally, if those proceedings go to court and the court directs that those proceedings should be discontinued, the duty would fall on the Director to inform the victim. The new clause relates simply to the passage of information to ensure that victims know that proceedings have been discontinued against those concerned. There can be no argument against that, although I do not want to speak for too long so that I can listen to the Government should they adduce one.
  New clause 4 is necessarily more complicated. It deals not only with the passage of information about discontinuance but with the giving of reasons. I have reflected on our earlier debate, and particularly on the contributions of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and the Minister. I have tried to identify the right place at which to lay responsibility for the giving of reasons. I remain convinced that in normal circumstances it is right to give reasons why proceedings are stayed. We discussed in Committee the controversial cases, especially those in which proceedings against members of the security forces in Northern Ireland have been discontinued. There needs to be confidence in the process.
  Plainly, two judgments need to be made: the giving of reasons must be in the public interest, and must not be against the interests of justice. I have drawn my new clause more tightly than the more widely drawn new clause 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and have provided that such information should be discoverable by the victim of the offence.
  The issue at stake on the giving of reasons is where the responsibility should lie, and in Committee we debated whether it should lie with the DPP or the Attorney-General. I have reflected on that, and have come to the conclusion that the responsibility for the interests of justice test should properly lie with the Attorney-General, who should be accountable having been informed by the DPP that he has discontinued proceedings. On the wider judgment of the public interest, the Advocate-General, who under the arrangements in the Bill will be the Attorney-General for England and Wales and so a Member of this House or the other place, is the appropriate person to have responsibility for the public interest test.
  That is how I have framed these two new clauses. They deal with immensely important principles, and if we are to put victims at the centre of criminal justice and bear their interests in mind, the new clauses must be supported and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Mallon: I shall attempt to be brief, but as the hon. Member for Reigate said, this is a crucial issue that was debated at length in Committee, not least because the review recommended that if information is sought by someone with a proper and legitimate interest in the case about why there was no prosecution or why a prosecution has been abandoned, the prosecutor should give as full an explanation as possible without prejudicing the interests of justice or the public interest. That is important in the Northern Ireland context. I shall not go into detail about the reasons why, but would simply ask whether things would be a lot easier with policing and with the Bill had this applied in the Finucane and Hamill cases and many others.

  101
  I agree with the Government that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. The Government also stressed that certain considerations had to taken into account, including the interest of witnesses and the risk of jeopardising the safety of individuals. I also agree with that, but where I disagree is that I believe that the presumption should always be in favour of giving reasons. Only when that would be against the interests of justice or against the public interest should reasons be withheld. That is consistent not only with the interests of the administration of justice, but with the interests of victims and their families. It is not enough for us to pay lip service to the interests of those who have been aggrieved while prosecutions have not been brought or have been dropped.
  This matter is crucial and I regret that we are unable to give it the time that it deserves. So be it. I shall stop now, so that other hon. Members may speak.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) have eloquently outlined what is virtually a one-sided case in favour of this modification. New clauses 3 and 4 offer us a different degree of implementation of the proposals laid out by the two hon. Members, while new clauses 4 and 5 would achieve more or less the same thing. I hope that the Minister takes the sentiment of what has been proposed seriously; he will be hard put to argue against the rationale for it.
  At very least, I am interested to know whether the Minister will accept the absolute bare minimum—too little, in my view—as laid out in new clause 3. If not, what comfort and justification will he offer the victims and their friends and relatives after being intransigent on that point?
  Mr. Gummer: I must add my support to the new clause, because I had such difficulty with the Government's position on the last matter. The new clause represents a sensitive approach to the difficulties in Northern Ireland, and sensitivity and delicacy are what we must consider. I hope that the Government take the same view, given that many of us feel that we are drawing a narrow line and that we must walk along it carefully. The big thing is to show that we entirely support the victims, and the new clauses would help in that respect. As we are looking for a sensitive route through a historically difficult position, that is the way in which we should proceed.
  Mr. Browne: I must make it clear to the House that I accept the spirit in which this short debate has taken place. As in Committee, where we addressed these matters at greater length, I have listened carefully to hon. Members and, for reasons that they prayed in aid, I take the issues seriously.
  New clause 3 would require the Director of Public Prosecutions to inform the victims of an offence if he decided to discontinue proceedings or if a person were acquitted of an offence for which he was being prosecuted. New clauses 4 and 5 would require the Director to give the victims of the case reasons for non-prosecution, even though, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, that would be done through another Law Officer.
  I understand and agree with the view of hon. Members that victims should be kept informed of the progress of their cases. All too often, the interests of the person who
  102
  has suffered from a crime are forgotten. The review group was very conscious of that and made a number of recommendations with it in mind, but I do not believe that the provision before the House is the way to proceed.
  As the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, clause 67 provides for an information scheme for victims as to the release or temporary release of offenders from prison that has been welcomed in all parts of the House and spoken of positively in Committee. For obvious reasons, it does not apply to offenders who received a non-custodial sentence.
  I draw the House's attention to clause 67(8), which contains a number of safeguards. The Secretary of State will not be able to give out information on the release of an offender if that adversely affects the safety of the victim or any other person. There are no comparable safeguards in new clause 3. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Reigate wait until I have finished?
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred to the bare minimum or the bottom line—[Interruption.] This is not difficult. Imagining circumstances in which information that a prosecution has been discontinued might disadvantage the health or well-being of a victim may be beyond Opposition Members' credulity or knowledge, but, having practised in the criminal courts for 20 years, I can think of vulnerable people who would not be able to accept such information. For example, people who are mentally ill or those whose vulnerability results from abuse would not be ready to accept it, and I am not prepared to accept a statutory requirement that they be told whether they are vulnerable or not.
  Comparable safeguards to the ones that I have pointed out in the clause would be the bare minimum that I would expect, but no such safeguards are to be found in the new clause. The Director would have to give out information regardless of its effect.
  Mr. Blunt: I know that we are running out of time, but my point—
  It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [21 January], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 286.

  Division No. 178]

  [9 pm

  ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bacon, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Baron, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barrett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Carmichael. Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Collins, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Cotter, Brian

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burnside, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  103

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fabricant, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Reid, Mark (Cities of London)

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hammond, Philip

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hayes, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heald, Oliver

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heath, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hendry, Charles

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hermon, Lady

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

  Hoban, Mark

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Horam, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spink, Bob

  Hume, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Syms, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lamb, Norman

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Laws, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Webb, Steve

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Luff, Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McGrady, Eddie

  Wiggin, Bill

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willetts, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willis, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wishart, Pete

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mallon, Seamus

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Mr. Julian Brazier and

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  noes

  Ainger, Nick

  Bailey, Adrian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Austin, John

  Benn, Hilary

  104

  Bennett, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benton, Joe

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Best, Harold

  Flint, Caroline

  Betts, Clive

  Follett, Barbara

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Borrow, David

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gilroy, Linda

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bryant, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hanson, David

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cairns, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caton, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Challen, Colin

  Heyes, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chaytor, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cohen, Harry

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coleman, lain

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Crausby, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kidney, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew David

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lucas, Ian

  Farrelly, Paul

  Luke, lain

  105

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, Siôn

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mann, John

  Soley, Clive

  Marris, Rob

  Southworth, Helen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miliband, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tami, Mark

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Diana

  Tynan, Bill

  Owen, Albert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Perham, Linda

  Watson, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Plaskitt, James

  White, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Purnell, James

  Wills, Michael

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wilson, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Winnek, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ross, Ernie

  Roy, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruane, Chris

  Dan Norris and

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jim Fitzpatrick.

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

Clause 24
  TERMS OF APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
  Amendment made: No. 139, in page 15, line 3, leave out from "time," to end of line 5.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 27
  ANNUAL REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
  Amendment made: No. 140, in page 17, line 1, after second "Minister" insert ", acting jointly,".—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 36
  INFORMATION FOR DIRECTOR
  Amendment made: No. 141, in page 21, line 37, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "resident magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 38

  CODE FOR PROSECUTORS
  Amendment made: No. 142, in page 22, line 39, at end insert—
  '(4A) In preparing or making alterations to a code the Director must be guided by the general principles of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Havana between 27th August and 7th September 1990.'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 56

  CUSTODY CARE ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 143, in page 42, line 22, at end insert—
  '(4A) Where the court imposes a fine on the child under paragraph (3)(a) or (4)(a), it shall order that the fine be paid by the parent or guardian of the child instead of by the child, unless it is satisfied that there is good reason for not so doing.
  (4B) A fine ordered under paragraph (4A) to be paid by a parent or guardian may be recovered from him by distress, or he may be imprisoned in default of payment, in like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent or guardian of the offence for which the custody care order was made.
  (4C) A parent or guardian may appeal to a county court against an order under paragraph (4A).'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 58
  DIVERSIONARY YOUTH CONFERENCES
  Amendment made: No. 144, in page 48,, leave out lines 20 to 23.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 59

  COURT-ORDERED YOUTH CONFERENCES
  Amendments made: No. 145, in page 53, leave out lines 7 to 10.
  No. 146, in page 53, leave out lines 11 to 13.
  No. 147, in page 53, leave out line 16.
  No. 148, in page 53, line 24, leave out from "unless" to end of line 26.—[Mr. Browne.]

Schedule 10
  YOUTH JUSTICE ORDERS: ENFORCEMENT ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 149, in page 103, line 25, leave out "District Judge (Magistrates" Courts)" and insert "resident magistrate".—[Mr. Browne.]
New Clause 2

  FLYING OF FLAGS AT COURT-HOUSES
  '(1) In Article 3(1) of the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/1347 (N.I. 3)) (power to make regulations about the flying of flags at government buildings), insert at the end "and court-houses".
  (2) The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (S.R. 2000 No. 347) (which were made in the exercise of that power) apply in relation to court—houses as they apply in relation to the government buildings specified in Part I of the Schedule to the Regulations (but subject to any amendment which may be made to the Regulations in the further exercise of that power).'.—[Mr. Browne.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 66

  DISPLAY OF ROYAL ARMS AT COURTS
  Amendments made: No. 150, in page 58, line 12, at end insert—
  '(1A) But subsection (1) does not prevent the display of the Royal Arms anywhere in—

  (a) the courtrooms in the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast,

  (b) the courtrooms in the Courthouse in Armagh,

  (c) the courtroom in the Courthouse in Banbridge,

  (d) Court No. 1 in the Courthouse in Downpatrick,

  (e) the courtrooms in the Courthouse in Magherafelt, or

  (f) the courtrooms in the Courthouse in Omagh, where they were displayed immediately before the coming into force of this section.'.

  No. 151, in page 58, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  No. 152, in page 58, line 25, leave out "not a new court-house" and insert—
  'in use before the coming into force of this section'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Schedule 12

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 153, in page 113, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

  '(c) a fine imposed, or an order made, under Article 41(2) or 44F(3) or (4) of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (NI 9);

  (ca) an order made under Article 44C(3)(a) or 54(3)(a) of that Order;'.

  No. 154, in page 120, line 36, at end insert—
  '(2B) Where the court imposes a fine on the offender under paragraph (2)(a)—
  (a) if he has not attained the age of 16, it shall order that the fine be paid by the parent or guardian of the child instead of by the child, unless it is satisfied that there is good reason for not so doing; and
  (b) if he has attained that age but has not attained the age of 18, it may so order.
  108
  (2C) A fine ordered under paragraph (2B) to be paid by a parent or guardian may be recovered from him by distress, or he may be imprisoned in default of payment, in like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of the parent or guardian of the offence for which the juvenile justice centre order was made.
  (2D) A parent or guardian may appeal to a county court against an order under paragraph (2B).".'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Schedule 13

  REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 155, in page 123, line 12, leave out "75(1) and (3)" and insert "75(3)".
  No. 156, in page 123, line 33, at end insert—
  'section 21(2) of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968,'.
  No. 157, in page 123, line 41, at end insert—

  'Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30)

  In Schedule 1, in the definition of "committed for trial", in paragraph (b), the words ", justice of the peace".'.

  No. 158, in page 124, line 15, leave out ", in sub-paragraph".
  No. 159, in page 124, line 17, leave out from "(3), to end of line 20.
  No. 160, in page 124, line 47, at end insert—

  'Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/762 (N.I. 7))

  In Article 8(5), paragraph (b) and the word "and" before it.'.

  No. 161, in page 126, line 11, at end insert—

  'Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/2789 (N.I. 8))

  In Article 2(2), in the definition of "judge", the words "or justice of the peace".'.

  No. 162, in page 126, line 18, at end insert—
  'In section 89(3), the words "10(4) or".'.
  —[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 89
  STATUTORY RULES
  Amendment made: No. 163, in page 70, line 13, after "section" insert "11(2B),".—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 90

  EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 164, in page 70, leave out line 25.—[Mr. Browne.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.13 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Today's debates represent another important step in the process of modernising the criminal justice system and implementing the Belfast agreement. The criminal justice review is the last major feature of the agreement that it falls to the Government to implement. Once again, we have shown that we as a Government will fulfil our responsibilities in full.
  The Belfast agreement represents a victory for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not always easy to implement. It requires a balance—a balance recognised earlier, very perceptively, by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—between recognition of the principle of consent on the constitutional status and recognition of diversity and parity of esteem. Both are enshrined in the Belfast agreement. No one got entirely what they wanted from the agreement, or from the unfolding of the agreement; but as a result of that historic agreement we have secured a functioning devolved Administration, and an enormous improvement in the social and security situation that has blighted Northern Ireland since the 1960s. None of us can afford to be complacent, but there has been a significant improvement.
  The criminal justice review also holds out the prospect of improvements that benefit both sides in equal measure, I believe, and the whole community in great measure. The review made 294 recommendations over the whole range of activities in the criminal justice field. It was the most comprehensive look at the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years. The review emerged during the course of negotiations on the Belfast agreement, but I believe that it reflected a somewhat deeper feeling that it was in any case time for a more fundamental review.
  Once again, there are a small number of issues on which opinions are divided largely along community lines. Here we have needed and have tried to strike a careful balance between the two dimensions enshrined in the Belfast agreement, which I mentioned earlier. However, the overwhelming bulk of the review, and the Bill which implements it, has been widely welcomed. It is worth noting that despite all the differences that we have on a relatively small number of areas, the bulk of the review has been welcomed. Moreover, having read the Committee proceedings and discussed them with my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary, I think that it was, for the most part, an extremely constructive and positively conducted Committee stage.
  The Bill has been welcomed outside the House by the practitioners in the criminal justice system, including those who work with children and victims. It has been welcomed by the parties which we hope will soon administer it and by the people of Northern Ireland more generally, particularly those who are interested in improvements to the criminal justice system.
  In effect, the Bill is about putting Northern Ireland at the forefront of good practice in the United Kingdom and more widely. In some areas, learning from experience of other UK jurisdictions, the Bill implements in Northern Ireland reforms which have already been undertaken elsewhere in the UK. Other parts of the Bill will put Northern Ireland at the cutting edge of international practice.
  110
  We have made a number of amendments today on Report. Many reflect important points that hon. Members made during earlier stages of the Bill. Once again, I think that the controversy surrounding some of the amendments should not distract us from the larger number that have been generally welcomed. However, there have been, and remain, areas of controversy.
  On symbols, we made amendments to reflect our assessment of a reasonable balance in this controversial area. The review identified an important distinction between the outside of courthouses and the inside of courtrooms. It saw the need to strike a balance between recognising the courts' position within the agreed constitutional framework in Northern Ireland and ensuring an atmosphere within courtrooms with which all the people of Northern Ireland could be comfortable. Once again, the wisdom of Solomon was required in trying to balance those two aspects emanating from the Belfast agreement.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Secretary of State's giving way. The amendment that was introduced to preserve royal coats of arms was, I thought, intended to recognise representations that had been made on heritage and architectural grounds rather than to recognise the constitutional principle. If it were a question of recognising the constitutional principle, all royal coats of arms would stay.
  Dr. Reid: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's point. I merely point out that I was talking in the context of the review's original recommendations. I do not dispute the point that she makes. The review identified an important distinction between the outside of courthouses and the inside of courtrooms. In addition, I pointed out that we needed to strike a balance when it comes to recognising the courts' position.
  We agree with the distinction that was reflected in the Bill's amended provisions. We believe that we have made some commonsense amendments to preserve certain coats of arms within historic courthouses.
  Having listened to the representations made to us—by, above all, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—we do not believe that we would require a new start to criminal justice to be accompanied by what was called at one stage "architectural vandalism" of historic buildings. Our views on this have been reinforced by the practice in the Irish Republic, where court buildings including royal symbols have continued to be used.
  I do regret the need to legislate on this matter at all. I believe that the position taken in the Bill is fair and balanced. However, it is no substitute for a decision taken and agreed on by the parties in Northern Ireland. That is why we delayed taking any decision in this area. As I made clear on Second Reading, we were open to constructive suggestions, particularly those capable of achieving cross-community support. Nothing in the Bill as it stands would prevent such agreement on symbols in the future either.
  I have said that it would be regrettable if the issue of symbols overshadowed everything else discussed during the passage of the Bill through this House. The parliamentary stages of the Bill have seen debates of high quality on issues that go to the core of our criminal justice system: the independence of the judiciary and the

  111
  prosecution service; the possible shape of the Northern Ireland justice system after devolution; the place of international human rights instruments; and the role of victims, to name just a few.
  As a result of these discussions, we have clarified the Bill in a number of useful respercts following representations from the hon. Member for North Down and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), to which I shall efer. We have strengthened the assurance that the Judicial Appointments Commission after devolution will be solely responsible for such appointments by amending the Bill's provisions on committees to which it can delegate its functions.
  As requested, we have also clarified the important role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly in certain areas. We have recognised in the Bill the importance of international human rights instruments on the prosecution. All of these matters have been raised by the SDLP.

  I shall mention briefly some of the valuable debates that we have had on the giving of reasons for non-prosecution. I understand the strong feeling that this issue can arouse, both about the general practice and the application of the principle to particularly sensitive cases involving deaths as a result of action by the security forces. Hon Members will be aware that we have not accepted the various amendments on reasons proposed during the passage of the Bill. However, they should know also about developments in the Government's response to the Strasbourg rulings in certain article 2 cases which coincided chronologically with proceedings on the Bill and the representations that were made.
  On Friday, the Attorney-General answered a parliamentary question on this subject. His response included the text of a joint statement with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I would urge hon. Members with an interest in the matter to study the text carefully. In brief, the DPP recognises that, in certain types of cases, the public's need for reassurance that a case has been properly investigated and that the rule of law has been maintained in the event of no prosecution following a death in which agents of the state have allegedly been involved may only be fulfilled if reasons for non-prosecution are given. In such a case, and in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, the director will give reasons. I hope that that goes some way towards addressing some of the concerns raised during our debates.
  Mr. McNamara: I have followed carefully what my right hon. Friend has said about deaths in which members of the security forces are involved. What can he say about circumstances in which non-members of the security forces are involved, on either side, when someone who is an agent or member of the security forces is killed? Stobie is an example.
  Dr. Reid: I have the joint statement with me but do not want, for reasons of time, to read it out. I refer my hon. Friend to the parliamentary answer given by the Attorney-General on Friday, which included a joint statement by him and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That addresses the circumstances
  112
  arising from the Jordan case, and I have formulated my own answer in those terms. That case was chronologically coincidental with our debates. It did not arise directly, but contributions made during debate on the Bill obviously had a bearing on my thinking on that matter as other discussions were taking place. I hope that my hon. Friend will read the statement, and if he has further questions, I shall be only too happy to respond.
  I thank hon. Members for the care and attention that they gave to scrutiny of the Bill. As a result, it leaves the House improved in important ways, and that is, of course. the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny. I know that some hon. Members feel that more time could have been available. None the less, the level of scrutiny given in the time available both in and outside the House—the process began some time before Parliament engaged with it—enabled us to take the views of others on board and to develop the Bill. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill can move on to complete its parliamentary passage in the other place.
  Mr. Blunt: Given the Secretary of State's remarks about the conduct of proceedings, and given my views about the conduct of the Under—Secretary in Committee, does he agree that it is to be regretted that we have had no detailed consideration of several matters, particularly the new youth justice provisions?
  Dr. Reid: I have no hesitation in saying that my experience leads me to wish that several Committees that I served on before I became a Secretary of State had enjoyed such positive and constructive engagement on the issues. I share the hon. Gentleman's regret that we could not find a little more time. He probably knows that some late efforts were made through channels to which we do not always refer in the Chamber to try to find more time. There was a genuine feeling on both sides that that might happen, but it did not prove possible. It might have been more constructive to proceed in that way, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's regrets about lack of time are shared by other hon. Members. Limited time is left to us, but it may be that some of issues not yet addressed may yet be raised.
  The Bill is only part of the process of reform. When we published the draft Bill, we also published an implementation plan. Not all the 294 recommendations required legislation, and even for those that did, the passage of the Bill is just the first step. The Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I are committed to implementing the review recommendations. When the Bill achieves Royal Assent—on the assumption that that is the will of Parliament—we will publish a further implementation plan setting out progress made and giving a firm timetable for action.
  Many hon. Members have referred to a commitment for swift action on implementation of the review's recommendations. It has been suggested that the review would benefit from an oversight arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh proposed an amendment on the subject, which, regrettably, was not selected as it would have enabled us to discuss it in more detail on Report—as I should have liked to do.
  My hon. Friend knows that we have doubts about a statutory post, as the review team—even with the policing example before it—did not make such a recommendation.

  113
  Nevertheless, he expressed his views forcefully and with some import. I assure him that I shall consider further the implementation of such arrangements.
  By any standards, the complexity of the reforms and the number of agencies involved are formidable, but progress has already been made. After Royal Assent, I hope that the revised implementation plan will make it clear that the process of giving effect to the review is gathering momentum.
  I hope that is the case because the prize before us is huge: a reformed criminal justice system and, ultimately, the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice and policing some time after the Assembly elections in 2003. That is what we all want, however difficult it may be politically. If it is to be achieved, we have no time to waste and I hope that the House will show confidence in the process by giving the Bill a Third Reading.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State that the consideration of the Bill in the House and in the Standing Committee has been thorough—as far as it has gone. The debate has been excellent. There have been some distinguished contributions and some lively exchanges of views—as there should be in this place. However, I emphasise the words "as far as it has gone".
  I fully share the Secretary of State's regret that we have been unable to do the Bill justice. I know that it is not personally the fault of the right hon. Gentleman and that he did everything possible to ensure that we had slightly more time to consider the Bill. I hope that he will tell his colleagues that the treatment of the Bill during the past few weeks has been a classic example of the appalling damage done to the operation of Parliament by the so-called reforms of the new Labour Government. They are anything but reforms.
  It is absurd that more than 30 clauses were not even dealt with in Committee. We have been unable to discuss some of the important youth justice reforms—the youth conferences and so on. At the very last moment, the Government introduced substantial and substantive changes to one of the two most controversial clauses—clause 66—which deals with courtrooms, courthouses and the royal coat of arms, but the House had no chance to discuss it. That is grotesque.
  If there is to be any parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, it will have to be undertaken by the other place. Under new Labour, we are the lower House in name and in substance. That is a most regrettable state of affairs, and I hope that the Secretary of State will pass on to his colleagues the strong feelings experienced by everyone in the House. It is especially grotesque that Members from six parties would have liked to take part in the Third Reading debate, but we have only 45 minutes for it. That is a terrible, terrible way to conduct our affairs.
  As we were not able to deal either in Committee or on Report with the Government's new proposals for the royal arms in courthouses and courtrooms, I shall briefly touch on them. In substance, we welcome the Government's reconsideration, even at this late stage, and their decision to make some gesture—albeit inadequate and limited—that will at least recognise the strong feelings among the Unionist population in Northern Ireland, even if it does not mollify them.
  114
  That concession is hopelessly inadequate to redress the balance and undo the damage done by the one-sided stream of concessions in the past few months, almost all of which have been made to Sinn Fein-IRA. And it, of course, would be eclipsed out of existence if the Government committed the folly of announcing an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists.
  Nevertheless, I commend the Government for having recognised—for once in deed, as well as in word—the lack of balance in the implementation of the peace process so far. Perhaps the imbalance has not been so much in the implementation of the peace process as in the Government's making all sorts of concessions not required by the Belfast agreement, and making them all in the same direction. The Secretary of State has recognised the damaging impact that that has had on confidence in and commitment to the peace process among the Unionist community. He has at least done something about that, and it would be churlish of me not to recognise it.
  The Government's tactics have been pretty shambolic. They have introduced a change at the last minute. They have not assuaged much of the concern, anxiety and opposition that they aroused in the Unionist camp with the original clause 66—and they have now managed to infuriate the nationalist camp, too, by withdrawing some of the concessions that they had made. The Secretary of State smiles, but there is an alternative approach, which I have been urging on him for some months.
  The Government should look upon the implementation of the Belfast agreement in terms of a balanced and agreed programmed process, in which everybody knows what they have to do by when, what the full cost will be, what the concessions will be, and how we get to the endgame. Until we have that kind of balance and understanding of the process, the programme and the schedule required, I do not think that either side will be confident that the process can really be implemented.
  There are obnoxious issues in the Bill, some of which involve serious matters of principle. I spoke earlier about clause 20, and the judicial oath of allegiance. Given the appalling treatment of Parliament over the allocation of time, and several other issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), we would be thoroughly justified in opposing Third Reading. I dare say many among my colleagues, and perhaps in other parts of the House, too, would have expected us to do that.
  However, we will not vote against the Bill, in recognition of small mercies, and of the new element of pragmatism and balance that has crept into the Government's behaviour over the past few days. I welcome that, and I want to make it clear by a gesture of my own that we take it seriously and appreciate it. We want to do what we modestly can, as the Opposition, to encourage the Government to go in the right direction.
  The second reason why we will not vote against Third Reading is even more important. The concessions that have been made in the Bill, some of which we find genuinely obnoxious—advisedly, I expressed myself in strong terms about clause 20—have not, for once, been made to Sinn Fein-IRA, but to the Social Democratic and Labour party. As I can see, and as I have heard in the repeated accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for

  115
  Reigate, SDLP Members have done a magnificent job on the Bill, and have already modified it in a number of important ways.
  The concession is on an important headline issue by which they clearly set a lot of store. I do not like it, for the reasons that I explained earlier. I do not like having a distinction between the oath of allegiance taken by judges in Northern Ireland and that taken by judges in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I recognise that the SDLP has made a major positive contribution to the peace process, to law and order and to justice, with its support of the new Police Service and the Policing Board.
  For once, the rewards have gone to people who deserve some rewards, and the concessions have been wrung out of the Government by people who deserve some concessions. Again, it would be wrong of us not to recognise that fact. We must swallow very hard, as I am having to do, and ask our right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Mallon: First, I thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee for their courtesy and help, and for the constructive way in which the Committee carried out its business. I thank those who chaired the Committee for their guidance and for the expertise that they brought to the proceedings.
  I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the honest and very competent way in which he dealt with the Committee and with the issues. One could have some reliance on him. He gave nothing easily—nor did one expect him to—but he played with a straight bat, and I thank him for that.
  Like the supporters of the English rugby team on Saturday, I feel a touch of déjà vu—a sense of having been here before, done it and got the T-shirt. I am trying to find an easy way of saying that this is the third time that I have stood on the Floor of the House on the Report stage of a Bill when, in effect, a googly has been bowled after a Standing Committee has dealt with things. Whatever position people adopt on an issue, that is not the way to do business; it is not the way in which to treat Parliament; it is not the way in which to encourage and nurture the Standing Committees that are so valuable. One begins to wonder whether, on issues such as this, there is a straight bat left. For that reason, I again thank the Under-Secretary, who proved that it is possible to deal honestly with an issue.
  It is important to make that point because for non-lawyers, as many of us are, dealing with legislation is an onerous task. There is nothing easy about it, and it becomes all the more difficult when one knows in one's heart of hearts, as one is battling with detail in the Committee Room, getting expert advice and doing all the things that one should, that somewhere outside a dealing game is taking place which makes no reference whatever to our parliamentary process. It adds to the difficulty when one has experienced that before. However, we are big boys and we will live through it and get over it. It is a lovely thing to be able, as one walks out of the door, to look in any mirror that one passes and say, "Okay." We should all learn that lesson.
  I am referring particularly, although not exclusively, to the issue of symbols. I have always tried to be sensitive when I talk about symbols in any context, because I have
  116
  always tried to show respect for the symbols of others, even those with which I disagree. I have done that in this building, in the Assembly and, by and large, everywhere else. However, it is very difficult to maintain that position when, for the third time, the issue of symbols has been used as a bargaining chip by the Government in a unilateral, secretive and partisan way. It is difficult to maintain that position when one sees key principles of the Good Friday agreement and the draft Bill being used as bargaining chips—concessions to be granted to Unionists to build up confidence so that other deals can be done with others.
  If I were a Unionist, I would be rather sceptical. I would look at new clause 2 and I would say to myself, "You can hold them or fold them, but don't get over-excited about what's going to happen because this is not being done in the interests of anything but the next bargain and the next deal that will be made." It hurts me to say that because I have supported Labour Governments for my entire time as a Member, including throughout hung Parliaments, day after day, and I will continue to do so. I make an appeal: it is much easier, much better and much more successful in the long run to play things straight, decent and honest than it is to become almost a roulette table for bargaining.
  Dr. John Reid rose—
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon: I shall give way to the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend speaks with great passion, conviction and sincerity. He is absolutely right to say that this was not the Under-Secretary's decision; it was my decision. I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one thing: the decision was not taken late. I could have taken it two or three months ago. I did not take it then precisely because what he likes to call "little deals" and what I like to call "discussions between parties" were taking place between his party and others to try to discover whether there was a way in which we could reach agreement. I thought it better to wait until absolutely the last moment to take a decision which I would have much preferred to be taken by the parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Hume: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not discuss it with us?
  Dr. Reid: Precisely because I was advised by both parties, including by representatives of my hon. Friend's party, to stay out of the issue while the discussions continued. So I take full responsibility for the decision, but I would not like the hon. Gentleman to believe, having spent many hours discussing such issues with him, that the decision to wait until late was taken for any other reason than to try to allow the parties to reach the decision—a situation that I would much have preferred.
  Mr. Mallon: I note what the Secretary of State says. It is right that he makes it clear that the decision was his, but I regret to say that there is no doubt that today's actions by the Government will have negative repercussions. I very much regret that, in the long term, they will outweigh any

  117
  temporary, one-sided benefits that might accrue. I believe that the devolution of justice powers will now be more difficult to achieve and implement.
  In short, this is no way to proceed. It is no way to legislate. It is no way to implement the Good Friday agreement. Which requires the two sovereign Governments to show parity of esteem to every section of the community in Northern Ireland. Above all, it is no way to manage a peace process and no way to create the new beginning that we all want to achieve.
  9.48 pm
  Lembit Öpik: As I said in Committee, because of the way we were sitting, the light shone all around the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and bathed him in an angelic aura every time he stood up to speak in Committee. I was hesitant to tussle with that saintly light, as the Minister was cast into the heart of darkness in the Room. Although I was joking then, what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has just said underlines the genuine sincerity and honesty with which he has sought to represent the people whom he was elected to represent. We must take very seriously the frustrations that he describes because, at the end of the day, he is one of the people who has to sell these proposals to his part of the community.
  I was frustrated to some extent by the Government's apparent lack of flexibility in the Standing Committee. They have made some amendments on Report, but difficulties arise when the whole process appears to the public eye to show that deals are being done outside the Chamber and that changes are being slipped through at the last minute. Even if that is not what Ministers intend, such impressions make it more difficult in practical terms for individuals—especially those on the nationalist side, on this occasion—to sell the proposals.
  In addition, Ministers gave very strong reasons why they refused to do something on a number of occasions, only to change their position later—even though, if there is a clear example of a subject area in which one benefits by showing genuine openness and flexibility at all times, it is surely Northern Ireland. Examples of such an approach include resistance to the word "reflective" in place of "representation", which was discussed earlier when it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). A more recent example arose in the last debate on Report, when the Under-Secretary sought to give an extreme example of circumstances in which new clauses 3 and 4, which related to information for victims and next of kin, should not automatically come into play, even though new clause 4 clearly allowed an exception to be made when the public interest would not have been served.
  Mr. Browne: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be in any doubt about reflectiveness and the judiciary, on which I have argued from principle. I have sought to enunciate my position in many different ways and I will not abandon that principle at any stage. I do not want there to be any suggestion that I was arguing one position and taking another. On his other example, there is a distinction between the effect of new clause 3 and that of new clauses 4 and 5. As we ran out of time on Report, I did not have the chance to explain that distinction, so I
  118
  do not think it appropriate for him accidentally to misrepresent my position by anticipating what he did not hear.
  Lembit Öpik: I would not seek to misrepresent the Minister, and there is no time to enter into detailed discussions on that matter now; I am aware that at least two hon. Members on the Benches behind me want to speak.
  None the less, in relation to that point, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, I supported the timetabling motion. I still hold the view that it might have provided enough time for the Committee stage in certain circumstances, but with the benefit of hindsight, I must say reluctantly that I probably was not right to be sympathetic in terms of the time allowed for Report and Third Reading. I make that comment with some humility; we have had discussions outside the Chamber, and I have to say that Conservative Front Benchers were probably right. We could have had the very discussions to which the Minister just referred, but we no longer have the chance to do so.
  We have covered many specifics, including flag and emblems, and the inclusion of human rights legislation in the Bill. It goes far in that regard, but as hon. Members know, the Liberal Democrats would have taken it further. We also discussed the independence of advocacy and crucial issues relating to youth justice. In my view, the latter involved many important principles, and we did not take advantage of the opportunity to handle youth offending differently, as organisations such as Youth at Risk, which seeks to get down to the motives of offending rather than trying to prevent reoffending in a more superficial way, seek to do.
  Given that we do not have time to debate those matters in more detail, the question on my mind is: what happens next? I guess that the answer will be based on the degree to which those who are in a position to make the Bill work will make the decision to do so. Some individuals in the Chamber will have a heavy influence on the degree to which the nationalist and Unionist communities take the Bill on. I hope that they accept that, even with its flaws, it is a huge step forward and most of it was uncontentious.
  In that context, the Liberal Democrats are very happy to offer our assistance and to help if there is any way in which we can do so, although we are realistic and recognise that many people in the communities of Northern Ireland are already doing that work. I sincerely hope that Sinn Fein, which is, sadly, not represented in the Chamber, will regard the Bill as a step forward and not act as a dog in a manger by saying that, because not everything was exactly how the party wanted it, it will stand by and refuse to co-operate with what the Government seriously intend to be steps forward. In a few years' time we shall see if the Bill has worked.
  I am pleased with the Bill in principle, and I think that all parties can accept that an overwhelming majority of its 294 proposals represent a step forward for justice in Northern Ireland.
  9.55 pm
  Mr. McNamara: I shall be as quick as I can to allow other hon. Members to speak.

  119
  In the past, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the Unionists feel that they are in a cold house. Generally speaking, for the nationalist community the issue of the administration of justice and the Police Service has been not only a cold house, but an igloo. They therefore regard the implementation of the review as at least a considerable thaw. That is why, on Second Reading, I welcomed the Bill in what, for me, were rather generous terms. In the light of how the Bill has emerged on Report, I would not make the same comments. I feel that it is like Patten all over again, and that we will have to have something like a Weston House agreement to reconsider the issues and rectify the faults.
  On Second Reading, I posed three questions. Can the new structures make the criminal justice system accountable to the community that it serves? Can equality measures make the system representative of the community from which it seeks accord? Can we create a new ethos and a new beginning? I am not certain that the Bill meets those tests. On accountability, the review called for a new and independent Public Prosecution Service, but it is not there. If one looks at the history, accountability was not there because the same Director of Public Prosecutions and the same department made the decisions on all the contentious cases. Although I welcome what the European Court of Human Rights forced and persuaded the Government to do—they announced their decision when the Bill was in Committee—I am sceptical about whether the DPP would have given the same response were it not for that judgment by the court.
  I find it extraordinary that the equality principle and the representative principle are not to be mandated through the judicial system, the prosecution system and the Attorney-General. As I said on Report, it is incredible that the people who will enforce the equality legislation and be responsible for making judicial decisions on fair employment and human rights will not themselves be subject to such restrictions. I am attacking not the merit principle, but the concept of an old boys' network that thinks it is above the law because it administers the law.
  My final point concerns the coat of arms. I respect the argument about the architectural vandalism of taking down coats of arms from historic courthouses. However, there is no argument against curtailing those symbols when the court is in session to create the neutral environment to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred when he spoke so positively of these matters in Committee. If we were able to find a non-contentious symbol suitable for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I am sure that we could have found one equally non-contentious for the courts. I regret that that was not dealt with. I was not party to any of the discussions that went on; I can only see what emerged from them. It will not lead to the resounding success that I thought we might achieve at the start of the Bill's passage and on Second Reading.
  9.59 pm
  Lady Hermon: How many words can I squeeze into one minute? At about five minutes to 10 o'clock I thought that as DUP Members have not tabled a single amendment this evening I should, in fairness, give them an opportunity to speak. However, with only one minute left I shall speak as quickly as I can.
  120
  The Committee was an enormously useful experience. I thank the staff of the Northern Ireland Office, the Clerks of the House and all members of the Committee for their help and assistance and for the banter that we enjoyed in the course of our serious work.
  Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary concentrate on two matters that have not been dealt with? First, serious confusion will arise if the title of Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is retained. That would lead to the PPSNI being confused with the PSNI. This is a serious point that has to be addressed. Secondly, the Minister gave an undertaking that—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [21 January].
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 11.

  Division No. 179]

  [10 pm

  ayes

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Baird, Vera

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Barrett, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Barron, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cairns, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Challen, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  121

  Gilroy, Linda

  McKechin, Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Mann, John

  Heath, David

  Marris, Rob

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mole, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Moran, Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moriey, Elliot

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  Norris, Dan

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Keetch, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rendel, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Laws, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Laxton, Bob

  Lepper, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lucas, Ian

  Ryan, Joan

  Luke, Iain

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheridan, Jim

  McFall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simon, Siôn

  122

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Watts, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Webb, Steve

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wills, Michael

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Tami, Mark

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wishart, Pete

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Angela Smith and

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  noes

  Beggs, Roy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Burnside, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Spink, Bob

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Hermon, Lady

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mrs. Iris Robinson and

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Gregory Campbell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

  COMMON FISHERIES POLICY
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 7262/01, the Commission Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), 7263/01, the Commission Report on the state of the resources and their expected development, 7377/01, the Commission Report on the economic and social situation of coastal regions, and 7378/01, the Commission Report on the implementation of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture over the period 1993–2000; recognises that the review of the CFP offers an important opportunity with considerable implications for the future of fisheries management; supports the Government's view that current positive aspects, notably the access regime, relative stability (including Hague Preference) and the Shetland Box, must continue to operate; agrees that current weaknesses, including the continued use by some Member States of counter-productive subsidies, uneven enforcement, a lack of environmental integration, unsustainable agreements with third countries and the mismatch between fleet capacity and available resources, must be addressed, anticipates with the Government the forthcoming publication by the Commission of its legislative

  123
  proposals for the review; and supports the Government's efforts to secure the best outcome for the whole of the UK fisheries sector throughout the negotiations.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): For the convenience of the House, we shall take motions 3, 4 and 5 together.
Ordered,

COMMITTEES
  PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
  That Mr. Anthony Steen be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Sir Sydney Chapman be added to the Committee.
  STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
  That Mr. Peter Bottomley be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Andrew Mackay be added to the Committee.

  PROCEDURE
  That Alistair Burt be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. Desmond Swayne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  Ordered,

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  That Mr. Christopher Chope be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Philip Hammond be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  DISABLED FACILITIES
  That the Disabled Facilities Grants and Home Repairs Assistance (Maximum Amount) (Amendment No. 2) (England) Order 2001,
  124
  (S.I., 2001, No. 4036), dated 19th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McNulty.]

PETITION

  Mobile Phone Antennae
  10.14 pm
  Bob Spink: Residents of Silverpoint Marine on Canvey Island are deeply concerned about the proposed positioning of a mobile phone antenna in their small community. They are particularly worried about the longer-term health implications for the children who live and play in the vicinity of the proposed antenna site. Although they accept that there is no evidence at the moment of such antennae causing significant damage to children, they believe that there is no evidence that there will be no such damage in the longer term. They also believe, therefore, that a safety-first approach is appropriate.
  This small community's petition was compiled by Jayne Gough, Samantha Duffield, Nicola Dowsett and others. It states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Mrs. Samantha Duffield and Mrs. Nicola Dowsett, residents, and others of like disposition sheweth
  That residents and others connected with Canvey Island object to the siting of a mobile phone mast at Prout Holdings, Canvey Island and are deeply concerned that the long term health implications of such a mast, particularly on children living and playing in the area, are as yet unknown.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge Castle Point Borough Council to reject the planning application for the mast.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

International Terrorism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: Everyone in the House will agree that this debate on Government policy towards countries providing support for terrorist organisations takes place at a heartbreaking moment. Lives are still being lost in Afghanistan in the ongoing effort to rid that nation and the region of the terror of al-Qaeda and on both sides in the continuing tragedy that is the middle east conflict. I am delighted to introduce the debate, but I regret having to seek it.
I want not simply another debate on the middle east peace process, but a much wider discussion. I believe absolutely that there will he a lasting peace in the middle east, but events of recent weeks and months have made me uncertain as to whether that peace will be delivered by this generation of politicians. I also have absolute faith that there will indeed be a viable Palestinian state, and so there should be, that lives in security and peace alongside a secure neighbour, the state of Israel.
The tragedy is that so many innocent people on both sides have died so needlessly over recent months when peace seemed such a realistic prospect under the prime ministerial leadership of Ehud Barak and his partner in peace at the time, Chairman Arafat. Now it appears that both sides are looking up from an abyss. I hope that at least one or two steps forward result from the most recent suggestions emanating from Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the Government's position in respect of the latest reported Saudi effort.
I shall concentrate on the terror organisations that so undermine that drive for peace and three states—Iraq, Syria and Iran—that do so much to support and give succour to those terror organisations. In respect of Iraq, there is a history that everyone acknowledges of support for terror organisations within its borders and the use of domestic terror as a means to carry out low or occasionally medium-level conflict with regional opponents, Iran in particular and, of course, Israel.
More recently, Iraq has again assumed a high profile, taking centre stage in world politics. It is now absolutely clear in the wider sense of global and regional security that Iraq must act. Saddam Hussein, newly armed with an improved weapons of mass destruction capability, is a threat not only to his own people and his neighbours, but to international security. The United Kingdom, along with its allies, is rightly considering action, but I firmly believe that we must also publish whatever evidence we can, notwithstanding the lack of observers on the ground.
There is evidence of the increased viability and range of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and we need to persuade not only the House but the British public and world opinion—especially Arab opinion—that, because of the threat posed by Saddam to his neighbours and to world security, we may, unfortunately, be left with no alternative as an international community but to act, in more than a diplomatic sense. That gives me no sense of enjoyment—it gives me a considerable sense of foreboding.
I believe firmly that the Prime Minister was right to go to Syria following 11 September, to try to impress on the Syrian leadership that it should step back from support for
126
terror organisations. He was absolutely right to stress that terrorism in all its forms must end. I am not aware, however—the Minister may have evidence to the contrary—of lasting or meaningful efforts being made by the Syrian Government since that visit to clamp down on the terror organisations that operate within its borders.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend think that there is sufficient international appreciation of the threat from the terrorism that he describes to there ever being a successful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Mr. Murphy: Personally, I do not believe that there is a widespread understanding of the role played by these terror organisations. Their very raison d'etre is the destruction of the state of Israel, not an accommodation or peace with it. We must do all that we can to ensure that people understand that, while we hope that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can be resolved in the foreseeable future, it is very difficult to envisage an accommodation between Israel and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others. The international community must understand the lack of any desire on the part of those terror organisations to recognise the state of Israel's right to exist.
Of the 28 foreign terrorist organisations that the co-ordinator of counter-terrorism in the United States State Department listed in October last year, about three and a half weeks after the horrific events of 11 September, seven operate from Syria. The Syrian Government provide succour, support and sponsorship for those organisations in many different ways. The organisations include Hamas, which continues to cause such devastation; Hezbollah; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which I had the misfortune of meeting in Ramallah in 1994, just as the Oslo peace accord was published. The disappointment among its leadership that a compromise and a lasting settlement could be viable was palpable. I am sure that it is much happier with events as they stand today.
Syria directly also supports other terror organisations, including the Palestine Liberation Front, allowing them to have headquarters, training camps and political and propaganda offices throughout the nation, including in and around Damascus. As if that were not enough, some of the leading international terrorists live in Syria, with the full knowledge of the Syrian state. The general secretary of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and his deputy live there, as do the head of the Hamas political bureau and his deputy. The chairman of the Hamas interior committee and the leadership of the PFLP also live there.
Two days after the Prime Minister's visit, an event took place in Damascus that underlined the degree of co-operation between the Syrian regime and the panoply of terrorist organisations in that country. A gathering took place in Damascus to pay tribute to the secretary general of the Islamic Jihad. Such events cannot take place without the full support of the tightly controlled political elite that runs Syria. The gathering was attended by the Iranian ambassador, and representatives of the Syrian Ba'ath party, Hezbollah and others. Such a commemoration of a leading terrorist could take place only with the Syrian Government's support. Some of those individuals appear on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "most wanted" list of terrorists, which was published just after 11 September.

127
It is because of those individuals, organisations and events that I find it very difficult to see Syria in any sense as a partner in peace. Indeed, the opposite is true. Syria plays a festering role in undermining any middle east peace process. Although I entirely support the Prime Minister's visit to that country, and any Government effort to convince the Syrian regime to join the family of nations in enforcing international law and order on terror organisations, I do not perceive any great movement in that regard. Indeed, the Jordanian media reported security officials' attempts to undermine Syrian attacks on Israel and the embassies of Jordan, Britain and the United States. By comparison with Syria, Jordan is playing an entirely mature and constructive role in the campaign against terror and for peace in the middle east.
The third and final nation on which I seek ministerial comment is Iran. I publicly pay tribute to Iran's courageous efforts to control trafficking in the opium poppy. Many hundreds of Iranian border guards have been killed in their strenuous efforts to prevent opium poppy from leaving Afghanistan and, tragically, coming to this country. I understand the need for closer relationships with Iran, but despite internal political and cultural conflict in that country, as yet I see no detente with its partners in the middle east, or support for a lasting and meaningful middle east peace process. Iran continues to arm terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which causes such strife and bloodshed in the region, and supports Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fate of missing Israeli service personnel held by Hezbollah, which, as he says, is supported by Iran. They include Elchanan Tenenboim, for whom today was his 500th day in captivity after being kidnapped in Switzerland; Ron Arad, Tzvi Feldman, Zacharia Buamel and Yehuda Katz, who were kidnapped in the Lebanon in the 1980s; Guy Hever, who was kidnapped in the Golan heights in 1997; and Benny Avraham, Omer Suaed and Adi Avitan, who were kidnapped on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border in the past few years. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to speculate on why Iran supports Hezbollah, which refuses to give any information whatsoever to the families of those people, who have been missing for so long.
Mr. Murphy: It is clear that Iran has considerable influence over Hezbollah. An easy way for it to play a role or to make a symbolic shift in its position would be to instruct those that it funds and supports—namely, Hezbollah—to provide information on the whereabouts of, tragically, what might prove only the remains of the individuals whom my hon. Friend mentions. Certainly, the Iranian Government could easily instruct Hezbollah to make the limited concession of revealing the whereabouts of those poor individuals, whether living or dead.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the relationship between Hezbollah and Iran, but I am also worried by the recent Karine A shipment of weapons from Iran, seemingly bound for the Palestinian Authority. That is worrying, and I hope it is not part of a wider pattern. It is frightening that such an enormous arms shipment could go to an organisation that publicly remains committed to a peace process in the middle east.
128
Iran shamelessly uses anti-semitism as a strategic weapon. The Iranian Government's recent refusal to accept Her Majesty's Government's nominee for the post of ambassador is yet another example of that.
Many of us are determined—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is—to continue to press the Iranian and Syrian Governments, in particular. As the Prime Minister said in Damascus, terrorism in all its forms has to end.
10.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for raising this subject. I want to speak first about the Government's general policy on countries that promote terrorism, and to illustrate it with reference to positive developments in a couple of countries, before turning to the specific examples raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Iraq—we have concerns about support for terrorism there, but especially about the programme involving weapons of mass destruction—will be debated in Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning. My hon. Friend and other Members who support the Government on this issue may wish to make their views known then.
State promotion of terrorist groups is a cruel, destabilising and ultimately self-destructive instrument of the foreign policies of some Governments. It is an instrument that Governments should and must now abandon. The last six months of terrible attacks on civilians and those engaged in the democratic process have exhausted the tolerance of this Government, and of the international community, of terrorism of any kind. I am thinking, of course, of 11 September, but also of the savage murder of the journalist Daniel Pearl: the attack on the Indian Parliament which destabilised relations between two nuclear powers; the hijack of a Colombian airliner last month; and the sickening bomb attack in Jerusalem on Saturday—a terrorist attack that has perpetuated the current cycle of violence in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Yet there are Governments who persist in providing terrorist groups with funds, weapons, information and political support—Governments who continue to believe that agreement with the objectives of terrorists justifies terrorist methods. The British Government's view is simple: such state promotion of terrorism is unjustifiable and must end. There is no moral distinction between an attacker who kills civilians or parliamentarians and a state that wittingly provides the resources that facilitate such a terrorist attack.
Mr. James Wray: Does the Minister agree that Syria, Iraq and Iran do not have inter-continental ballistic long-range missiles that could reach the United States? Does he agree that article 15 of the 1972 treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, which gives the Russians and the Americans the right to withdraw from the treaty, does not help? The treaty's globalising of peace and war, whether it refers to American, British or Iraqi terrorism, really does not help. It is the poor who suffer.
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not agree with my hon. Friend one bit. Although the countries that he mentioned may not

129
have the ballistic missile capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction to that extent at this moment, we do not doubt that at least two of them are actively attempting to acquire that capability, and may be much closer to it than any of us would like to think.
We welcome the progress that has been made by Libya towards abandoning state sponsorship of terrorism and the importance of a strong international condemnation and concerted action against the states concerned. A decade ago, Libya sponsored and incited terrorists. The international community responded by imposing an effective sanctions regime on Libya. The sanctions have resulted in Libya returning to international standards of decency.
The Libyan state has satisfied us that it has severed its links with the IRA. The joint United Kingdom-Libya statement on the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher allowed us to re-establish diplomatic relations. Libya has taken steps to make amends for the terrible damage that it caused in the past. The Security Council recognised Libya's surrender of two suspects accused of the Lockerbie bombing. Sanctions were suspended at that point and can be lifted entirely once Libya has complied with the final requirements of the Council.
There has also been progress in Sudan, which in moving away from tolerance of terrorism has offered an example to other nations that retain links with terrorist groups. In the mid-1990s, Sudan allowed bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation to organise their international terror campaign from Sudanese territory. The international community's response was robust—we delivered a clear message that such activity could not be tolerated. The imposition of Security Council sanctions was again a valuable tool. Sudan responded. The Security Council in turn responded by lifting sanctions in September last year.
My hon. Friend raised the prospect of military action against a state sponsor. The Government are prepared to use a military approach, as we did in Afghanistan, if again confronted with an Administration who threaten us and care nothing for the views of the international community. There are, of course, many other means of effecting change that we would explore first. We would pull all available diplomatic and economic levers. We would work with Governments who are willing but unable to confront terrorists. Military action is very much a last resort.
Angus Robertson: I suspect that the Minister is talking about the situation in regard to Iraq. What conversations has he had with colleagues from other European Union countries? Do they share the Prime Minister's views about the possibility of widening the campaign against terrorism into a military phase in regard to Iraq?
Mr. Bradshaw: Our European allies very much share our concern that Iraq should comply fully with its obligations under the United Nations resolutions to allow weapons inspectors back into that country without any conditions attached. If Iraq fails to do that, the international community will face some very difficult decisions. Those who oppose in principle any talk of a military response against countries such as Iraq in such circumstances need to say how they would deal with rogue states determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction and use them on their neighbours and elsewhere.
130
My hon. Friend also expressed concerns over the behaviour of Iran. We share his concern about the support that the Iranian Government give to terrorism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are satisfied that the Iranian Government make material contributions to the capabilities of terrorist groups, including Hezbollah's External Security Organisation and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Both organisations are proscribed in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Iranian encouragement of those opposed to the peace process can only inflame and escalate the cycle of violence. The Government take every opportunity to tell the Iranians that we condemn their support for those terrorist groups and that it is without any possible justification. We believe that that critical engagement is helpful, and I am glad that my hon. Friend supports us in that policy.
In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), we raise the case of the captives at every opportunity with the Iranian and Syrian authorities and in the limited contacts that we have with the political wing of Hezbollah in the Lebanon. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met with the families of those captives on his recent visit to Israel.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Before my hon. Friend the Minister continues, can I say that there is great unease on his own Benches at what some see as a softening-up process for taking action that will not get the support of our allies and friends in the middle east? I ask the Foreign Office in particular to take cognisance of that concern and to think about it before we go down a road from which we will find it difficult to withdraw.
Mr. Bradshaw: Of course my colleagues and I will take notice of the points made by my hon. Friend, because of his wisdom and experience in this area. However, we should not overestimate the amount of support that Saddam Hussein or his regime have in the Arab world, if that is what my hon. Friend was implying by his question. We need to think carefully and rationally about how the international community deals with a state which has used weapons of mass destruction on its own people and its neighbours, and which is acquiring chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as we speak. We believe that that state would have no inhibitions about using those weapons not just on its immediate neighbours, but on us and further afield. If my hon. Friend has a miracle solution as to how one deals with such rogue-state behaviour, I should be pleased to hear it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood also mentioned Syria. We accept that Syria plays host to a number of terrorist groups. It allows terrorists to set up their headquarters in Damascus. As my hon. Friend has said, both the External Security Organisation of Hezbollah and the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine have a presence in Syria. Both these organisations are proscribed in the UK as terrorist organisations.
We have made it crystal clear to the Syrians that we expect them to use their undoubted influence to secure de-escalation and restraint. They must dissociate themselves from the terrorists responsible for the tragic and futile upsurge in violence over the last 12 months. I will look into the specific allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood made and, if he will allow me, I will write to him.

131
We are broadly encouraged by the Government's contacts with the Syrians in recent months. There are signs that Syria may be exerting some helpful influence to contain the violence. If such a policy is confirmed and sustained, Syria will find that it can advance its objectives effectively using political means.
It is also a cold fact that no party in the current confrontations will obtain security or peace until the cycle of violence ends. There is no solution through violence for either side. As the Foreign Secretary wrote in a newspaper article last week:
"The conflict will never be solved by military means alone. But every day the violence continues, as the number of families broken by the bloody conflict increases, the extremists are strengthened, distrust grows and peace is more difficult to achieve. The violence and state-sponsored terrorism must stop. It is futile and serves only to postpone the day when Palestinians and Israelis can achieve a permanent settlement in which two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and security".
132
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood asked me to comment on the recent proposals from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. These are not exactly new or revolutionary ideas, but we have warmly welcomed them and believe that both their timing and their source are extremely significant. We wish the proposals well.
State sponsorship of terrorism is a cruel and cowardly policy that is now more than ever beyond tolerance. The Government will engage with sponsors and potential sponsors in order to tell them how profoundly we deplore their conduct and how gravely their actions destabilise fragile regional security.
All nations have new obligations to stop supporting terrorism under the two UN resolutions passed unanimously after 11 September. The international community is determined to ensure that those resolutions are fully implemented and, in doing so, it will enjoy Britain's full support.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 508W, on departmental expenditure, whether the figure provided was net of the additional annually managed spending that was incurred because of the refinancing scheme; and if she will make a statement. [38307]

  Ms Hewitt
  The savings figure quoted in my answer of 18 January 2002 was net of the additional annually managed spending that was incurred because of the refinancing scheme.

  The capital spend, together with interest, will be recovered through future loan repayment flows to ECGD.

  Capita
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public money Capita-administered schemes within the Department have paid out since 1997–98. [38383]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38382]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate that there are currently three live contracts with Capita with a total value of £43,785.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39339]

  Ms Hewitt
  Such historical information is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  LNM Group
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she received from other Ministers requests for advice in connection with the attempted acquisition of Sidex by the LNM Group. [37935]

  Ms Hewitt
  I received no such requests.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy objectives were furthered by her predecessor's visit to India to discuss the purchase of Air India by LNM Holdings. [39204]
  2W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The objective of my right hon. Friend's visit to India in January 2001 was to further strengthen the bilateral trade and investment relationship between the United Kingdom and India.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1059W, what the cost of refurbishing each Ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37898]

  Ms Hewitt
  The costs of refurbishing the ministerial private offices, since May 1997, is set out in the table. All costs are inclusive of VAT.

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  12,605

  1998–99

  16,780

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  6,571

  2001–02

  4,500

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39128]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is not held centrally and would involve disproportionate cost to produce. Regulatory impact assessments are produced for all proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs on businesses in the UK and are generally made available in the Libraries of the House. We do not hold information on the costs to public funds of implementation.

  Dams
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list applications for export credit guarantee for dams, indicating the stage each application has reached. [39519]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is one current application for ECGD support for dams.

  Project

  Stage reached

  Yusufeli (Turkey)

  Awaiting information on environmental and social impacts of the project before further consideration of the application

  No decision has been made by ECGD. ECGD cover will only be considered if key impacts—including social, environmental and human rights factors—are properly addressed and if the financial risk is acceptable.

  External Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which non-accounting and non-information
  3W
  technology external organisations, who previously held contracts with the Department won new contracts at (a) the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) after a period of inactivity with the Department in each of the past five years. [38719]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This information is not held centrally and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of over-capacity in the global steel industry; and if she will make a statement. [38844]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There is no precise estimate of global over-capacity as this can vary considerably according to the basis on which it is assessed. Estimates vary widely from under 80 million tonnes a year to over 200 million tonnes a year.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the future of the Nova Hut steel plant in the Czech Republic. [39667]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: I receive representations from many groups eager to press their case.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions officials and Ministers in her Department have had with LNM Holdings about the future of the Nova Hut steel plant in the Czech Republic. [39668]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release specific details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Enterprise Grants (Coalfield Areas)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bids under the Enterprise Grant scheme have been made by businesses within the former coalfield area of south Derbyshire since 1999; and what the value was of grants awarded. [39419]

  Alan Johnson
  Since the scheme start date in January 2000 GOEM has received four applications from business in eligible wards within southern Derbyshire. The total value of grants awarded is £70,000.

  Telecommunication Services
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the percentage of UK households and businesses able to receive ADSL telecommunication services. [39627]
  4W
  Mr. Alexander
  Oftel's broadband brief published in February 2002 states that 60 per cent. of UK consumers and businesses are within the area of a DSL enabled exchange, and that 90 per cent. of those can obtain ADSL services with current technology. In addition, cable networks pass approximately 50 per cent. of UK households, providing an alternative route to broadband.

  Knowledge Transfer Initiatives
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the value and effectiveness of regional knowledge transfer initiatives. [38520]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: My Department sponsors a number of targeted programmes which seek to help business access and use knowledge gained from research in British and overseas universities and research and technology organisations. We also provide support to help the science base grow its capability to interact with business and realise the business opportunities offered by science. For example, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), which incorporates the earlier Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community Fund (HEROBC), has incorporated a regional assessment alongside other criteria.

  As the earliest HEROBC projects have only been running for just over two years it is still too soon for full evaluation. Early indications suggest that these initiatives are helping to improve the capacity of higher education institutions to carry out knowledge transfer.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the value and effectiveness of knowledge transfer initiatives sponsored by her Department. [38510]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: My Department sponsors a number of targeted programmes which seek to help business access and use knowledge gained from research in British and overseas universities and research and technology organisations. We also provide support to help the science base grow its capability to interact with business and realise the business opportunities offered by science. Each of these programmes is evaluated on a regular basis and, if necessary, the programme may be amended or terminated if it fails to achieve its targets.

  I am presently conducting an intensive review of the totality of business support within DTI which will further ascertain whether there is scope for improving the effectiveness of all our programmes, including those dealing with knowledge transfer. The results to date indicate that business end-users are broadly satisfied with the aims and effectiveness of knowledge transfer programmes but that there is scope for reducing their number to reduce confusion and to increase critical mass of the major programmes.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40039]
  5W
  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI issued the following number of press releases in these years:

  Number of press releases

  19971

  572

  1998

  1,064

  1999

  1,064

  2000

  873

  2001

  739

  1 1 May to 31 December

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in her Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39945]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of Press Officers was as follows:

  Number of press officers

  1 January 1997

  20

  1 January 1998

  17

  1 January 1999

  24

  1 January 2000

  25

  1 January 2001

  23

  1 January 2002

  23

  Waste Goods
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive on the illegal disposal of waste goods; and if she will make a statement. [38124]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is still in draft. We are currently at Common Position stage, and for this reason we have not yet made any such assessment.

  The directive requires distributors to take back waste electrical goods free of charge to the end user. This take-back provision may be in-store, on delivery or through an alternative arrangement, eg kerbside collection. Furthermore, the directive requires members states to ensure that users are given necessary information about the return and collection systems available to them and about their role in contributing to re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of WEEE.

  We therefore believe that the directive will make a positive contribution to increasing the amount of waste electrical goods recovered and recycled and we see no reason to anticipate an increase in the illegal abandoning of WEEE in public places.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on her policy towards gender pay 6W
  inequalities in the context of paragraph 27 of the Laeken conclusions. [39633]

  Ms Hewitt
  In paragraph 27 of the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Laeken on 14 and 15 December 2001, the Council noted with interest the list of indicators of gender pay inequalities. This Government are fully committed to reducing the gender pay gap and therefore support the indicators proposed in the Belgian Presidency's report.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what research has been undertaken to address the observations made in Cm3960, summary of the report, paragraph 19, concerning the downgrading of crimes. [35960]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: Sir lain Glidewell noted statistical evidence showing that charges are sometimes downgraded. He found no evidence that downgrading happens when it should not; but he recommended that the Inspectorate should examine cases of downgrading during inspections and research into the reasons why charges are downgraded.

  Following publication of the report the CPS Inspectorate (which has subsequently become independent of the CPS, reporting directly to the Attorney-General), has regularly devoted a section of its biennial reports on all CPS areas to downgrading of charges and the application of common charging standards agreed between the police and the CPS. In his Annual Report for 1999–2000, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector noted that in some 22 per cent. of cases to which charging standards applied the police had selected inappropriate charges. In almost all cases, the inspectors agreed that the CPS had then applied the charging standards correctly, usually to downgrade but sometimes to upgrade the charge.

  In the recently published "Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales", Sir Robin Auld refers to this research as part of the justification for recommending that the CPS should assume from the police a greater responsibility for determining the charges at the outset of criminal proceedings.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in how many cases(a) Customs and Excise and (b) a bailiff has distrained possessions for failure to pay the climate change levy; what was the value of goods distrained; and if he will make a statement; [38576]

  (2) in how many cases Customs and Excise has commenced criminal proceedings for fraud involving the climate change levy; [38573]

  (3) how many penalties have been imposed to date in respect of the climate change levy for (a) failure to produce information and records, (b) failure to preserve

  7W
  records, (c) ceasing to carry out taxable supplies and (d) failure to render returns and otherwise comply with the regulations; [38584]

  (4) how many registration penalties in respect of the climate change levy have been imposed; [38583]

  (5) how many non-resident payers of the climate change levy have received a penalty for failure to submit a request to appoint a tax representative; [38577]

  (6) in how many cases Customs and Excise has imposed a five per cent. penalty for (a) under declaration and (b) over claiming credit in respect of the climate change levy; [38575]

  (7) in how many cases Customs and Excise has imposed penalties for evasion of the climate change levy. [38574]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No penalties have been imposed, possessions distrained or criminal proceedings commenced for failure to comply with the legal requirements governing climate change levy. This reflects our commitment to improve compliance through education rather than by penalising with enforcement action during the introduction of the levy.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on the British plastics industry; [38589]

  (2) what review he has carried out of the compliance costs to British industry of the climate change levy in the light of experience since 1 April 2001; [38617]

  (3) what steps he has taken to consult (a) business organisations and (b) individual companies about the impact of the climate change levy since its introduction. [38588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, the Chancellor and the Treasury ministerial team have met with a variety of business organisations and individual companies since 1 April last year, and have heard a variety of representations on tax, including climate change levy, and on other matters.

  The levy package is expected to be broadly revenue-neutral for both industry and the service sector as a whole. However, the effect on any individual company or sector will depend on a number of factors, including their level of energy efficiency, use of renewables and CHP, and the extent to which they make investments which qualify for enhanced capital allowances.

  The levy was developed in close consultation with business, and many of the proposals put forward during that consultation are reflected in the final design.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has made to the European Commission; and what evidence he has submitted to their investigation into the climate change levy dual fuel use exemption; [38610]

  (2) if he will make a statement in the (a) scope, (b) progress and (c) expected timetable of the Commission's investigation with the climate change levy double fuel use exemption. [38609]
  8W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK has presented a strong case backed by robust evidence to the European Commission in support of the climate change levy dual-use exemption. We continue to press the Commission strongly for an early and favourable decision in the matter.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to extend liability for the climate change levy to(a) voluntary aided schools, (b) foundation schools and (c) city technology colleges. [38585]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Eligibility for exemption from the climate change levy (for fuel for domestic or non-business use by charities) mirrors eligibility for the reduced rate of VAT on fuel and power. Exemption from the levy for voluntary aided schools, foundation schools and city technology colleges therefore depends on their having charitable status. There are no plans to change this.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out the Government's intentions concerning the relationship between enhanced capital allowances available for energy-saving technologies under the climate change levy and the enhanced capital allowances for tackling climate change and improving air quality which are proposed under the Green Technology Challenge. [38562]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the climate change levy package, the Government introduced a scheme of enhanced capital allowances (ECAs) for investments in qualifying energy-saving technologies. The Green Technology Challenge consultation revealed strong support for offering ECAs on a wider range of energy-saving technologies. As stated in PBR 2001 the Government propose to introduce further ECAs in this area and these will be incorporated into the existing ECA scheme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the British lime industry of his decision to withdraw the exemption from the climate change levy for fuel used in kilns; [38606]

  (2) what the reasons were for the Government's decision to withdraw the exemption from the climate change levy for fuel used in lime kilns; [38607]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of the British lime industry. [38608]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Energy used in lime kilns is currently treated as being exempt from the levy. This concession has been agreed to last for a period of four years, and reflects a misunderstanding before the start of the tax that energy was being used for non-fuel purposes. When tax becomes chargeable, the fuel used in lime kilns will be eligible for 80 per cent. levy discounts.

  The climate change levy only became operational in April 2001, so it is too early to assess its impact properly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for registration for the climate change levy have been received by Customs and Excise. [38581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  269 climate change levy registration requests have been received by HM Customs and Excise.

  Pension Annuities
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform the pension annuities system. [38348]

  Ruth Kelly
  For some time the Government have actively encouraged innovation in the annuity market to improve benefits for customers. As a continuation of this, the pre-Budget report on 27 November announced its intention to publish a consultation document on increasing flexibility and competition in the annuity market.

  This consultation document, called 'Modernising Annuities', was issued on 5 February and is intended to stimulate discussion on annuity issues. The consultation period will run until 5 April and the Government will then consider the responses carefully before deciding how to proceed.

  Fuel Fraud
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the present levels of civil penalty for oils frauds were introduced; [38552]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the levels of civil penalties for oils frauds. [38551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Civil penalties for all excise regimes, including oils, were introduced in the Finance Act 1994. Penalties are imposed for regulatory breaches, or failures in the duty of care.

  As stated in the document "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" I have asked HM Customs and Excise to consider the imposition of tougher penalties, including civil penalties, against those engaged in the supply of fuels for illicit purposes, or for those found using those fuels in road vehicles.

  VAT (Housing Developments)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to end the zero-rating for VAT of new building on greenfield sites; [38571]

  (2) if he plans to undertake research into the impact of removing the VAT incentive to develop greenfield rather than brownfield sites. [38570]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and any changes are announced as part of the normal Budget process.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is towards the possibility of a tax on incinerators. [38567]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plan for an incineration tax. The Government will consider the (scope of the) taxation of waste in the context of the Performance and Innovation Unit waste review.

  Landfill
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's policy that the landfill tax should continue to be revenue-neutral. [38569]
  10W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have introduced the landfill tax escalator, which increases the rate by £1 per tonne each year until 2004. Despite the escalator, receipts from the landfill tax are lower than the value of the 0.2 percentage point cut in employers' national insurance contributions that accompanied the landfill tax.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to begin formal consultation on a replacement for the landfill credit scheme. [38568]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will launch a consultation paper shortly on the future of the landfill tax credit scheme, including potential transition arrangements.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the percentage of UK cigarette consumption in 2001–02 accounted for by smuggled cigarettes. [38536]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimate is available

  Research and Development Tax Credit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that the proposed scheme for a research and development tax credit for larger companies should incorporate environmental criteria. [38572]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The objective of the proposed tax credit is to raise the level of research and development in the UK, leading to improved competitiveness and quality of life. Qualifying expenditure will include environmentally beneficial research and development.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34304]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records are not maintained centrally. Information in the format required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36227]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury, HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue made 168 instruments in the 12-month period up to January 2002. Many of the instruments introduced were of a routine nature, for example approving annual fee increases. The HMSO SI Registrar (Siregistrar@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk) can provide a list of statutory instruments which have been issued by individual Government Departments. Instruments which have been originated by Departments but eventually made by the Privy Council are only listed under the Privy Council Office.
  11W
  The costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A regulatory impact assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs. HM Treasury, HM Customs and HM Inland Revenue have produced 19 final RIAs in this period. These are available from the House Libraries and are available on departmental websites.

  Aviation Insurance
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the operation of the Troika excess premium scheme for airport insurance. [36865]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Troika scheme, which provides temporary replacement third party insurance for aviation terrorist risks, charges premiums in accordance with European Commission guidelines. The guidelines are reviewed at monthly meetings of a European Commission ad hoc group on the market for aviation insurance. The guidelines have set premiums for insurance for airports under member state schemes at 33 per cent. of the premium charged under the primary policy to which insurance premium tax (IPT) applies.

  At the last ad hoc group meeting on 15 February, a decision was made not to change the guidelines, so the premiums charged to airports remain unchanged.

  Anti-terrorism Campaign
  David Cairns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the UK of participation in the campaign against terrorism. [25417]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 26 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1133–34W, which set out the level of MOD spending on Afghanistan.

  VAT Registrations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methods he uses to assess whether legitimate traders applying to register for VAT are being unduly inconvenienced by checks carried out by HM Customs and Excise. [38630]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs work to a Charter Standard for the processing of applications for VAT registration. This requires Customs to process 95 per cent. of properly completed applications within 15 working days of receipt. As at January 2002 (latest data compiled), the Charter Standard for processing VAT registration applications was being achieved.

  Customs selectively apply extended checks aimed at identifying fraudulent applications. These cases are monitored on an individual basis to ensure a balanced approach between facilitating business and protecting the revenue.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of checks carried out by VAT registration centres were carried out manually in the last year for which figures are available. [38603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.
  12W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target times to complete and process VAT registrations and deregistrations are; and how many applications to register and deregister and what proportion of all such applications are dealt with within those time scales. [38598]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs work to a Charter Standard to process 95 per cent. of properly completed applications for VAT registration within 15 working days of receipt.

  In the current financial year to the end of January 2002, Customs received 169,082 applications for VAT registration and achieved the Charter Standard.

  Customs received 127,725 applications for deregistration in the same period. There is no Charter Standard for deregistration processing although it is Customs' policy to deal with these promptly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  GAVI
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in research and development of new vaccines for developing countries since the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation was set up. [38105]

  Clare Short
  GAVI is expected to begin funding research later this year. In the course of developing its strategy for investing in vaccine research, GAVI has prioritised research into vaccines against diarrhoea, pneumonia and meningitis. Reasons for the choice of these three include (i) the burden of disease and potential positive impact of an effective vaccine on child health; and (ii) the likelihood that investment would culminate in availability of effective vaccines against these diseases within five to seven years.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans have been made by the international community to continue to supply vaccines when Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation funding ceases. [38107]

  Clare Short
  The GAVI partnership provides financial support through a separate entity, the Vaccine Fund. Countries that receive Vaccine Fund support for new vaccines or to improve their vaccine delivery systems are expected to provide plans for financial sustainability to the GAVI Board at mid-term. The financial sustainability plan, which must be endorsed by the Ministry of Finance, sets out the country's long-term strategy for ensuring funding from internal and/or external sources when Vaccine Fund support for the country's immunisation programme ceases.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made by GAVI in vaccination rates broken down(a) by country and (b) by disease. [38109]

  Clare Short
  Although GAVI has made rapid progress since its inception two years ago, it is still too early to provide the information requested. To date, 64 of the
  13W
  74 countries eligible for GAVI support have applied, and applications from 53 of these countries have been approved.

  If the countries approved to date implement their proposals as planned, the number of infants receiving routine immunisations (against tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio) will increase from 54.6 million in 2000 to 77 million in 2007; over the same period the numbers vaccinated against hepatitis B will increase from 14.5 million to 59 million, the numbers vaccinated against Haemophilus influenzae type B will increase from 39,000 to 6 million, and the numbers vaccinated against yellow fever will increase from 78.000 to 1.9 million.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Elite Sport
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she has taken following the Elite Sports Funding Review published in August 2001. [39762]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Elite Sports Funding Review chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) identified over 40 recommendations, the large majority of which are for the Sports Councils and National Governing Bodies of sport to take forward. The Review was discussed at the Sports Cabinet on 31 October, chaired by the Secretary of State. The Cabinet beings together the Sports Ministers and chairmen of the Sports Councils from each of the devolved Administrations. At the Cabinet, the Sports Councils accepted and are now implementing the overwhelming majority of the recommendations. My Department is considering the remaining recommendations which would require additional funding in the context of the current spending review.

  Rugby Funding
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1117W, on lottery support for rugby league and rugby union, how many applications have been made to the Sports Lottery Fund by rugby league and rugby union clubs; and what percentage were unsuccessful. [37192]

  Mr. Caborn
  380 applications including 313 under the Awards for All programme have been received from rugby league clubs of which 62 per cent. were unsuccessful, and 776 application including 465 under the Awards for All programme have been received from rugby union clubs of which 50 per cent. were unsuccessful, since the start of the National Lottery.

  Community Sport (North-west)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Minister for Sport's answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 435, to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, on Community Sport (North-west), if she will publish her plans to restructure Sport England to improve regional performance. [39848]
  14W
  Mr. Caborn
  In terms of delivering and supporting sport development through revenue programmes, guidance and advice, Sport England regional offices are well placed to take a strategic lead locally. DCMS is currently completing the second stage of the quinquennial review of Sport England, which included a specific element relating to Sport England's regional role and structure. I have discussed the review's emerging findings with the new Chief Executive of Sport England and with Sport England's council members, with a view to implementing the recommendations on Sport England's regional presence as promptly as possible.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with(a) the Central Council for Physical Recreation, (b) sports governing bodies and (c) the UK Sports Council about the future structure of Sport England. [39699]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS is currently completing the second stage of the quinquennial review of Sport England, in which we are looking at its strategic management function, its regional role, and the way in which it carries out partnership working and forges alliances. This stage of the review was taken forward by a series of working groups which included representatives from Sport England, national governing bodies, local authorities, and other stakeholders, including the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the UK Sports Council.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    New Deal
    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on long-term unemployment in Doncaster, North. [36335]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Since 1997 in Doncaster, North, the number of long-term unemployed people has fallen by 85 per cent., and the number of long-term unemployed young people has been cut by 83 per cent.

    Our welfare to work initiatives have helped in this success. The new deal has helped over 900 young people into work in Doncaster, North. And the Employment Zone and Action Team for Jobs which operate in my hon Friend's constituency have between them helped over 1,000 of the most disadvantaged jobless people in Doncaster into work.

    I will be visiting the Doncaster Employment Zone on 7 March to see its work for myself.

    Housing Benefit
    Linda Gilroy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to help pensioners to get the housing benefit to which they are entitled. [36338]

    Malcolm Wicks
    This April will see the introduction of the Pension Service, bringing with it a more streamlined and seamless benefit claims process for all
    15W
    pensioners, including those claiming housing benefit. And from April 2003, we will no longer ask them to make a repeat claim for housing benefit every year.

    Changes to housing benefit to support the introduction of the Pension Credit in April 2003 will mean 1.9 million pensioner households will get more help, or help for the first time, through housing benefit.

    Pensions
    Mr. Wiggin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the pensions regulatory regime. [36339]

    Mr. McCartney
    Last year I asked Alan Pickering to review the pensions regulatory framework. He will report in the summer of 2002.

    At the same time we will have the report being prepared by Ron Sandler. Thereafter, we shall publish proposals on which we will consult, which will build on the reforms we have already made to reduce the regulatory burden and complexity, to ensure that both Government and employers can support saving for pensions and to ensure we have in place the right measures to build better pension provision.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reduce the level of advice and information on pensioner benefits available at social security offices. [37521]

    Mr. McCartney
    None.

    Jobcentre Plus
    James Purnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to enable the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to work more closely together. [36340]

    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the introduction of Jobcentre Plus. [36349]

    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of customer reaction to Jobcentre Plus. [36362]

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve the quality of service offered at jobcentres. [36336]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    At the end of this month. The Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age are being brought together to form an entirely new organisation, Jobcentre Plus.

    Jobcentre Plus will provide, for the first time, a fully integrated and work-focused employment and benefit service. The new service will graduated be rolled out to the whole country over the next few years.

    56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have already opened. These have received an overwhelmingly positive response from both individual customers and employers.

    Services (Jobseekers)
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the introduction of touch-screen services for jobseekers. [36341]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We have just completed the installation of over 9,000 Jobpoints across our entire network of Jobcentres. Early evaluation has shown that Jobpoints are encouraging jobseekers to look at a larger range of jobs across wider geographical areas and apply for more jobs.

    Jobpoints are increasing jobseekers' prospects of moving into work and helping them to do so more quickly.

    Hospital Downrating
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on deductions from pensions of pensioners admitted as in-patients to hospitals. [36342]

    Mr. McCartney
    I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 778W, in which I said that as previously promised we have considered carefully the impact of the current rules which reduce certain benefits paid to pensioners and people of working age after six weeks of hospitalisation. The downrating of benefits preserves the principle that the state should not make double provision. It also recognises that a substantial number of people leave hospital before six weeks.

    However, we also recognise that people have on-going financial commitments while in hospital, and although we consider the six week rule strikes a fair balance between what the state should provide financially and the provision individuals should make for themselves, we have nonetheless decided to extend the period before benefits are downrated by a further seven weeks to the 13th week stage. This will mean that people previously affected by the six week rule will be able to keep their benefits untouched if their period of stay in hospital is under 13 weeks.

    We will introduce this change to coincide with the introduction of Pension Credit.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is towards the incomes of pensioners while they are in long-term hospital care. [36350]

    Mr. McCartney
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 778W, in which I said that as previously promised we have considered carefully the impact of the current rules which reduce certain benefits paid to pensioners and people of working age after six weeks of hospitalisation. The downrating of benefits preserves the principle that the state should not make double provision. It also recognises that a substantial number of people leave hospital before six weeks.

    However, we also recognise that people have ongoing financial commitments while in hospital, and although we consider the six week rule strikes a fair balance between what the state should provide financially and the provision

    17W
    individuals should make for themselves, we have nonetheless decided to extend the period before benefits are downrated by a further seven weeks to the 13th week stage. This will mean that people previously affected by the six week rule will be able to keep their benefits untouched if their period of stay in hospital is under 13 weeks. We will introduce this change to coincide with the introduction of Pension Credit.

    We have also taken steps to substantially increase the income of all pensioners. For example, we have increased the basic pension above inflation, we have increased the winter fuel payments, we introduced free TV licences and we have increased the amount of the minimum income guarantee and brought more pensioners within its scope by raising the capital limits. When Pension Credit is introduced in 2003, 5.5 million pensioners will be better off and for the first time pensioners will be rewarded, not penalised, for saving. At the same time further increases are proposed—above inflation—to the pensioners' tax allowance. When the State Second Pension is introduced in April 2002 18 million people, including carers, long-term disabled and low to moderate earners, will benefit. This is a substantial package of measures. These are real increases which make all pensioners better off.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much will be raised in each full year from 2003 by the revised hospital downrating rules announced on 25 February; what proportion will be attributed severally to(a) retirement pensions and (b) other benefits; and how many (i) pensioners and (ii) recipients of other benefits he estimates will still be affected. [39440]

    Mr. McCartney
    There will be no money raised by the revised hospital downrating rules, to be brought in from October 2003. It will be delivered at a cost to Government of approximately £40 million.

    We estimate that up to 5,000 claimants of retirement pension are affected by the 13 to 52 week hospital downrating rule at any point in time. 4,000 claimants of other benefits are also affected.

    Notes:

    1. All figures are 2001–02 price terms.

    2. Some pensioners will have both retirement pension and pension credit. Therefore there is a small amount of overlap in the number of claimants of retirement pension that will still be downrated, and the number of people claiming other benefits that are down-rated. This overlap will not be more than 2,000 people at any point in time.

    3. The figures are for all income related benefits and retirement pension.

    Pensions and Benefits
    Andrew Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he next expects to meet his Belgian counterpart to discuss pensions and benefits due to UK citizens. [36343]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have any immediate plans for a meeting.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Francois
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets his Department has set local authorities for benefit fraud prosecutions for 2001–02. [36345]
    18W
    Malcolm Wicks
    We have not set a target for the number of local authority prosecutions for 2001–02. Our policy is to ensure local authorities improve their performance in combating fraud across the board, from the outset of a claim and throughout its life.

    Our new incentive scheme is designed to give clear rewards to local authorities who punish fraudsters with the full range of available penalties, including prosecutions.

    Employment Assistance (Disabled People)
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work. [36347]

    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help disabled people back into work. [36355]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We have introduced a range of measures to help people with disabilities secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

    Our new deal for disabled people pilots helped over 8,200 disabled people into work. Building on that success we have now introduced a national network of job brokers.

    We are making work possible for people with disabilities by removing benefit barriers. From April we are introducing new, fairer and more flexible work rules for people receiving incapacity benefit. We are making work pay through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage.

    Jobcentre Plus offers disabled people making new or repeat claims to benefit work-focused meetings with a personal adviser so as to ensure they are aware of the help and opportunities available to them.

    Employment Assistance
    Ms Dari Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people affected by large-scale redundancies to find work. [36348]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Through the Rapid Response Service, we are strengthening and expanding the help we can offer people affected by large scale redundancy. We have been developing the service in pilot areas since September 2000, and across all regions since April 2001. All the elements of the service will be in place next month, supported by a further investment of £6 million over two years.

    The aim of the service is to support individuals, employers and communities affected by significant redundancies and help people make the transition into sustainable new jobs. The service will work closely with key partners in the local area, such as the Regional Development Agencies, the Learning and Skills Council and trade unions, to co-ordinate an immediate response to a significant redundancy.

    Private Pensions
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets his Department has to increase private pension provision. [36351]
    19W
    Mr. McCartney
    As I said last November and again in January, we are committed to encouraging private saving to meet the long-term challenges of an aging population. And we remain committed. That is why we are introducing Pension Credit—making sure it pays to save; we have introduced stakeholder pensions—a secure and value for money vehicle to make private provision; we have launched a simplification review—to reduce the layers of regulation that increase costs; we will replace the Minimum Funding Requirement; and we are implementing the recommendations of the Myners Review; and that is why our pensions education campaign is driving home the message that saving now is the best way to guarantee security tomorrow.

    Occupational Pensions
    Richard Ottaway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on changes in the level of provision of occupational pension schemes, with special reference to the guarantee of a pension based on final earnings. [36352]

    Mr. McCartney
    There has been a long-term decline since the 1960s in both the coverage and number of occupational schemes. Provision peaked in the 1960s. There is also a trend away from final salary schemes towards defined contribution arrangements, although by far the majority of scheme members remain in salary-related schemes. We welcome the fact that many employers voluntarily continue to provide pensions for their staff, whether it is through defined benefit provision or defined contribution provision.

    The reasons for the long-term changes to occupational pension provision are complex. People are living longer. There has been a relative decline in the sectors that traditionally offer occupational pensions and an increase in self-employment. Lower expected stock market returns, ending of contribution holidays, and an increase in complexity of regulations imposed since the late 1980s have all contributed.

    But the Government are acting. We are seeking better regulation through the simplification review; better products through the introduction of stakeholder pensions (with 637,000 individual sales within their first eight months) and the Sandler Review of personal investment products; and to reward saving through the Pension Credit.

    Employment Assistance (Deprived Areas)
    Jeff Ennis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help he plans to give to long-term unemployed people in deprived areas. [36353]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. The new deals have already helped well over 600,000 people into jobs.

    We introduced Employment Zones specifically to help long-term unemployed people in deprived areas get and keep work. The 15 Employment Zones have already helped over 17,200 people move into work. We are in the process of extending the existing zones' contracts until March 2004, and are currently fully evaluating zone performance before deciding how to take the initiative further. The Doncaster Employment Zone, which is
    20W
    operating in part of the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency, has already helped over 590 people into work.

    Action Teams for Jobs are also helping to tackle joblessness in the most employment deprived areas in the country. In their first year of operation they had helped nearly 16,500 people into work. Up to October 2001, Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield were covered by a single South Yorkshire Action Team, which helped 585 people move into work. In October 2001, following the extension of the Action Teams initiative, the South Yorkshire Team was split into two, with one Team covering Barnsley and Rotherham. Between October 2001 and January 2002, the Barnsley and Rotherham Action Team helped 63 people into jobs.

    Shona Mclsaac
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people back into work in areas of acute social deprivation. [36357]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Our welfare to work initiatives are helping people into work in all parts of the country. However, we recognise that there are a small number of areas with acute labour market disadvantages.

    In October 2000, we launched Action Teams for Jobs to help jobless people in the most employment deprived areas in the country into work. Action Teams give help tailored to the needs of the individual clients, developing innovative ways to help people overcome the barriers they face when looking for work. By the end of their first year of operation, Action Teams had helped nearly 16,500 people into jobs. In January we increased the number of Action Teams from 53 to 63, and are investing £122 million to fund the teams up to March 2004.

    In spring 2000, we introduced 15 Employment Zones in areas of persistently high long-term unemployment. The zones have already helped over 17,200 people move into work. We are in the process of extending the existing contracts until March 2004. We are currently fully evaluating the performance of the zones before deciding how to take the initiative further.

    Annuities
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform the annuity rule for pensioners. [36354]

    Mr. McCartney
    The Government issued a consultation document, "Modernising Annuities", on 5 February to stimulate discussion on annuity issues. The consultation will run until 5 April, and we will then consider the responses before deciding how to proceed.

    As the Government have repeatedly made clear, it is important that pension funds built up with the support of tax relief are used for their intended purpose—that is, to provide pensioners with a secure income in retirement. Our intention is to ensure that people make well-informed and appropriate decisions when purchasing annuities, and that the annuity market is flexible and offers good value choices within that market.

    Textile Workers (Sunderland)
    Mr. Mullin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to assist with retraining redundant textile workers in Sunderland; and if he will make a statement. [36356]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Wherever redundancies occur, and in whatever sector, the Employment Service together with other key regional partners, will set up a task force to identify and provide the support needed by those affected. This can include help through the Rapid Response Service where appropriate.

    The aim of the Rapid Response Service is to provide support for those affected by redundancy and help people make the transition into sustainable new jobs. The nature of the help provided by the service will be tailored to the needs of the individuals, the employer, and the local labour market concerned. This could include offering information and advice to those affected, facilitating retraining where necessary, or developing customised retraining programmes.

    We have been developing the Rapid Response Service in pilot areas since September 2000, and across all regions, including the north-east, since April 2001. All the elements of the Service will be in place next month, supported by a further investment of £6 million over two years.

    Pensions (Low-paid Worker)
    Brain White
    To ask the secretary of State for work and Pensions what support his Department gives to low-paid workers to build up pension entitlememt. [36358]

    Mr. McCartney
    Form 6 April, some 18 million employees will start to build up better state pensions when state Second Pension reforms SERPS. In particular people earning £10,800 or less will get at least twice as much as they would have done under SERPS, and any body earning up to £24,600 a year will also benefit, whether or not they are contribution to a private pension. In addition, State second Pension will allow some two million carers and a similar number of people with long term disabilities to build up an additional (2nd tier) state pension for the first time.

    The minimum income guarantee already boosts the retirememt income of nearly two million pensioners. We also estimate that around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for the pension Credit when it is introduced in October 2003—on average pensioners will be better off by £400 a year with some getting up to £1,000.

    Income-related Benefits
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the secretary of state for work and Pensions if he will made a statement on the take-up of income-related benefits by pensioner. [36359]

    Dr. McCartney
    This government want all pensioners to have a decent income in retirememt and is commited to ensuring that those poorer pensioners who are eligible for the receipt of Minimum Income guarantee (MIG) can achieve their legal entitlememt.
    22W
    As a result of the national MIG take-up campaign launched in May 2000 there have been an additional 243,793 claims of which 127,371 have been successful providing these pensioners with an extra £20 a week on average. In total, over 1.7 million pensioners are now receiving the MIG, 3500 of whom live in the New Forest, East constituency.

    We have produced a new leaflet that explains who is entitled to MIG and how to claim, launched the new 10-page claim form, and set up the MIG Tele-Centre. All of these measures make it easier for pensioners to understand their entitlement and make a claim.

    We are following this up, and from October 2001 when a customer applies for their retirement pension those who are not already receiving MIG are asked a series of questions to identify if they may be entitled and encouraged to claim if they wish to do so.

    We are looking at a number of options to extend this service so that a claim to MIG will be invited automatically following certain key life events, for example when a pensioner reaches age 75 or 80 or when another benefit such as attendance allowance is awarded.

    We are also working in partnership with organisations for older people to improve access to benefits and take up of MIG.

    Pension Service
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the new pension service to come into operation. [36360]

    Mr. McCartney
    The pension service will be launched on 1 April 2002 and will offer an improved service for pensioners. It will be customer-focused and will give pensioners a modern, personalised, efficient service designed to meet their needs. It will also provide information for future pensioners to help them make decisions about their future pension arrangements.

    It will comprise an improved local service nationwide which will operate in the community to provide face to face contact for pensioners.

    The local service will also provide a visiting service and will support customers by working in partnership with voluntary organisations, local authorities and other Government Departments to provide a more joined up service.

    This improved service will be rolled out over the next two years. In the interim, our customers will continue to deal with their existing social security offices.

    The local service for pensioners in each Government Office Region will be located throughout that region. Support work for the local service in the north-east will be shared between the Stockton and Seaham pension centres.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of stakeholder pensions have been purchased by his Department's target group. [36361]
    23W
    Mr. McCartney
    The information is not yet available, however, figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) state that around 640,000 stakeholder pensions had been sold up the end of December 2001 representing over £1 billion of new pension premiums. Over 310,000 employers had designated a stakeholder scheme for their workforce by that date; a compliance rate of about 80 per cent. achieved within three months of the requirement coming into force.

    Stakeholder pensions have also helped to stimulate the wider pensions market. In 2001, new regular premium pensions business rose by 52.5 per cent. over the preceding year to a total of £2.4 billion. Over the same period, single premium pension business rose by 2.7 per cent. to just over £50 billion.

    The aim of our long-term pension reforms is to give everyone access to a good value pension arrangement, so that they have the chance of a decent income in retirement. Stakeholder pensions are part of those reforms. Targets for a particular type of pension are not appropriate. The suitability of a stakeholder pension for any individual is a matter for them to decide in the light of their particular circumstances.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent studies he has undertaken to identify the obstacles facing women returning to work. [36363]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    A number of studies are carried out on behalf of the Department looking at families with children and specifically lone parent families. These studies have examined the obstacles faced by women and informed the development of initiatives like the new deals, which have helped nearly a quarter of a million women move into work.

    The current Employment Bill will introduce further measures that will help mothers to balance their work and family commitments. This is good for parents, children and business.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 8 and 16 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Willingham. [40325]

    Mr. McCartney
    I replied to my right hon. Friend on 1 March.

    Retirement Age
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has considered plans to change the state retirement age from 65 years. [36523]

    Mr. McCartney
    No.

    Capita
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list all contracts awarded by his Department to Capita since 1997, stating(a) start and finish date of contract, (b) value of contract, (c) description of
    24W
    work to be carried out, (d) evaluation mechanism for successful delivery of contract, (e) penalty charges for failure to deliver and (f) if penalty charges have been incurred; and if he will make a statement. [39982]

    Mr. McCartney
    Until 2000 most records for use of consultants were kept by individual projects and programmes, rather than centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is as follows.

    Accommodation and Office Services (AOS)

    (a) Start and finish dates:

    AOS contract

    Start date

    End date

    North-west coast and Greater Manchester

    1 April 1999

    Extended to 31 March 2004

    Tyne Tees and Yorkshire

    1 April 1999

    Extended to 31 March 2004

    West Midlands and Mercia

    1 April 1999

    Extended to 31 March 2004

    (b) Estimated total value for the three contracts to 31 March 2004 is £112.9 million.

    (c) Services provided under each of these contracts are:

    Post opening

    Typing

    Secretarial

    Shuttle bus management

    Post despatch Reprographics

    Fleet management

    Messengerial

    Switchboard operation

    Stationery ordering.

    (d) The contractor is monitored against the standards of delivery stipulated in the contract. The contractor provides monthly reports detailing levels of service achieved. If the service level is deficient, service credits can be applied.

    (e) and (f) There are no penalty clauses within the contract.

    Winter Fuels Payments (New Rules)

    (a) The initial contract was for one year from 5 May 2000 to 4 May 2001, with an option to run for up to five years—i.e. to 4 May 2005. To date there have been two one-year extensions—the current expiry date is 4 May 2003.

    (b) Estimated value for the three years to 4 May 2003 is £16.1 million.

    (c) Bulk issue of claim forms for winter fuels payments to potential customers, identified by the Department (as living within Great Britain); and provision of a helpline service to deal with inquiries and issue of forms to customers with potential entitlement from previous winters.

    (d) and (e) Performance targets for service delivery were included in the contract, and liquidated damages set for failure to reach these targets The detail of the targets set and the level of liquidated damages to be imposed for failure to deliver these are commercially confidential between the Department and Capita.

    (f) To date, no liquidated damages have been imposed.
    25W
    Recruitment Services

    (a) 13 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

    (b) Some £600,000 in total.

    (c) To provide the Department's Human Resource Services with professional, independent advice and recruitment services.

    (d) and (e) A range of quality criteria and control mechanisms are included in the contract, with post exercise reviews of administration, value for money and charging regimes.

    (f) Not applicable.

    Working Age Specification Framework

    (a) Initially let from 15 October 2001 to 7 December 2001, then extended to 31 March 2002.

    (b) £139,443.

    (c) Support to provide a framework to ensure that Working Age Group is focused directly on activities that best contribute to the targets for which it is responsible.

    (d) and (e) Payment for defined products, to time and standard. Unacceptable deliverables/products can result in re-work to correct at no additional charge to the Department, partial acceptance and pro-rata payment or, finally, termination of the contract.

    (f) None.

    Consultancy support to Pension Credit Project Central Design Authority

    (a) Let from 4 February 2002 to 12 April 2002.

    (b) Maximum value £198.000.

    (c) Consultancy support to assist in key design tasks.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    User Tester to the Pensions Forecasting Project

    (a) 19 November 2001 to 25 February 2002.

    (b) £24,850.

    (c) Capita analysed new business processes in order establish their impact and any testing requirements.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    Private Sector Led New Deal—Solihull

    (a) 1 August 1998 to 15 November 2002.

    (b) £500,000.

    (c) Provide consultancy advice and support to the Employment Service locally.

    (d) The contract sets out the services to be delivered and the key performance indicators that have to be met. The contract manager is responsible for assuring that the services captured within the contract are being delivered. The contract sets out the remedies for non-delivery of the services specified within the contract. Performance management is undertaken by the contract manager who is responsible for working in partnership with the contractor to improve the levels of performance. Where appropriate the delivery of performance is directly linked to outputs/outcomes so in such circumstances payment is only triggered when the agreed levels of performance have been met.
    26W
    (e) and (f) The contract does not include provision for penalty charges and therefore none have been incurred.

    Employment Services Estates Corporate Supply

    (a) 6 May 1998 to 5 May 2002.

    (b) £3 million.

    (c) Advised on Jobcentre Plus pathfinder environment issues, acting as managing consultant for the Jobcentre Plus refurbishment programme in the Employment Services estate.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    New Deal Next Phase (progress2work)—Birmingham North

    New Deal Next Phase (progress2work)—Birmingham South

    (a) Both run from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2004.

    (b) £238,000 each.

    (c) Establishing pathfinders for the first tranche of progress2work, targeting unemployed clients disadvantaged through drug misuse.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    Disability Marketing in the North-west

    (a) 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003.

    (b) £168,000.

    (c) Marketing support for the North West Disability Services.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    Access to Work

    (a) 1 April 2001 to 1 October 2001.

    (b) £184,000.

    (c) Review of the Access to Work processes.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) Procurement Support

    (a) 9 October 2000 to 22 December 2000.

    (b) £127,000.

    (c) Technical support during the NDDP procurement exercise.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    (d) (e) and (f) As above.

    Post Office
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made since January on negotiations between the Post Office and its partners on the Universal bank. [36337]

    Mr. Darling
    Good progress continues to be made. I shall keep the House informed.

    Accountancy Contracts
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to

    27W
    (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34985]

    Mr. McCartney
    The information requested on the number of contracts let is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information requested on value of contracts is provided in the table as follows:

    Remuneration

    £million

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Arthur Andersen

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Deloitte & Touche

    2.4

    2.4

    2.8

    10.7

    Ernst & Young

    1.9

    2.7

    3.8

    0.98

    KPMG

    0.1

    1.0

    0.42

    0.52

    PWC

    1.7

    1.2

    0.32

    0.47

    Figures relate to contracts awarded by the ex Department of Social Security up to the last full financial year for which information is available.

    Arthur Andersen: the figures in the table relate to Andersen Worldwide, Arthur Andersen (AA) and not to Andersen Consulting which split from the Andersen Worldwide organisation in 1999.

    Remuneration with Deloitte & Touche rose sharply between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 because, following competition, they were selected as a strategic partner for the Child Support Agency to assist in implementing Child Support Reforms. The increased remuneration reflects the increased work done under this partnership since late 1999, for example business process and organisational design and planning and IS/IT assurance.

    Ernst & Young/CGEY. The consulting arm of Ernst & Young was purchased by Cap Gemini in 2000 to form Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CGEY).

    PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) was formed on 1 July 1998 as the result of a merger of the Price Waterhouse and Coopers and Lybrand organisations.

    Jobcentres
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of jobcentres in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland are equipped with Jobpoint terminals. [36747]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The rollout of Jobpoints across the network of Jobcentres will be completed by the end of February. Currently some 99 per cent. of Jobcentres in Great Britain, and in Scotland, are equipped with Jobpoint terminals. Jobcentres in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if he will list the total cost, including (i) travel, accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37986]
    28W
    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2001, special advisers in my Department did not travel abroad on any occasion. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the ministerial code, and the civil service management code.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has set for reducing discrimination against older people. [36344]

    Mr. McCartney
    We are vigorously promoting the benefits of recruiting, training and retaining older workers as part of our Age Positive campaign and to help employers prepare for the introduction of employment legislation by 2006.

    We have set ourselves a target of increasing the employment rate of people aged 50 and over. The new deal 50 plus has already helped 127 people move into work in the hon. Member's constituency. Our new Jobcentre Plus service will help all those people on benefits who want to find work, regardless of age. [One of the Jobcentre Plus pathfinders is near to my hon. Friend's constituency, in Livingston]. We are building on the success of the measures we have already taken which have helped increase the employment rate for older people in each of the past four years.

    Action Teams for Jobs
    Paul Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of Action Teams for Jobs. [36329]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Action Teams for Jobs are helping to tackle joblessness in the most employment deprived areas in the country. Action Teams are performing well. In their first year of operation, they helped nearly 16,500 people into work—over 40 per cent. of participants.

    As part of the extension of the Action Teams initiative last October, a new team was created in south Manchester, covering my hon. Friend's constituency. By mid-February, the team had already engaged with 167 clients.

  DEFENCE

    Nancekuke
    Ms Atherton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the(a) morbidity and (b) mortality records for workers at CDE Nancekuke in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement on the results. [34865]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence has not conducted any investigation of the mortality of ex-members of staff at CDE Nancekuke since the 1970 report from the Registrar General that concluded that there were no excess deaths or any differences in the cause of death compared to the national population.
    29W
    However, the MOD has looked again at the data compiled at about the same time on the morbidity of Nancekuke workers. I have concluded that although the quality of the available information is not sufficient to produce a definitive scientific paper, there was nothing to suggest an excess morbidity in ex-Nancekuke staff.

    Military Bases
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of US bases in the UK since 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [38063]

    Dr. Moonie
    Security at Ministry of Defence establishments is kept under constant review. It is MOD policy not to disclose details of security measures.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent changes there have been to policy regarding MDP reserves being used to secure and protect military bases; and if he will make a statement. [38068]

    Dr. Moonie
    There are no Ministry of Defence police reserves, although there is an MDP Operational Support Unit (OSU) of 50 officers based at MDP Headquarters in Wethersfield in Essex. OSU officers continue, as before, to be used to enable MDP to meet exceptional demands to resources and to provide specialist skills as and where required.

    BAE Systems Broach Penetrating Warhead
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of flight trials of the AGM 154c carrying the BAE Systems Broach penetrating warhead; and if he will make a statement. [38228]

    Dr. Moonie
    The AGM 154c (Joint Stand-Off Weapon) is a United States Navy Programme. As such, the Ministry of Defence has no visibility of the costs involved.

    Atlantic Patrol Task (North)
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the length of the deployment of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) to the West Indies was set at nine months. [38947]

    Mr. Ingram
    The length of the deployment of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) is not stipulated as nine months. The Atlantic Patrol Task came into effect on 1 November 1998 to allow greater flexibility on how peacetime deployments to the Caribbean, South Atlantic and West Africa were managed. Since November 1998, the annual average cover by the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) in the Caribbean region has been nine and a half months.

    Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his study into the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft capability; when the outcome will be made public; and what assessment he has made of existing helicopter designs. [38949]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft project is currently nearing completion of its concept phase. During this phase we have identified a30W
    number of options that have the potential to meet the capability requirements when the Maritime Lynx goes out of service. A number of existing helicopter designs are potentially able to meet these requirements, including the Future Lynx proposal from Westlands Helicopter Ltd., and these will be considered further in the assessment phase. I expect to be able to make a further announcement about the next stage for this project later this year.

    Apache Helicopter
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the Apache helicopter in support of amphibious operations and the Royal Marines. [38946]

    Mr. Ingram
    Trials to determine the operating limits, and any modifications required, for the UK's WAH 64 Attack Helicopter to operate in a maritime environment are due to commence in early 2004. Decisions on the extent of the utility of the helicopter in support of amphibious operations and the Royal Marines will be informed by the outcome of the trials.

    Berlin Plus Agreements
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made in setting modalities to enable EU access to NATO capabilities within the framework of Berlin plus agreements. [38943]

    Mr. Hoon
    Work between the EU and NATO continues. We have made good progress towards agreement on EU access to NATO assets and capabilities, although arrangements are not yet finalised.

    International Security Assistance Force
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Government have had with(a) the interim Afghan Administration and (b) other nations contributing to the International Security Assistance Force, concerning the possible deployment of ISAF to cities other than Kabul. [38952]

    Mr. Hoon
    We hold regular discussions with the Interim Administration and other contributing nations about the role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), including proposals that ISAF might be deployed to cities other than Kabul. We continue to have questions about the practicality of such a deployment in current circumstances.

    Exercise Tradewinds 01
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships and nations were to have been involved in exercise Tradewinds 01; and what the purpose of the exercise was to be. [38948]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Atlantic Patrol Task (North) ship, HMS Sheffield, participated in the US sponsored exercise Tradewinds 01 between 26 April and 3 May 2001. In addition to UK and US forces involvement, the Regional Security Systems States (Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and Dominica) participated in the exercise along with Trinidad and Tobago. The main purpose of the exercise was to establish a framework for the Caribbean ground and maritime forces to conduct joint and coalition training.
    31W
    Within this framework, the aim was to promote regional interoperability, enhance participants' ability to conduct small to medium scale operations in a multinational environment and to improve their ability to respond to disaster relief, search and rescue and law enforcement operations.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the concept of(a) a European Security and Defence Identity and (b) a European Security and Defence Policy. [38941]

    Mr. Hoon
    The European Security and Defence Identity was founded within NATO to enable European Allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the Alliance. The European Security and Defence Policy of the European Union reinforces this work and seeks to improve European military capabilities.

    DSACEUR
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Deputy SACEUR will play within the EU Military Committee. [38942]

    Mr. Hoon
    The EU Military Committee (EUMC) is formally composed of the EU Chiefs of Defence, who are represented on a permanent basis by Brussels-based Military Representatives. DSACEUR may be invited to attend EUMC meetings in view of his responsibilities for the European Pillar of NATO and his potential role in EU-led operations.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons aerial bombing raids are continuing in Afghanistan. [38499]

    Mr. Hoon
    The coalition remains committed to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to account and preventing al-Qaeda from posing a terrorist threat in the future. Coalition aircraft are therefore continuing to support action by Afghan forces on the ground against the terrorists and their Taliban supporters.

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to formulate an accurate assessment of the numbers of casualties in Afghanistan since 11 September 2001. [38498]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 337W.

    Research and Development
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on how much was spent on research and development last year. [39199]

    Dr. Moonie
    Ministry of Defence (MOD) spending on research and development is reported annually in Defence Statistics, published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency. The latest year for which figures are available is 1999–2000 when the MOD spent £2,345 million, inclusive of VAT.

    QinetiQ
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential losses of expertise due to the division of DERA into QinetiQ and Dstl. [39194]

    Dr. Moonie
    The process of splitting DERA, into Dstl and QinetiQ, was based on the key objective to identify the functional requirements and capabilities needed by each organisation to achieve their future business goals. DERA and the Ministry of Defence experts worked closely together in late 2000 to identify which divisions, teams and individuals were required by which organisation, and the final division aimed to provide each organisation with skills that were both balanced and adequate to achieve sustainability.

    The division into future-Dstl and future-QinetiQ operated on a "shadow" basis from January 2001, and QinetiQ plc and Dstl were formally created in July last year. Throughout, both organisations have continued to successfully meet the needs of their customers. We are confident that the PPP process, which is still ongoing, will strengthen links between military and civil technology and improve the transfer of bright ideas from the private sector and academia. This will strongly benefit the defence science base.

    Both organisations are vibrant and attractive places to work, and continue to attract and retain high calibre staff in the face of growing competition from the civil sector.

    STAR 21
    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what input his Department is making to the deliberations of the European Union's Advisory Group on Aerospace (STAR 21); and when the Group is expected to make its recommendations. [39037]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: STAR 21 is an industry group set up under the auspices of the European Commission, with no formal involvement from the Governments of EU member states. Nevertheless, we are being kept abreast of the group's deliberations, and would anticipate being consulted on the group's findings and proposals. I understand that the group is hoping to report in the summer.

    Armed Forces (Northern Ireland)
    David Burnside
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the minimum garrison strength of the armed forces required to remain in Northern Ireland in the event of a total cessation of terrorism and the threat of terrorism within the United Kingdom from Irish Republican and Loyalist terrorist organisations. [40080]

    Mr. Ingram
    The detailed nature of the long-term garrison in Northern Ireland will require careful study taking into account practical factors which apply throughout the United Kingdom, such as training needs, facilities and availability of accommodation. Ultimately we would expect the number of regular service personnel permanently based in Northern Ireland to be about 8,000, a comparable number to those stationed in similar sized areas in Great Britain.

    Saville Inquiry
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive a report on the circumstances leading to the loss of confidential information regarding the identity of the soldiers who are due to give evidence to the Saville Inquiry; what steps have been taken to(a) recover the lost documents and (b) offer protection to the soldiers and their families; and if he will make a statement. [40079]

    Mr. Ingram
    Inquiries by the police have revealed that a number of documents relating to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry were left outside banisters' chambers in London. There is no indication that any of these documents contained information regarding the identity of the soldiers, nor anything else that would affect the safety of them or their families.

    The police inquiries continue and I am being kept apprised of their progress.

    Tyne Class OPVs
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what armament will be carried by the Tyne Class OPVs. [40310]

    Mr. Ingram
    HMS Tyne will be the first of the three new River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels to be built. Each vessel will be fitted with one 20 mm BMARC KAA Gun and two 7.62 mm General Purpose Machine Guns. In addition, the crew will have access to small arms, including SA 80 Rifles and 9 mm pistols.

    Warships
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Indian Government concerning expressions of interest to purchase HMS Invincible. [38950]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence has received no representations from the Government of India concerning the availability of HMS Invincible for purchase.

    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the refit of HMS Vanguard will take; and what is the estimated cost. [40311]

    Mr. Ingram
    The refit of HMS Vanguard is scheduled to take around two and a half years to complete including trials and training. The total cost of the refit is estimated to be approximately £217 million including materials, but excluding the costs for any additional essential work identified during the course of the refit.

    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what standby notice HMS Sheffield will be available between 2003 and 2004. [40314]

    Mr. Ingram
    On current plans, HMS Sheffield will be held at Extended Readiness, commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review, from November 2002 until September 2004. Extended Readiness provides the flexibility to vary the notion of availability.

    Type 42 Destroyers
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when each of the remaining Type 42 destroyers will be paid off. [40313]

    Mr. Ingram
    On current plans, the operational decommissioning dates for the remaining Type 42 destroyers in the Royal Navy are as follows:

    Type 42 destroyer

    Planned operational decommissioning date

    HMS Cardiff

    2008

    HMS Newcastle

    2007

    HMS Glasgow

    2009

    HMS Exeter

    2010

    HMS Southampton

    2011

    HMS Nottingham

    2012

    HMS Liverpool

    2013

    HMS Manchester

    2012

    HMS Gloucester

    2013

    HMS Edinburgh

    2013

    HMS York

    2014

    Frigates
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all type 22 and type 23 frigates will be refitted with the 114 mm Mark VIII Mod I gun. [40315]

    Mr. Ingram
    It is planned to install the 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark VIII MOD 1 gun on type 22 batch 3 frigates and on all type 23 frigates.

    Cape Wrath Range
    John Thurso
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his policy is on consent to applications received from(a) UK forces and (b) overseas forces for the use of depleted uranium-based ammunition at Cape Wrath range; [40329]

    (2) if depleted uranium-based ammunition has been authorised for use at the Cape Wrath range by (a) UK forces and (b) overseas forces; and if he will make a statement. [40328]

    Dr. Moonie
    The use of depleted uranium ammunition is not and never has been authorised at Cape Wrath range. We have no intention of changing this policy.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Collaboration Agreements
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) number and (b) type of collaboration agreements between universities and colleges and industry; and if she will make a statement on the benefit of these agreements. [39703]

    Margaret Hodge
    The most recent description of collaboration between higher education institutions and business is the Higher Education—Business Interaction Survey report by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, published in December 2001, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This survey was
    35W
    commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England on behalf of stakeholders including the Department for Education and Skills. The report can also be found on the internet at www.hefce.ac.uldPubsthefce/2001/01–68.htm. Interactions and collaboration between higher education institutions and businesses can bring a number of benefits, for companies, for institutions, for employees and for students.

    Medical Schools
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to address potential over-crowding in medical schools. [37218]

    Margaret Hodge
    Following a review of the medical workforce, published in December 1997, and the commitments made in the NHS Plan in July 2000, the number of places available to study medicine in England will increase to almost 6,000 in 2005–06. Of the additional places, over 40 per cent. will be at new medical schools. The extra places were approved by an implementation group chaired jointly by the Chief Executive of Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Chief Medical Officer for England following bids for additional places by medical schools. The General Medical Council also considered the bids for quality and delivery of teaching provision. The increases will be implemented, in stages, over seven years in line with the capacity of medical schools to accommodate the additional students.

    Out of School Clubs
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many out of school clubs which received new opportunities funding since such funding was available(a) have subsequently closed and (b) are operational. [37297]

    Margaret Hodge
    Information is not available in the form requested.

    The New Opportunities Fund Out Of Schools Hours Programme has created over 146,500 new out of school hours child care places in England since April 1999. Most of these projects are still receiving funding from the Fund but of those projects that have submitted their end of grant reports, over 90 per cent. of places are still in operation.

    Between 1999 and 2004 £225.5 million is being made available to help start up new out of school hours child care in England.

    Fast Track Scheme
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost has been of the Fast Track Scheme, including the costs of advertising. [38049]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government have invested the following funds in creating the Fast Track Teaching Programme, a new career route for some of the highest calibre future teachers:

    £

    2000–01

    4,603,058

    2001–02

    18,530,000

    1 Estimated end-year forecast

    36W
    This represents the total investment to date in fast track, including: national advertising; targeted marketing; application materials; assessment and selection: enhanced initial teacher training; bursaries; ICT; additional professional development events; marketing to schools; and the investment needed to build a highly personalised system of job-broking, career management and professional development.

    Welcome Back Bonus Scheme
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost has been of the welcome back bonus scheme; and how much of that cost has been paid to returning teachers. [38051]

    Mr. Timms
    The information is not available in the form requested. Local education authorities pay welcome back bonuses to teachers and then claim reimbursement of this expenditure from my Department. The first reimbursements will be made this month. We do not yet have final claimant numbers. £117,280 was allocated in the current financial year to publicise the bonus and establish the administrative arrangements for the scheme.

    Learning and Skills Councils
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local learning and skills councils have appointed specialist officers in basic skills. [38452]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's grant letter to the LSC for 2002–03 highlighted the importance of tackling the legacy of poor basic skills, and asked the LSC to implement its adult literacy and numeracy strategy, to meet the target of raising the literacy and numeracy skills of 750,000 young people and adults by 2004 and set out the key priorities for the LSC in 2002–03 including taking responsibility for tackling the woeful legacy of poor basic skills.

    The LSC has confirmed that there is at least one person in each local LSC with specific responsibility for basic skills.

    Knowledge Transfer
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the value and effectiveness of knowledge transfer initiatives sponsored by her Department. [38521]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry, supports knowledge transfer through projects in higher education funded under the Higher Education Innovation Fund, which incorporates the earlier Higher Education Reach-Out to Business and the Community Fund. Many of the projects funded under these initiatives introduced new organisational and structural arrangements intended to lead to systematic and sustainable improvements in relationships between higher education institutions and business. As the earliest projects have only been running for just over two years it is still too soon for full evaluation. Early indications suggest that these initiatives are helping to improve the capacity of higher education institutions to carry out knowledge transfer.

    Student Costs
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the number of potential students, broken down by social class, who were deterred from applying for a university place in 2001 because of the financial cost they might incur. [38787]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Youth Cohort Study shows that around nine in 10 young people who achieve two or more A-levels by 18 progress to Higher Education by the time they are 21. The differences in participation rates between different social classes largely reflect differences in prior attainment. A research study into the factors affecting participation in HE by different social class groups (which focused on those with, or seeking to get, entry-level qualifications) found that finance is one of a number of concerns people had when they were deciding whether or not to attend university. However, among those who had decided against going to university the main reasons were not related to the likely costs involved but because they wanted to start work or because they did not need a higher education qualification for their chosen career.

    Student Guidance
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what type of guidance on available funding is offered to(a) students applying for university places and (b) current university students; and who offers this guidance. [38788]

    Margaret Hodge
    My Department produces an annual guide to the financial help available to students. Copies of this guide are made available directly to local education authorities (LEAs), higher education institutions (HEIs), and the booklet is also available on the Department's website.

    Separate booklets are also produced for disabled students and those with children.

    As part of our current marketing campaign to increase awareness of higher education among 13 to 19-year-olds we have produced booklets for pupils on student finance.

    LEAs, schools, HEIs, my Department and a range of other advisers also provide advice and guidance to students on financial support.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibility institutes of higher education have for offering guidance to students on matters relating to(a) funding available to them and (b) managing their personal budgets. [38789]

    Margaret Hodge
    Individual higher education institutions make their own arrangements for providing guidance to students. The Department, together with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals is undertaking a project looking at the range of student services provided by institutions. The objective is to identify effective approaches in helping students especially those who are at risk. The project is due to report in the summer.
    38W
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the arrangements for offering guidance to students applying for higher education courses on funding available to them. [38792]

    Margaret Hodge
    Each year my Department undertakes an independent survey of the information and guidance it produces on the funding available to higher education students. This survey informs the design and production of future financial support information materials. The most recent survey was carried out in November and December 2001.

    Financial Literacy
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the student funding review is examining measures to improve financial literacy among higher education students. [38790]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Government are not currently examining measures to improve financial literacy among higher education students.

    Pupil Attainment
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 11 year olds in maintained schools achieved the standard of(a) literacy and (b) numeracy for that age in each year since 1997. [38801]

    Mr. Timms
    The table shows the number and percentage of pupils in maintained mainstream schools in England who achieved Level 4 or above in the(a) English and (b) mathematics Key Stage 2 tests in each year from 1997 to 2001.

    The table confirms that the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies have succeeded in raising standards in primary schools.

    (a) English

    (b) Mathematics

    1997

    Number at Level 4 or above1

    360,200

    353,100

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    63

    62

    1998

    Number at Level 4 or above1

    377,800

    341,200

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    65

    58

    1999

    Number at Level 4 or above1

    424,500

    415,600

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    70

    69

    2000

    Number at Level 4 or above1

    446,100

    427,000

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    75

    72

    2001

    Number at Level 4 or above1

    453,900

    427,300

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    75

    71

    1 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.

    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentages her Department has set for pupils to achieve level 4 at Key Stage 2 tests in(a) English and (b) maths; and what target dates her Department has set for these targets to be met; [38804]

    (2) what further targets her Department plans to set in relation to the commitment to increase the percentage of

    39W
    children who achieve level 4 in each of the Key Stage 2 English and maths. [38805]

    Mr. Timms
    We remain committed to achieving our Key Stage 2 targets for 2002, which are for 80 per cent. of pupils to achieve level 4 or above in English and 75 per cent. to do so in maths.

    We recently consulted on higher targets for 2004 of 85 per cent. of pupils achieving level 4 or above in English and maths and 35 per cent. achieving level 5 or above. We are considering responses to the consultation carefully and expect to make an announcement about the national targets shortly.

    (a) English

    (b) Mathematics

    (c) ICT1

    (d) Science

    1997

    Number at Level 5 or above2

    315,600

    332,500

    232,000

    331,800

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    57

    60

    50

    60

    1998

    Number of Level 5 or above2

    358,000

    331,600

    242,000

    310,500

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    65

    59

    56

    56

    1999

    Number at Level 5 or above2

    365.700

    358,400

    315,700

    315,200

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    64

    62

    58

    55

    2000

    Number at Level 5 or above2

    369,800

    376,300

    341,200

    343,800

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    64

    65

    62

    59

    2001

    Number at Level 5 or above2

    382,600

    394.600

    357,100

    390,000

    Percentage of eligible pupils

    65

    66

    65

    66

    Notes:

    1 The ICT results are based on Teacher Assessments; English, maths and science are based on the test results.

    2 The numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the proportion of pupils proceeding into higher education from(a) schools with sixth forms and (b) schools without sixth forms in each of the last three years. [38860]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The available information is given in the table, showing the previous educational institution of students accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

    Students from England aged 18 accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK by previous educational institution

    Academic year of entry to Higher Education

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Schools1

    17 year olds2 in previous year studying in Schools

    167,600

    167,500

    173,600

    18 year olds3 accepted for entry from Schools

    83,200

    83,200

    86,900

    Percentage proceeding to HE aged 18

    50

    50

    50

    FE Colleges

    17 year olds2 in previous year studying in FE colleges

    183,700

    183,100

    184,900

    18 year olds3 accepted for entry from FE colleges

    37,700

    38,100

    40,800

    Percentage proceeding to HE aged 18

    21

    21

    22

    1 Including City Technology Colleges.

    2 Age at 31 August.

    3 Age at 30 September.

    Postcode Premium Payments
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are used by the HEFC to
    40W
    Mr. Damian Green
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils have reached level 5 in Key Stage 3 in(a) English, (b) maths, (c) ICT and (d) science in each year since 1997. [38808]

    Mr. Timms
    The table shows the number and percentage of pupils in all schools in England who achieved Level 5 or above in the(a) English, (b) mathematics, (c) ICT and (d) science Key Stage 3 assessments in each year from 1997 to 2001.

    The Key Stage 3 National Strategy, just begun, will support schools in raising standards in the early years of secondary education and improving on these figures.

    However, it is not possible to identify the type of school that a student attended prior to entering higher education from a further education college. Therefore, the categories of institution shown do not equate directly to (a) schools with sixth forms and (b) schools without sixth forms.

    Not all students who enter higher education do so directly after leaving full-time education at age 18; for example, some spend a period in employment before returning to study, and others take a gap year to broaden their experience. Around a third of young people enter full-time higher education by the age of 20, including those who enter at ages 18, 19 and 20.

    determine those areas which qualify for postcode premium payments in connection with widening participation; and what the qualifying post code areas are. [38861]
    41W
    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of the Funding Council to reply to your question and to place a copy of his reply in the House of Commons Library.

    School Inspections
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people are employed by(a) Ofsted and (b) other schools monitoring and inspection organisations. [39010]

    Mr. Timms
    I am advised that Ofsted employs 2,651 staff, including 216 HM Inspectors of Schools. Of these, over 1,900 are engaged in the regulation of child care and many others are involved in inspections of colleges, local education authorities and initial teacher training providers. Ofsted also employs on a temporary basis around 800 additional inspectors who carry out occasional work in specific areas across the range of Ofsted's remit. In addition, 7,633 school inspectors are contracted to, or employed by, inspection contractors to undertake school inspections under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996. Other bodies, such as local education authorities, employ people who monitor and inspect schools, but details are not collected centrally.

    Classroom Assistants
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Work and Pensions about the payment of jobseekers' allowance to classroom assistants and other educational workers not paid during school holidays. [39463]

    Mr. Timms
    None, but officials are in regular contact with the Department for Work and Pensions.

    Engineering Students
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference between the projected debts of engineering students in Great Britain and the average for all students; and what measures she has taken to address the difference. [39530]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Government are committed to tackling the problem of students being put off higher education by debt or the perception of debt. That is an important strand of the current review of student support. The Government have also commissioned Sir Gareth Roberts to review the supply of high level science and engineering skills.

    Standards Fund
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of specific grants made available from her Department through the Standards Fund required local education authorities to make a contribution in the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [39630]
    42W
    Mr. Timms
    The percentage of the Standards Fund contributed by local education authorities for each year between 1997–98 and 2000–01 is shown in the table.

    Standards Fund contributed by local education authorities

    Financial year

    Percentage

    1997–98

    34

    1998–99

    36

    1999–2000

    31

    2000–01

    24

    The Standards Fund programme is designed to be a funding partnership between local education authorities and the Government to support educational initiatives and priorities. Local education authority contributions to the Standards Fund are taken account of in setting the level of Education Standard Spending each year.

    Teaching Vacancies
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching vacancies there are in schools in Eastbourne. [40362]

    Mr. Timms
    The information requested is not available.

    There were 43 vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in East Sussex local authority in January 2001.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Statutory Instruments
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36237]

    Angela Eagle
    A list of statutory instruments issued by the Home Office is as listed. The purpose of each instrument is set out in its explanatory note. Information on the cost of each instrument to public funds, businesses and individuals is not available and could not be made available otherwise than at disproportionate cost.
    Statutory Instruments issued by the Home Department from 13 February 2001 to 12 February 2002 (excluding Orders in Council)

    The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Amendment No.2) Order 2001 (no. 418)

    The Terrorism Act 2000 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2001 (no. 421)

    The Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001 (no. 425)

    The Terrorism Act 2000 (Carding) Order 2001 (no. 426)

    The Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001 (no. 427)

    The Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order 2001 (no. 428 (S.1))

    The Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 2001 (no. 535)

    The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (Commencement) Order 2001 (no. 566 (C.24))

    The Norfolk (Coroners' Districts) Order 2001 (no. 666)

    43W

    The Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) (England and Wales) Order 2001 (no. 725)

    The Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) England and Wales and Scotland Order 2001 (no. 726)

    The Gaming (Bingo) Act (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 727)

    The Lotteries (Gaming Board Fees) Order 2001 (no. 728)

    The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2001 (no. 757)

    The Local Probation Boards (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2001 (no. 786)

    The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Approved Premises) Regulations 2001 (no. 850)

    The Immigration and Asylum Appeals (One-stop Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 867)

    The Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 868)

    The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2001 (no. 919 (C.33)

    The Deregulation (Sunday Licensing) Order 2001 (no. 920)

    The Licensing (Special Hours Certificates) (Amendment) Rules 2001 (no. 921)

    The Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 865)

    The Fixed Penalty (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 926)

    The Local Probation Boards (Appointments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2001 (no. 1035)

    The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001 (no. 1057)

    The Licensing (Amendment of Various Rules) Rules 2001 (no. 1096)

    The Police Act 1997 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2001 (no. 1097 (C.36))

    The Order Prescribing Forms under the Licensing Act 1902 (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 1098)

    The Isles of Scilly (Sale of Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 1099)

    The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2001 (no. 1126)

    The Prison Service (Pay Review Body) Regulations 2001 (no. 1161)

    The European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001 (no. 1184)

    The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 1192)

    The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Registration) Regulations 2001 (no. 1194)

    The Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2001 (no. 1204)

    The Human Rights Act (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 1216) The Suffolk (District Coroners') Order 2001 (no. 1220)

    The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2001 (no. 1222)

    The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 1261)

    The Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2001 (no. 1329)

    The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Eligible Voluntary Bodies and Relevant Employers) Order 2001 (no. 1393)

    The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 10) Order 2001 (no. 1394 (C.49))

    The Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) (Code of Practice) Order 2001 (no. 1436)

    44W

    The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Educational Institutions and Health Sector Bodies) Order 2001 (no. 1403)

    The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Amendment No. 3) Order 2001 (no. 1544)

    The Elections Act 2001 (Supplemental Provisions) Order 2001 (no. 1630)

    The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2001 (no. 56)

    The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2001 (no. 1651 (C.57))

    The Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 1700)

    The Sex Offenders (Notification of Requirements) (Prescribed Police Stations) Regulations 2001 (no. 1708)

    The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Charges) Order 2001 (no. 1736)

    The Elections Act 2001 (Supplemental Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2001 (no. 1774)

    The Road Traffic Offenders (Additional Offences and Prescribed Services) Order 2001 (no. 1814)

    The Drug Abstinence Order (Responsible Officer) Order 2001 (no. 1815)

    The Criminal Justice (Specified Class A Drugs) Order 2001 (no. 1816)

    The Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001 (no. 1846)

    The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2001 (no. 2223 (C.74))

    The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2001 (no. 2232)

    The Community Order (Electronic Monitoring of Requirements) (Responsible Officer) Order 2001 (no. 2233)

    The Curfew Order and Curfew Requirement (Responsible Officer) Order 2001 (no. 2234)

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Modification) Order 2001 (no. 2254)

    The Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 2377)

    The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Enforcement of Fines, Forfeiture and Reparation Orders) Regulations 2001 (no. 379)

    The National Crime Squad (NCS) Service Authority (Budget Statement) Order 2001 (no. 2427)

    The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) Service Authority (Budget Statement) Order 2001 (no. 2428)

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Tape-recording of interviews) (Amendment) Order 2001 (no. 2480)

    The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (no. 2498)

    The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 (no. 3997) The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (no. 3998)

    The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Commencement No. 1 and Consequential Provisions) Order 2001 (no. 4019 (C.128))

    The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Relevant Employers) Order 2002 no. 9)

    The Closure of Prisons Her Majesty's (H.M.) Prison Haslar) Order 2002 (no. 77)

    The Closure of Prisons Her Majesty's (H.M.) Young Offender Institution Dover) Order 2002 (no. 78)

    The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (Firearms Consultative Committee) Order 2002 (no. 127)

    The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2002 (no. 228 (C.4))

    DRAFT European Union Extradition Regulations 2002

    45W

    DRAFT Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002

    DRAFT Police Act 1997 (Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates) (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) Regulations 2002

    Local Instrument

    The Charities (The Bridge House Estates) Order 2001 (no. 2001/4017).

    Mr. Nuredin Dalipi
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce a decision on the application of Mr. Nuredin Dalipi of Shoeburyness, Home Office Reference 0101 2951; and for what reason he has not been given a work permit. [36015]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 13 February 2002]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 4 March 2002.

    Women Trafficking
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police services exist between the UK and other European police forces to combat the trafficking of women from European countries into the UK. [37201]

    Angela Eagle
    The United Kingdom (UK) works with other law enforcement agencies in Europe with Europol to tackle people trafficking from Europe to the UK. Europol has no executive or operational powers and no capabilities to gather evidence. It is intelligence based and offers a range of products and services to operational law enforcement teams in the European Union. These include analytical support for both strategic and tactical developments and a forum to process requests for assistance in UK investigations with connections in other European Union member states and candidate countries. There is ongoing operational work which is supported by Europol.

    Another link between UK law enforcement and overseas partners is through the establishment of Project Reflex, a practical multi-agency taskforce on organised immigration crime. Led by the National Crime Squad (NCS), Reflex was set up in March 2000 and brings together all the key agencies, including the Immigration Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), the security and intelligence agencies and key police forces including the Metropolitan police, Kent and the British Transport police. Under Reflex, a central tasking forum has been established to plan and co-ordinate multi-agency operations. It is now well established and the NCS is currently co-operating with overseas law enforcement partners on the disruption of organised criminal groups intent on trafficking.

    Anti-semitism
    Mr. Jim Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on anti-semitism in the UK; and what action he has taken to combat it. [37457]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government are fully committed to tackling racism and anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. We have continued to strengthen our anti-discrimination laws and our criminal law to ensure that it continues to offer some of the most comprehensive protection against racism and anti-Semitism in Europe. In that regard we have 46W
    introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: we are looking at ways to implement the European Union directives on race and discrimination in employment: strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred by raising the maximum penalty to seven years' imprisonment and extending the scope to hatred directed against racial groups outside the United Kingdom and introduced religiously aggravated offences to add to the racially aggravated offences we introduced in 1998. We have asked the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to work together to pool knowledge and experience in the investigation and prosecution of race hate material.

    We have also made significant changes to our laws countering the threat of terrorism, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and, in response to the events of September 11, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Government and the police continue to have a good working relationship with the Jewish community in Britain. The Government share the concern of the Jewish community that anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the community rose after September 11 but we welcome the co-operation and the experience of the Jewish community in security matters which has benefited all our communities over the last few months.

    As a final example of the work that is ongoing, on 27 January 2002 the second Holocaust Memorial Day was commemorated. We established this event to educate people about and ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust are not forgotten. In doing so the day helps to counter anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and bigotry.

    Drug Addicts
    Paul Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many treatment places for addicts of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine are available; how many are being used; and what estimate he makes of the total numbers of addicts of these substances. [36559]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) is the main source of information on people receiving drug treatment. 118,500 people were in treatment during 2000–2001—an eight per cent. increase over the last two years.

    Information on the number of places provided specifically for heroin or cocaine users is not available, as all treatment places are for rehabilitation from all drug addictions.

    Estimates from the British Crime Survey 2000 are that 4 million people use illicit drugs each year. Of the 1.8 million that use Class A drugs, 160,000–280,000 are problematic drug users.

    Prison Estate
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to ensure back-up of record keeping within the Prison Estate in the event of fire or other cause of destruction of files and nominal rolls. [38451]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Paper records relating to individual prisoners are kept in prisons, headquarters and the Prison Service Registry. Back up of manual files is not considered viable,

    47W
    instead reliance is placed on prevention techniques to safeguard the integrity of records from fire and other environmental threats.

    Electronic prisoner records are stored on the Prison Service inmate system at each establishment with overnight back up to the headquarters system. The Prison Service headquarters computer records are backed up daily and are stored at a secure off-site location. Establishments computer records are backed-up daily and stored in fireproof safes and held securely remotely from the computer they relate to.

    Minister for Women
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Minister for Women in his Department. [37148]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 26 February 2002]: I am Minister for Women in the Home Office and its services—police, probation, prisons and the immigration service. The role of Minister for Women in the Home Office is to champion women's issues and promote gender as a core issue for the Department and its services.

    Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who is responsible for overseeing the quality and implementation of sex offender treatment programmes throughout the prison estate; and if he will make a statement; [37682]

    (2) how many offenders have had places on sex offender treatment programmes in each of the last five years; what the target was for the number of offenders on these programmes in each year for which targets were set; what the estimate is of the total number of sex offenders in prison at any one time; what the total number of sex offenders who were on programmes in young offenders institutions was in each of the last five years; what the estimate is of the total number of young sex offenders in custody at any one time; and if he will make a statement. [37681]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Prison Service measures its performance in delivering the sex offender treatment programme by completions rather than by the number of participants, because some participants who start the programme may not complete it. The table sets out the targets, completions and completions adjusted in the light of audit quality markings awarded to each programme site (the latter figure representing the Service's final Key Performance Indicator score).

    Year

    Targets

    Completions

    Audit adjusted completions

    1996–97

    650

    680

    663

    1997–98

    670

    736

    671

    1998–99

    680

    664

    589

    1999–2000

    700

    669

    585

    2001–01

    1,020

    851

    783

    The numbers of prisoners in custody for sexual offences over the past five years were as follows.
    48W

    Year

    Sentenced nude adult sex offenders in custody

    Sentenced male young offenders in custody

    1996–97

    3,786

    153

    1997–98

    3,903

    166

    1998–99

    4,574

    205

    1999–2000

    4,714

    215

    2000–01

    4,854

    216

    The quality and implementation of the sex offender treatment programme is overseen by the Prison Service's Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit working to standards set and maintained by the independent Prison/Probation Service Joint Accreditation Panel. The Unit develops the programmes, the implementation processes and the audit processes, all of which must then he accredited by the Panel. The Unit ensures that the standards demanded by those processes are maintained by training staff and by annual audits of implementation, carried out to the accredited standards. The Panel also conducts an annual moderating exercise on the audits conducted by the Unit.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. Watson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results of the study commissioned from York university on the costs of illegal drugs in Britain. [37625]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The University of York, Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology (Culyer A, Eaton G, Godfrey C et al, 2002) has recently completed a research report for the Home Office entitled 'The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drugs Misuse in England and Wales, 2000'. The report will be published as a Home Office Research Study (HORS) in early summer.

    Departmental Functions
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what functions of the former DfEE were transferred to the Home Office on the reorganisation of departmental responsibilities following the general election in 2001. [37149]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The function for work permits, which formerly were the responsibility of the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) were transferred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office after the general election.

    Prakash Hinduja
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the inquiries received from hon. Members since 1 May 1997 in respect of a possible application for nationality by Prakash Hinduja; if an application is under consideration; and if he will make a statement. [34367]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 7 February 2002]: Sir Anthony Hammond's "Review of the Circumstances Surrounding an Application for Naturalisation by Mr. S P Hinduja in 1998", published in March last year, included

    49W
    at Chapter six consideration of Mr. Prakash Hinduja's inquiries about naturalisation as a British citizen. There have been no further developments since then.

    Performance Targets
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many performance targets have been set by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997 on(a) prisons policy, (b) police policy, (c) fire and emergency planning policy, (d) probation policy, (e) immigration, asylum and

    Number of targets

    Amended

    Revoked

    Achieved

    (a) Prisons policy

    5

    1

    —

    —

    (b) Police policy

    2

    1

    —

    —

    (c) Fire and emergency planning policy1

    3

    —

    —

    —

    (d) Probation policy

    1

    —

    —

    —

    (e) Immigration, asylum and nationality

    4

    2

    —

    —

    (f) Constitutional policy2

    3

    —

    —

    2

    (g) Reducing crime

    7

    1

    —

    —

    (h) The prevention of terrorism and the reduction of organised and international crime

    4

    1

    —

    2

    (i) Sentencing

    1

    1

    —

    —

    (j) Youth justice policy

    2

    1

    —

    —

    (k) Crime prevention policy

    3

    1

    —

    —

    (l) Policy relating to victims and witnesses

    1

    1

    —

    —

    (m) Community and voluntary sector policy

    1

    1

    —

    —

    1 Responsibility for Fire and Emergency Planning was transferred to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in 2001.

    2 Responsibility for Constitutional Policy was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department in 2001.

    The targets listed were set in the public service agreements in 1998 and 2000.

    These are the published high level targets only. Each business area has more detailed internal management targets.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were accommodated in prisons in(a) November 2001, (b) December 2001 and (c) January 2002. [37656]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 September 2001. The total number of asylum seekers detained in prison establishments as at that date is given in the table.

    Place of detention

    Asylum seekers detained as at 30 September 20011, 2

    Dedicated Immigration Service wings3

    390

    Other prison establishments4

    460

    Total persons detained in prison establishments4

    850

    1 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and may not sum due to rounding.

    2 Persons detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage.

    3 Persons detained at the dedicated Immigration Service wings at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester.

    4 Includes 145 persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

    50W
    nationality policy, (f) constitutional policy, (g) reducing crime, (h) the prevention of terrorism and the reduction of organised and international crime, (i) sentencing, (j) youth justice policy, (k) crime prevention policy, (l) policy relating to victims and witnesses and (m) community and voluntary sector policy; how many of those targets have been (i) amended, (ii) revoked and (iii) achieved since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [37762]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The details requested are set out in the table, although most have not yet reached their target date of either 31 March 2002 or March 2004.

    Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 December 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

    The temporary use of spaces in a number of local prisons ended in mid-January 2002, as did the use of the accommodation at Her Majesty's prison (HMP) Rochester. In addition, the dedicated detention facilities at HMP Haslar and HMP Lindholme were redesignated formally as immigration removal centres on 8 February 2002, thus requiring them to operate under Detention Centre Rules rather than Prison Rules. These changes will not be reflected fully in the statistics until the information on Immigration Act detainees as at 30 March 2002 is published on 31 May 2002 on the RDS website.

    European Documents
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his position towards Council Document 14461/01, on the Competence, Recognition and Execution of Decisions Pertaining to Parental Responsibility. [39652]

    Mr. Wills
    I have been asked to reply.

    The UK supports the underlying aim of this proposal, which is to improve arrangements in cross-border cases, and in particular to extend the principle of mutual recognition to all decisions on parental responsibility by establishing a clear and coherent set of rules for attributing jurisdiction and proper arrangements for co-operation between national courts and authorities. An explanatory memorandum on the proposal has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff are employed by the DPP in Northern Ireland; and what proportion are lawyers. [39661]

    Dr. John Reid
    I have been asked to reply. The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland currently has the equivalent to 185 full-time posts, of which 30.27 per cent. are legal.

    Lord Chancellor (Duties)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Lord Chancellor's attendance record for the last 36 months for(a) Committees of the House of Lords and (b) other non-Government bodies on which he sits. [30844]

    Mr. Wills
    The Lord Chancellor is an ex-officio member of two Committees of the House of Lords: the Offices Committee and the Procedure Committee. Since February 1999, the Lord Chancellor has attended two out of 15 meetings of the Offices Committee and three out of nine meetings of the Procedure Committee. In keeping with established practice, the Lord Chancellor is not expected to attend all the meetings of these Committees and will attend only those meetings where his participation is required.

    The Lord Chancellor is an officer of, or a member of, the following bodies which could reasonably be described as 'non-Government':

    British-American Parliamentary Group, Joint President;

    Christ's College, Cambridge, Honorary Fellow;

    The Church Commission, Commissioner;

    Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Joint President;

    Friends of the Slade School of Fine Art, Committee Member;

    Hunterian Collection, Trustee;

    Industry and Parliament Trust, Joint President;

    Inner Temple, Bencher;

    Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, Honorary Bencher;

    Magistrates Association, President;

    The Polish Bar, Honorary Member;

    Society for Advanced Legal Studies, Honorary Fellow;

    US College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow; and

    World Mental Health Federation, Vice Patron

    Details of the Lord Chancellor's attendance at meetings of those bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost

    Lord Saville
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Department is paying the salary of Lord Saville of Newdigate; what the total capitation cost for a Lord Justice of his seniority was in 2001; and how much has been paid to him during the time the Saville Inquiry has been sitting. [33075]

    Mr. Wills
    Lord Saville of Newdigate is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, not a Lord Justice. The salaries of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are paid from the 52W
    Consolidated Fund and the payments are administered by HM Treasury. The current annual salary for a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is £157,699.

    In addition to his salary, Lord Saville has been paid expenses allowance of £50 per day for each day that he has been in Londonderry engaged in the Inquiry. To date Lord Saville has been paid £9,700 in respect of this daily allowance. This allowance is paid from a budget held by the Northern Ireland Office.

    North-South Ministerial Council
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the findings were of the reserved judgment read in the Belfast High Court on 30 January 2001. [34125]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Judgment was delivered in the High Court in Belfast on 30 January 2001 In the Matter of an Application by Bairbre de Brun and Martin McGuinness for judicial review. Copies of the judgment have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Industrial Action
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many days have been lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [36188]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including associated offices), the Court Service, Public Guardianship Office, Land Registry, Public Record Office, Northern Ireland Court Service, Legal Services Commission and the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service. No industrial action has been taken in the Departments, agencies and NDPBs for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility in any of the last four years, with exception of the Land Registry, which lost 170 days due to industrial action in April 2001.

    Union Duties
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36212]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including Associated Offices), the Court Service, Public Guardianship Office, Land Registry, Public Record Office, Northern Ireland Court Service, Legal Services Commission and the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).
    53W
    The position is as follows:

    LCD HQ

    2000–01: 11 staff spent 216 days on union duties at a cost of £16,920.

    1999–2000: 12 staff spent 216 days on union duties at a cost of £16,080.

    1998–99: Nine staff spent 163 days on union duties at a cost of £11,552.

    1997–98: 10 staff spent 179 days on union duties at a cost of £12,077.

    Court Service

    The information relates to trade union representatives working for the Court Service who are allocated 50 per cent. or more of their time to undertake industrial relations duties. Information on trade union representatives who spend less than 50 per cent. of their time on union activities is not held centrally.

    2000–01: 28 staff spent 4,887 days on union duties at a cost of £484,126.

    1999–2000: 27 staff spent 4,517 days on union duties at a cost of £447,472.

    1998–99: 28 staff spent 4,331 days on union duties at a cost of £429,046.

    1997–98: 28 staff spent 4,419 days on union duties at a cost of £411,017.

    Public Guardianship Office

    The PG0 was established as an executive agency of LCD on 1 April 2001. In April 2001, two staff were allowed to work full-time on union duties and a third for 50 per cent. of their time at a total cost of £47,339. Figures for the Public Trust Office, which was abolished in 2001, are not available.

    Land Registry

    The details show the total hours spent by staff given special leave to undertake union duties. Because the Land Registry is a Trading Fund the allocations do not draw on public funds; the costs are met from fees paid by customers.

    2001–01: 155 staff spent a total of 1,267 days on union duties.

    1990–2000: 154 staff spent a total of 1,322 days on union duties.

    1998–99: 152 staff spent a total of 1,545 days on union duties.

    1997–98: 158 staff spent a total of 1,646 days on union duties.

    Public Record Office

    The Public Record Office allows a part-time Trade Union Side officer 18 hours per week for union business. The cost of this was £8,180 in 2001, £7,803 in 2000, £7,509 in 1999 and £7,176 in 1998.

    Northern Ireland Court Service

    The cost of 13 staff who received paid leave to undertake union duties each year is as follows:

    2001: £24,200

    2000: £23,300

    1999: £22,400

    1998: £21,600.

    These costs have been based on the average salary costs for each employee who has received paid leave to undertake union duties.

    Legal Services Commission

    Paid time off for trade union duties is granted with management agreement but is not monitored centrally.
    54W
    Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

    CAFCASS is currently negotiating a Partnership Agreement with the trade unions which will cover trade union facilities and time off. It is hoped that the new policies will be approved in March 2002.

    Community Fines
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many community fines were cancelled in the west midlands up to and including the year ending September 2001. [36121]

    Mr. Wills
    There are two types of non-custodial sentences: fines and community penalties. If a community penalty is breached the offender is brought back before the court for whatever action the court deems appropriate. This could mean that the court imposes further hours on the order or an additional condition. Alternatively it could result in the order being revoked and the offender instead receiving a term of imprisonment if such a sentence was available for the original offence. 1,398 community penalties were revoked in the west midlands in the year 2000.

    A fine may be cancelled (remitted) in whole or in part by the courts if circumstances have changed since the conviction. A large proportion of financial penalties cancelled are where a defaulter is imprisoned for wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay, or where a defaulter is already serving a prison term for a separate offence.

    Statistics on the number of fines cancelled are not kept. The value of all impositions, including fines, cancelled in the West Midlands Magistrates Courts Committee area amounted to £7,643,470 in the year ending September 2001.

    Judicial Appeals
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will seek to change the rules of court to permit(a) the Court of Appeal to correct an order of the court if it can be shown that the Lord Justices reached their conclusion inappropriately and (b) a right of appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal where it over-ruled the original decision of the court; and under what powers the Court Service may reject or delay an application for an appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling. [39433]

    Mr. Wills
    It is not clear whether this question relates to the civil courts or to the criminal courts and so I have answered for both jurisdictions.

    In the civil courts:

    (c) the recent Court of Appeal decision in Taylor v. Lawrence ([2002] EWCA Civ 90) sets out the circumstances in which it might consider reopening an application or appeal;

    (d) there already is a right of appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal where it "over-ruled the original decision of the court" (of first instance)—that appeal lies to the House of Lords and permission is required.

    In the criminal courts:

    (c) the Court of Appeal has an inherent jurisdiction to reopen cases where it considers that an earlier hearing was listed in error and the Criminal Cases Review Commission may refer a case hack to the Court;

    55W

    (d) the position is the same as with civil cases, except that the Court of Appeal has to certify that there is a point of law of general public importance involved before an application for permission can be made.

    The Lord Chancellor has no plans to propose any alteration to the present rules in either jurisdiction.

    The Court Service does not reject any application which is properly made and is within the Court's jurisdiction. When any application to the Court is listed for hearing is a case management decision, usually made by a member of the Court's listing staff acting under general instruction from the Court.

    Census (1901)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when work started on transcribing the 1901 Census returns on to computer. [38540]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Work commenced on transcription in March 2000.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his latest estimate is of the date when the 1901 Census on-line service will become available(a) at designated service centres and (b) generally to on-line searchers. [38555]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    QinetiQ Ltd. is continuing to work on the technical enhancements. Rigorous testing will be completed during the next few weeks. These enhancements are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general Internet access, and are being done with a sense of urgency. However, the most important consideration is to ensure that the service is re-launched successfully. The system will again be made available to designate service centres as part of the general re-introduction of the site. General on-line searches will be available as soon as practicable following testing.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were employed to check the transcriptions onto computer of the 1901 Census returns. [38544]

    Title

    Purpose

    Cost to public funds

    Cost to business

    2000

    Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998

    To facilitate the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a member state of the European Community other than the state in which the qualification was obtained

    Negligible

    Negligible; if anything businesses gained as a result of easier access to European markets

    2001

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 of 2 May 2000

    To establish rules relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses

    £3,500 for the productions of forms and leaflets

    Negligible

    Council regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000

    To establish common rules throughout the EU for the transmission of legal documents in cross-border civil and commercial matters

    Negligible

    Negligible, since the scheme replaced bilateral agreement and Hague convention

    56W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    At the peak of quality assuring the data, some 68 full time equivalent individuals were employed by the Public Record Office.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria were used to select the people who were employed to check the transcriptions onto computer of the 1901 Census returns. [38548]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The individuals employed by the Public Record Office to quality assure the 1901 Census transcribed data were required to undertake and pass a transcription test in reading late-nineteenth century handwriting.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the number of magistrates' courts. [40384]

    Mr. Wills
    The Government's policy is that decisions on the number and location of magistrates courts in England and Wales are for the individual magistrates courts committees to determine, in consultation with their local paying authorities.

    It is for each magistrates court committee to decide how best to deploy its resources in order to fulfil its statutory responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service to court users.

    EU Directives
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39124]

    Mr. Wills
    No directives or regulations relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department came into effect in 1998 or 1999. The information for the following years is set out in the table. The costs to public funds given do not take account of officials' time, which is not readily quantifiable.
    57W

    Title

    Purpose

    Cost to public funds

    Cost to business

    2002

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000

    To establish updated rules relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

    Negligible

    Negligible

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Departmental Spending Review
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29031]

    Dr. John Reid
    As part of my Department's Spending Review submission to the Treasury, we will, in common with other Departments, report on the sustainable development of our bids which will detail any environmental impact.

    Environmental Appraisals
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four. [29028]

    Dr. John Reid
    The work of the Northern Ireland Office only rarely if ever has a direct impact on the environment.

    It is normal practice in the Department for the implications of administrative and policy decisions to be analysed rigorously prior to any decision being taken. If environmental considerations emerged, appropriate appraisals would be conducted.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision; [29029]

    (2) what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to (a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29030]

    Dr. John Reid
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave for question ref. 29028.

    Empty Properties
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30076]

    Dr. John Reid
    The NIO currently owns no properties that are empty, therefore there are no related costs.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by(a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37812]
    58W
    Dr. John Reid
    My Department does not own any properties which are currently empty.

    Refurbishment
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37823]

    Dr. John Reid
    The only work carried out to ministerial private offices has been as a result of moving to different buildings, for operational purposes. The cost of these works cannot be separated from the overall cost of all the works associated with these relocations.

    Defence Lawyers
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates training seminars on the role of defence lawyers have been held for individual criminal justice agencies; what the programme was and how many people attended each seminar; if he will place a copy of training materials used in the Library; and what plans he has for future events of this kind. [29782]

    Mr. Browne
    Individual criminal justice agencies will be responsible for developing training seminars on the role of defence lawyers, working with the Law Society, which has welcomed the recommendation in the Criminal Justice Review and confirmed a willingness, wherever practical, to contribute constructively to its implementation.

    Firearms
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the objections are of the Chief Constable to the application in Northern Ireland of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requiring the establishment of a register of persons who have applied for and been granted a licence to carry a firearm. [29940]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 is not applicable to Northern Ireland. However, information on all firearms certificate holders is currently held on a Police Service of Northern Ireland computer system.

    Contracts
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33854]
    59W
    Dr. John Reid
    Payments made to each of the companies during the periods in question were as follows:

    £

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    20011

    PWC

    Consulting/PricewaterhouseCoopers

    115,829

    273,705

    70,853

    21,982,924

    126,274

    Ernst & Young

    0

    0

    5,500

    5,500

    0

    Deloitte & Touche

    39,372

    133,210

    155,498

    2,145,743

    414,962

    KPMG

    27,250

    0

    0

    0

    62,313

    Andersen

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1 To date.

    2 This figure contains an estimate of maximum cost of an on-going contract.

    As no records are held centrally, there would be disproportionate costs involved in identifying the actual number of contracts let to each company.

    Accountancy Contracts
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34991]

    Dr. John Reid
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), Question ref. 33854.

    Job Advertisements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39064]

    Dr. John Reid: The Department advertises external competitions in the Belfast Telegraph, Irish News and Newsletter unless another newspaper is specifically requested.

    The vacancies advertised in the last 12 months are as follows:

    £

    Vacancy

    Cost

    Crown Solicitor

    3,296.34

    Legal Assistants—DPP

    2,594.83

    Support Grade Band 2 (SBG II)—Gardener1

    2,280

    Head of Accounts (NI Prison Service)2

    5,247.72

    Head of Financial Services Division2

    Assistant Director—DPP

    3,875.23

    Head of Corporate Services—DPP3

    14,191.37

    SGBII—Repository Assistant

    583.64

    1 This post was also advertised in the Ulster Star.

    2 These competitions were run jointly.

    3 This competition had to be re-advertised and the costs were split between the Recruitment agency and the newspapers concerned.

    Catering Services
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38922]
    60W
    Dr. John Reid
    Details of the Department's (including its agencies, but excluding NDPBs as we do not have access to a breakdown of their expenditure) total expenditure on in-house canteen and other catering services combined (unable to identify separate costs) in each of the last four years is as follows:

    £

    1998–99

    878,146

    1999–2000

    1,112,965

    2000–01

    832,771

    2001–02

    1425,124

    1 To date. Full year estimate £510,150.

    Note:

    Please note that this expenditure includes catering for Government functions held at Hillsborough Castle.

    City of London Corporation (Events)
    John McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those functions, engagements and events which Ministers, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35701]

    Dr. John Reid
    The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All attendance at events, engagements and functions by Ministers and civil servants is taken in line with the guidance and principles set out in the Ministerial Code and Departmental Handbooks.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001: how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37546]

    Dr. John Reid
    The figures are as follows:

    Civil servants

    Prison Officers

    Number of staff who left my Department in the year ended 31 March 2001

    69

    878

    Number of staff who left my Department before formal retirement age

    54

    878

    61W

    Civil servants

    Prison Officers

    Number of staff my Department assumed the responsibility of making payment to until retirement age

    2

    334

    Correspondence
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37440]

    Dr. John Reid
    This information is not held in the format requested.

    Since 1 October 1999 the Northern Ireland Office has applied revised service standards. Details of the Department's performance in meeting the target of replying to letters within 15 working days over the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 can be found in the 2001 Departmental Report. The statistics for 2000–01 are presently being collated and will be published in the spring in the 2002 Departmental Report.

    Statistics on the Department's performance in responding to ministerial correspondence is also contained in the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Reports held in the House of Commons Library.

  SCOTLAND

    Census Website
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hits were received by the 1901 Scottish Census website in its first 24 hours of operation; what the latest average daily number of hits is; and if she will make a statement; [38537]

    (2) what the ISP bandwidth is of the 1901 Scottish Census website. [38534]

    Mrs. Liddell
    This matter is devolved and is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of the bi-lateral agreement between the Governments of Britain and Spain. [R] [36538]

    Peter Hain
    The provisions of the Joint Communiqué agreed in Brussels on 27 November 1984 remain in effect. The negotiating process established by that Communiqué aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spanish Governments over Gibraltar, continues.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been accorded to Gibraltar under the Interreg III Community Initiative. [R] [37222]
    62W
    Peter Hain
    Gibraltar is currently involved in three Interreg III programmes, with an allocation of 425,000 euro for each, for the period 2000–06. These are: a dedicated Gibraltar/Morocco programme; the South West Europe programme (covering Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar and South West France); and the Western Mediterranean programme (covering Southern Portugal, Southern and Eastern Spain, the South East of France, and Western Italy).

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding for Gibraltar, in addition to the Interreg HI Community Initiative, will be provided following a bilateral agreement between the UK and Spain under the Brussels Process. [R] [37221]

    Peter Hain
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) on 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1308W.

    British Influence (EU)
    Mr. Laxton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list advisers who attended an FCO seminar on 6 January 1999 which discussed the paper 'Building British Influence in the EU' by Charles Grant. [37210]

    Peter Hain
    One Special Adviser to the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. David Clark, attended the seminar on 6 January 1999 that discussed the paper 'Building British Influence in the EU'.

    Mr. Laxton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the seminar on British influence in the EU; and if he will list(a) those Ministers and (b) the grades of officials who attended. [37209]

    Peter Hain
    The seminar on British influence in the European Union was held on 6 January 1999. It was convened to discuss a paper prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Policy Planning Department by Charles Grant. The following Ministers attended: my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), then Minister of State. Several civil servants of various grades also attended.

    Council of Ministers
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will improve the publication and availability to Parliament of relevant draft European directives, decisions and regulations prior to decisions in the Council of Ministers. [37102]

    Peter Hain
    A UK initiative to respond to Westminster concerns about late receipt of texts from Brussels resulted in the Protocol on National Parliaments, annexed to the treaty of Amsterdam, introducing a minimum scrutiny period of six weeks between receipt of official texts and their earliest adoption in the Council of Ministers.
    63W
    The Government are committed to send to Parliament proposals for European legislation under all three pillars of EU activity as soon as they are received from the Council Secretariat.

    Steel Industry (Romania)
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications there have been between his Department and the European Commission regarding the privatisation of the Romanian state-owned steel industry. [36741]

    Peter Hain
    European Union member states, including the UK, have worked with the Commission in the relevant EU Committees to encourage the Romanian Government to complete the privatisation of their steel industry as part of their economic reform programme in preparation for EU membership, and to establish a level playing field between EU and Romanian steel producers.

    LNM Group
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was given by the British Embassy in Bucharest to the LNM Group in its attempts to acquire Sidex. [37934]

    Peter Hain
    The Embassy offered all the help to which any company meeting Trade Partners UK's requirements would be entitled. This support continued until the successful conclusion of the deal, when the Ambassador recommended that the Prime Minister should write to his Romanian opposite number to welcome the outcome.

    Ambassadors (Guidelines on Representations)
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines ambassadors are expected to follow when they are asked to make representations on behalf of a British company; and if he will make a statement. [38113]

    Mr. MacShane
    It is part of every ambassador's job to promote British commercial interests overseas. In determining whether to act in any particular case, diplomatic posts overseas are expected to consider the benefit to the UK, including the effect on British commercial, economic and foreign policy interests.

    Colombia
    Mr. Alan Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits to Colombia made by his Department's Ministers since 1 January 1999. [38492]

    Mr. MacShane
    The following Foreign Office Ministers have visited Colombia since 1 January 1999.

    10–13 September 2000—the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle),

    15–18 October 2001—me.

    Mr. Alan Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the Government of the United States in the past year regarding the peace process in Colombia. [38493]
    64W
    Mr. MacShane
    We have continuing discussions with the US Administration about developments in Colombia, including the peace process and other related issues. Dr. Mo Mowlam discussed Colombia during her visit to Washington in March 2001, as I did when I visited in August 2001.

    Mr. Alan Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the recent breaking-off of the peace negotiations in Colombia. [38494]

    Mr. MacShane
    The UK fully understand President Pastrana's decision to suspend dialogue with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). We support this and the decision President Pastrana has taken to terminate the demilitarised zone. I made this clear in my press statement of 21 February and this is a key point in the EU statement of 22 February available on www.fco.gov.uk.

    We continue to believe that only peaceful dialogue can bring an end to the internal conflict in Colombia and shall continue to urge the Colombian Government to seek a solution through peaceful means.

    Latin America
    Mr. Alan Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Ministers from his Department have to visit each country in Latin America, indicating the proposed month of each visit. [38485]

    Mr. MacShane
    Since taking on responsibility for Latin America I have visited Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil and fully intend to continue to visit the region as often as my schedule allows. This is kept under regular review. The Foreign Secretary also intends to visit Latin America this year as will Baroness Symons.

    British Nationals Abroad
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times his Department has been asked to help British nationals abroad who have(a) been imprisoned and (b) suffered serious illness in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [38413]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    More than 3,000 British nationals are currently in prison overseas and looking after their welfare is one of our Consular staff's key duties. They visit prisoners at least once a year, more regularly in many cases. If necessary, we raise individual cases with local authorities to ensure that British prisoners' welfare is adequately provided for, and their human rights respected, in accordance with international standards. This includes pressing for proper medical treatment if a prisoner falls ill.

    All British Embassies and High Commissions overseas keep records of when prisoners are visited and if they have suffered health problems. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not collate data centrally on the number of prisoners who suffer serious illnesses and so to provide this information would incur disproportionate costs.

    Romania
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
    65W
    statement on the nature of Foreign Office support and sponsorship for organisations promoting bilateral relations between the UK and Romania and list the organisations concerned. [37181]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The Foreign Office has consistently supported organisations promoting bilateral relationships between the UK and Romania. Examples include the British-Romanian All-Party Parliamentary Group, the British Romanian Chamber of Commerce, the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, Communication Workers' Union Humanitarian Aid, the Lay Visiting Charitable Trust, and the Mihai Eminescu Trust.

    FCO support includes sponsorship for particular projects, briefings for MPs and others, and assistance to charities having difficulties with Romanian import requirements.

    Hywel Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at whose request and on whose advice the Romanian Government were invited to visit Britain in November 2001. [39046]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Romanian Prime Minister was invited by the CBI in June 2001 to speak to their Annual conference on 6 November. On the advice of the FCO, the Prime Minister agreed to a meeting with Mr. Nastase during this visit.

    FCO-Sponsored Organisations
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the organisations promoting bilateral relations between the UK and individual foreign countries which have been sponsored by his Department in each year since 1997. [37183]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This information is not available centrally and the cost of collecting it would involve disproportionate cost.

    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which(a) present and (b) former Ministers in his Department have been associated with Foreign Office-sponsored organisations promoting bilateral relations between the UK and individual foreign countries in each year since 1997. [37184]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: All present and former Foreign Office Ministers are involved with officially sponsored organisations promoting bilateral relations with other countries.

    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the organisations promoting bilateral relations between the UK and individual foreign countries set up in each year since 1997 which his Department has sponsored. [37185]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: This information is not available centrally and the costs of collecting it would incur disproportionate cost.

    General Affairs Council
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK 66W
    delegation to the General Affairs European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 February; and what information is being provided by his Department to permit pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [38034]

    Peter Hain
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The UK was represented at the 18–19 February General Affairs Council by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me.

    Arrangements for scrutiny by the European Committee of the Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council of Ministers meetings are a matter for them. The Government provide the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament, for information, with the same Explanatory Memoranda on EU documents as are provided to the Westminster Scrutiny Committees.

    British Defence Exporters
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the measures needed to protect British defence exporters from being included in blanket regulatory legislation to control private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [38794]

    Mr. MacShane
    The consultative paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", which was published on 12 February, examines a variety of options for regulation and invites all interested parties to make their views known to the FCO during the consultation period up to the middle of August this year. The Government recognise the need to define carefully the scope of any legislation designed to regulate the activities of private military companies in order to distinguish them from security and defence equipment companies. A full regulatory impact assessment would be drawn up once final decisions on any legislative proposal have been made.

    Mercenaries
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the measures needed to make the distinction between mercenaries involved in direct combat and those providing assistance for ground troops only; and if he will make a statement. [38793]

    Mr. MacShane
    The paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulations" which was published on 12 February, examines the various activities of private military companies and sets out options for their regulation. It is a consultation paper, and invited comments from all interested parties by mid-August 2002. The Government will make final decisions on the way forward after this consultation period.

    As the paper points out, private military companies may provide a wide range of different services: such as advice, training, logistic support, supply of personnel for monitoring roles and demining.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the problems other countries have faced
    67W
    when using mercenaries; what measures are planned to counteract such problems; and if he will make a statement. [38795]

    Mr. MacShane
    The paper "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation", published on 12 February, describes the activities of a number of private military companies employed by other countries. It also includes outlines of current legislation in a number of countries relating to mercenaries and allied activity. Few countries have national legislation on private military companies.

    The paper is a consultative document, setting out a variety of options for regulating, under UK law, the activities of such companies.

    Lakshmi Mittal
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department and its agencies have made of the background of Mr. Mittal of LNM Holdings in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38503]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: None. As in all such cases an assessment was made of whether LNM/Ispat was a company we should support.

    LNM/Ispat International
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings were(a) sought and (b) received from LNM/Ispat International when it obtained the assistance of the British ambassador in Romania in its attempted acquisition of Sidex. [39050]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 23 February 2002]: None.

    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when, and on what authority, the British ambassador in Romania was authorised to assist the attempted acquisition of Sidex by LNM/Ispat International. [39051]

    Mr. MacShane
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Posts have a wide measure of discretion to support British companies in their market. They do not require specific authorisation to offer such support, unless it involves the Post spending public money, which was not the case with LNM/Ispat. Posts maintain regular contact with Trade Partners UK and other Government Departments as necessary about their activities, as happened in this case.

    Government Wine Cellar
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it has been Government policy since 1997 to boycott the purchase of fine wines from certain countries for the Government wine cellar as part of the ethical foreign policy; and if he will make a statement. [39651]

    Mr. MacShane
    Wine in the Government wine cellar is bought on the basis of quality and value for money from wine producing democracies in Europe, the Commonwealth and the Americas.
    68W
    Since 1997 Government Hospitality has only bought wines from England, Wales. France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. I have asked Government Hospitality to include Latin American wines in the future.

    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason his Department is the lead Department in managing Government wine stocks. [39649]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Government wine cellar is managed by Government Hospitality Section of Conference and Visits Group, with the advice of the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. Responsibility for the Government Hospitality Fund (as it then was) was transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the Cabinet Office/Civil Service Department by a Cabinet decision in 1980.

    European Federation of Journalists
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom activities of the European Federation of Journalists. [39650]

    Peter Hain
    We have no knowledge of the United Kingdom activities of the European Federation of Journalists.

    Republic of Congo
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has collated on the make up of the European Union observer teams that will observe the presidential elections in the Republic of Congo in March, broken down by(a) country and (b) role. [39801]

    Mr. Straw
    The EU Electoral Observation Mission is made up as follows:

    18 long-term observers

    Italy (Four); Belgium and France (Three each); Germany, Spain and Austria (Two each); Ireland and Portugal (One each).

    20 short-term observers

    Spain (Three), Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden (Two each); Germany, Netherlands, and Finland (One each), with Austria and Luxembourg providing one reserve each.

    A core team of six experts will be present throughout—Head of Mission (Portugal), Deputy Head of Mission (Spain), Media Expert (Italy), Logistics and Security Expert (France), Legal Expert (Spain), and a co-ordinator for the Long Term Experts (France).

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Ancram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the European Union and (b) member countries of the Southern African Development Community concerning the impartiality of the 20 observers appointed by the Tanzanian Government to monitor the Zimbabwean presidential election. [39445]
    69W
    Mr. Straw
    Neither I, nor any members of my Department, have held discussions with European Union or member countries of the Southern Africa Development Community about the Tanzanian election observation team in Zimbabwe.

    British Prisoners (Guantanamo Bay)
    John Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [40764]

    Mr. Bradshaw
    A team of British officials paid a second visit to Guantanamo Bay between 26 February and 1 March. The purpose of the visit was to ask questions relevant to national security, to establish the identity and nationality of two British detainees transferred there in February and to check on the current welfare of all five British detainees. The British officials were from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Security Service.

    The officials met the detainees individually. The meetings were held in the presence of US officials. The detainees appeared to be in satisfactory physical health, though two complained of minor ailments that are being addressed by the US authorities. None of the detainees
    70W
    complained of having been mistreated. At the time of the meetings with the detainees none was involved in the hunger strike reported in the camp.

    British officials handed recent written letters from some of the detainees' families to the camp authorities to be passed to the detainees. Some of the detainees asked the officials to relay oral messages to their families. All the detainees confirmed that they had had the opportunity to write letters to their families through the camp authorities or through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

    On the conditions in the camp, work is now in hand to provide indoor accommodation including individual sleeping and toilet facilities. Medical facilities now include a field hospital in addition to the clinic at Camp X-Ray itself. Exercise arrangements have also been enhanced. All detainees remain able to conduct their religious duties. They have copies of the Koran and have prayer caps and towels for use as prayer mats. Calls to prayer are broadcast throughout the camp.

    The visiting team found the US camp authorities open and fully co-operative.

    The ICRC continues to maintain a presence at Guantanamo Bay. It has access on demand to the detainees.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the visits and meetings so far(a) undertaken and (b) arranged by the Lessons Learned Inquiry into Foot and Mouth. [38834]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I understand that the Chairman of the Lessons Learned Inquiry and members of his Secretariat visited the South West of England on 23–24 January, Wales on 6–7 February, Scotland on 14–15 February and the Netherlands on 25–26 February. Members of the Inquiry Secretariat visited Anglesey on 20 February. The Inquiry is planning visits to the North East and North West of England and Yorkshire in the next few weeks.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it was a condition, accepted by Dr. Anderson on his appointment as Chairman of the Foot and Mouth Lessons Learned Inquiry, that interviews conducted with Ministers or senior officials would not be published in verbatim form. [38832]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: No.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will request that evidence submitted to the "Lessons Learned Inquiry" into Foot and Mouth is published as and when it is received, provided that those submitting evidence are content for this to happen. [38833]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This is a matter for the Chairman of the Lessons Learned Inquiry.

    Recycling
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the contribution to meeting the Government's recycling targets to date of the PFI credits announced in the last comprehensive spending review. [38827]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Spending Review 2000 allocated £220 million of PFI credits for local authorities waste projects (£50 million for 2001–02, £70 million for 2002–03 and £100 million for 2003–04).

    Three projects have been approved so far for this period. The local authorities involved are East London waste authority, Leicester city council and a joint project for East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. The outputs in the approved outline business cases for these three
    72W
    projects are to achieve a minimum of 25 per cent. recycling rate of household waste by 2005, in line with the national target published in Waste Strategy 2000.

    We published revised criteria for waste PFI schemes in September 2000. These make clear the central place of recycling in PFI proposals. Where proposals include incineration, they must demonstrate that all opportunities for recycling have been considered first and that there is no barrier to the future development of recycling.

    Waste Disposal
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much UK waste was disposed of, in million of tonnes in each year from 1998 to 2001 by(a) landfill, (b) recycling, (c) energy recovery, (d) other recovery and (e) other disposal. [38277]

    Mr. Meacher
    It is estimated that in 1997–98 around 190 million tonnes of controlled waste were produced in the UK, by households, commerce and industry, including construction and demolition. Of this, it is estimated that around 58 per cent. or 111 million tonnes were disposed of to landfill, 30 per cent. or 57 million tonnes to recycling, 2 per cent. or 3 million tonnes to energy recovery, 7 per cent. or 14 million tonnes to other recovery and 2 per cent. or 5 million tonnes to other disposal. Data for later years are not available. This is a headline indicator of sustainable development for the UK, the indicator is shown in "Environment in your pocket", published by the Department in December 2001.

    Ozone Depletion
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will publish the report made to the EU Commission under the terms of paragraph 6 of Article 15 of EU Regulations 2037/2000 (29 June 2000). [38870]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Under the terms of Article 16(6), the UK reported to the European Commission by 31 December 2001 on systems established to promote the recovery of used controlled substances, including the facilities available and the quantities of used ozone-depleting substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed. This was achieved by defining minimum qualifications for personnel, publishing guidance on recovery and destruction, and providing details on plant capacity for volumes destroyed.

    My Department wrote to the European Commission on 18 December 2001 to define minimum qualifications. A copy of the letter and enclosures has been placed in the Library of the House. The information on destruction and capacity for destruction is commercially sensitive as there are only two facilities in place in the UK at present, so we are unable to publish it. The joint ex-DETR/DTI guidance can be found on the DTI's website, www.dti.gov.uk/access/ozone/htm.

    Emissions
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to require climate change agreement participants to move from energy efficiency targets to absolute emissions targets. [38613]

    Mr. Meacher
    I have no plans to require climate change agreements participants to move from energy efficiency targets to absolute emissions targets.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is towards the proposed EU emissions trading scheme. [38615]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government are pleased with the Commission's interest in trading and the opportunity it offers to European business and Governments. The commission's proposal for an EU emissions trading scheme does differ in some important respects from the UK scheme, but it is just that—a proposal. Negotiations are only at an early stage and it is far from clear what the final EU scheme will look like. The Government's policy is to work with the Commission and other member states during the negotiation process to develop the best possible emissions trading scheme for the EU and that any EU scheme is compatible with or, at the very least, has sufficient flexibility for established national schemes to run their course.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the compatibility of the United Kingdom's emissions trading system with the emissions trading scheme proposed by the European Union. [38614]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Commission launched a formal proposal for an EU Emissions Trading Scheme on 26 October 2001. There are a number of differences between the proposed EU scheme and the UK scheme which is to be launched in April. These include that the proposal requires mandatory, not voluntary participation; has limited sectoral coverage; only includes CO2, rather than all six greenhouse gases; includes emissions from electricity generators directly (rather than assigning

    Percentage savings at each milestone (cumulative-primary energy)

    Sector

    Base year

    2002

    2004

    2006

    2008

    2010

    Aerospace—Society of British Aerospace companies1

    2001

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    8.5

    Aluminium

    1990

    27.40

    29.50

    30.50

    31.00

    32.20

    Craft Bakers—National and Scottish Associations of Master Bakers2

    Bakeries

    1999

    1.5

    3.5

    5.0

    7.0

    9.0

    Shops

    0.5

    1.5

    2.5

    3.5

    4.5

    Brewers

    1999

    3.00

    5.20

    7.30

    9.50

    11.60

    Cement

    1990

    13.10

    16.10

    22.60

    23.60

    25.60

    Ceramics—British Ceramics Confederation

    Pottery

    2000

    2.8

    8.9

    10.2

    11.4

    12.4

    Heavy clay

    2.2

    4.7

    6.4

    8.9

    10.22

    Fletton brick

    0.9

    2.4

    4.3

    6.2

    8.1

    Refactories

    3.1

    4.8

    5.8

    8.4

    10.33

    Cer materials

    2.4

    4.8

    7.1

    8.7

    10.1

    74W
    emissions from power generation to the end-user of the electricity); and, has a bureaucratic rather than market-based allocation procedure. However, negotiations are only just beginning and it is far from clear what the final shape of the EU scheme will look like.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends to end the emissions trading scheme when an EU-wide scheme is introduced. [38616]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Commission's proposal for an EU emissions trading scheme does differ from the UK scheme, but it is just that—a proposal. Negotiations are only at an early stage and it is far from clear what the final EU scheme will look like. The Government have always said they will endeavour to manage any transition to an EU scheme and to wider international trading as seamlessly as possible. The UK will work with the Commission and other member states during the negotiation process to ensure that the schemes are compatible or, at the very least, there is sufficient flexibility for established national schemes to run their course.

    Climate Change
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will give(a) the targets for 2010 and (b) the biennial interim targets for each sector of industry now taking part in a climate change agreement. [38612]

    Mr. Meacher
    The targets for 2010 and for the intervening milestone years are set out in each of the 44 sector agreements which have been placed in the Library of the House and are on the DEFRA website. The website also contains an explanatory document—Climate Change Agreements; Sectoral Energy Efficiency Targets.

    The targets are expressed in different units in the different agreements. To aid understanding the attached table presents this information in terms of percentage energy saving over the base year for that sector. The differences in magnitude of the targets reflect the differences in scope for energy efficiency measures, taking into account savings already made, and a wide range of conditions in the sector.
    75W

    Percentage savings at each milestone (cumulative—primary energy)

    Sector

    Base year

    2002

    2004

    2006

    2008

    2010

    Chemicals

    1990

    28.00

    30.70

    32.20

    33.50

    34.00

    Cathode Ray Tubes—National Microelectronics Institute

    2000

    6.20

    13.20

    15.90

    18.60

    21.00

    Dairy Industry

    1999

    4.10

    6.40

    7.30

    8.20

    9.20

    Egg Processing—BEIC/BEPA

    1995

    6.90

    8.60

    10.00

    11.40

    13.20

    Egg Production—British Egg Industry Council and NFU

    1999

    4.90

    7.40

    9.80

    11.80

    13.70

    Eurisol

    1999

    7.50

    11.00

    12.50

    14.40

    14.90

    Food and Drink

    1995

    7.80

    9.70

    11.60

    12.70

    13.80

    Foundries: Target 2010

    2000

    1.60

    3.80

    6.30

    8.60

    11.00

    Glass

    1999

    2.70

    5.30

    7.90

    9.90

    9.20

    Gypsum Products

    2000

    1.10

    2.30

    3.80

    5.70

    7.16

    Leather—British Leather Confederation

    1999

    1.90

    3.90

    5.90

    7.90

    9.81

    Lime

    1998

    6.10

    6.50

    6.80

    7.70

    7.90

    Maltsters Association of Great Britain

    1999

    1.70

    3.20

    4.70

    6.30

    7.80

    Poultry Meat processing—BPMF

    1999

    7.2

    8.5

    9.8

    11.1

    12.3

    British Meat Federation

    1995

    6.40

    9.40

    11.90

    13.20

    14.40

    Metal Forming—Confederation of

    2000

    1.40

    2.80

    4.20

    5.60

    7.00

    Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association

    1999

    4.00

    5.50

    7.00

    8.00

    9.00

    Motor Manufacturers—SMMT

    1995

    7.90

    10.10

    12.60

    13.90

    15.30

    Pig Rearing—NFU

    1999

    6.30

    10.20

    12.20

    15.10

    18.00

    Non-Ferrous

    1998

    5.50

    8.20

    10.00

    11.40

    14.70

    Paper

    1990

    29.40

    33.00

    36.30

    38.00

    40.00

    Poultry Rearing—NFU3

    1999

    4.30

    6,80

    9.70

    12.70

    14.70

    Poultry Rearing—BPMF3

    1999

    4.20

    6.40

    9.00

    11.90

    13.70

    Printing

    2000

    0.50

    3.10

    5.60

    9.50

    12.00

    Renderers—UK Renderers Association)

    1999

    1.70

    3.90

    5.60

    7.30

    9.00

    Rubber

    1999

    3.10

    4.80

    6.40

    8.20

    10.30

    Semiconductors—National Microelectronics Institute

    2000

    21.00

    49.00

    52.00

    56.00

    59.00

    Slag Grinders

    1999

    0.00

    2.50

    6.10

    8.20

    10.00

    Spirits

    1999

    0.20

    1.20

    2.80

    3.60

    4.50

    Steel

    1997

    4.90

    7.60

    9.50

    10.50

    11.50

    Supermarkets2

    Scratch bake1

    2001

    1.0

    3.5

    5.0

    7.0

    9.0

    Bake-off facil1

    0.3

    1.5

    2.5

    3.5

    4.5

    Surface Engineering4

    1999

    2.89

    5.17

    7.10

    8.77

    10.28

    Textiles—British Apparel and Textile Confederation

    1999

    1.20

    2.90

    4.70

    6.80

    9.00

    UKASTA—UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association

    1999

    2.10

    4.10

    5.60

    6.30

    7.10

    Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association Ltd

    2000

    2.00

    6.00

    7.30

    8.60

    10.00

    Wallcoverings

    1999

    1.56

    5.97

    7.42

    8.18

    9.00

    Wood Panel

    1999

    1.30

    3.50

    5.60

    6.50

    7.34

    1 Intermediate milestone targets are not yet determined.

    2 The target for the Craft bakers and Supermarkets are in delivered energy terms.

    3 The targets for the two poultry rearing agreements is the same in delivered energy terms so each facility is being treated equivalently.

    However because of the different mix of fuels between the two groups, the primary energy sector targets are different.

    4 The targets for the SEA agreement are in delivered energy terms. The 10.28 per cent. reduction in delivered specific energy consumption to 2010 is equivalent to 12.01 per cent. in primary energy.

    Asbestos
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 275W, on asbestos, what differentiations she has made between white and blue asbestos waste, including asbestos cement. [39231]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There are hazards associated with all types of asbestos waste. We do not, therefore, distinguish between white and blue asbestos and as I said in the answer I gave on 15 January, all types of asbestos waste have been classified as special waste in Great Britain since 1996 and in Northern Ireland since 1998.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the results of the genetically modified crops trials. [39275]
    76W
    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: We currently expect that the first results of the Farm Scale Evaluations for certain spring-sown herbicide tolerant genetically modified crops will he published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the summer of 2003. The independent Scientific Steering Committee, which oversees the evaluations, will publish its advice to Government at the same time.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many genetically modified crops were imported into the UK for the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [39273]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Grain and derived products from the following genetically modified crops have approval under Directive 90/220/EEC for importation into the European Community, dating from 1996 onwards. No figures of amounts imported are available.
    77W

    Crop

    Modification

    Company

    Consent Reference

    Soybean

    Herbicide tolerant

    Monsanto

    C/GB/94/M3/1

    Oilseed rape

    Herbicide tolerant

    Aventis

    C/GB/95/M5/1

    Maize

    Insect resistant and herbicide tolerant

    Northrup King

    C/GB/96/M4/1

    Maize

    Insect resistant and herbicide tolerant

    Ciba-Geigy

    C/F/94/11–03

    Maize

    Insect resistance

    Monsanto

    C/F/95/12/02

    Maize

    Herbicide tolerance

    Aventis

    C/F/95/12/07

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards growing genetically modified crops. [39274]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Government have an open mind about genetically modified (GM) crops. Our first priority is to protect human health and the environment. No GM crop can be grown in the environment for research or commercial purposes without prior assessment and approval in compliance with the European union regulatory regimes.

    In addition, the Farm Scale Evaluation research programme will provide information about the effect, that the management practices associated with GM herbicide tolerant crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with equivalent non-GM crops. There will be no commercial growing of GM crops until the evaluations are completed and only then if the crops and associated farming practices are assessed as causing no unacceptable impact on the environment. The results of the evaluations will enable a more informed decision to be taken about the possible use of this technology.

    Inland Rivers
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 648W, how much additional access to white water inland rivers the report Water-based Sport and Recreation estimates is necessary: and if he will make a statement. [39321]

    Alun Michael
    The report identified an imbalance between supply of and demand for white water for canoeists, particularly in south-east England. The report did not identify how much additional access was needed.

    Officials recently met the other sponsors of the research (British Waterways, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and Sport England) and other interested Government Departments and we are considering what action to take in the light of the report's findings.

    Deregulation
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make 78W
    a statement on her Department's policy on deregulation in the agriculture industry; and if she will list the regulations removed since May 1997. [33375]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department implements the Government's policy on better regulation. This is regulating only when necessary, doing so in a light touch way, consistent with policy objectives, and reducing regulatory burdens where possible.

    Regulatory reform can included changes to primary and secondary legislation and administrative procedures. The process was started through implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 Red Tape Reviews and the Better Regulation Task Force's Review of Environmental Regulations and Farmers. This has led to the streamlining of processes and procedures for example by implementing a simplified procedure for granting "own-use" approvals for imports of pesticides with a reduced fee, by streamlining intervention procedures, and by better co-ordinated cattle inspections. The Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan announced on 4 February contains further proposals for reform by the Department.

    The Department does not hold a comprehensive list of deregulatory changes made since 1997. However, in the last two months the Department has achieved the removal of complex rules applying to sheep produced groups and their replacement by simpler general rules as part of the changes to the CAP sheep regime agreed at the December 2001 Agriculture Council, and the removal of a requirement in Commission regulations on arable crops for testing of farm-saved rapeseed for glucosinolate content, estimated to result in savings to farmers of about £1 million. The Regulatory Reform Action Plan provides a basis for recording all such changes systematically from now on.

    Waste Disposal (Electrical Equipment)
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive on the amount of waste electrical goods illegally abandoned in public places. [38123]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is still in draft. We are currently at Common Position stage, and for this reason we have not yet made any such assessment.

    The Directive requires distributors to take back waste electrical goods free of charge to the end user. This take-back provision may be in-store, on delivery or through an alternative arrangement, eg. curbside collection. Furthermore, the Directive requires member states to ensure that users are given necessary information about the return and collection systems available to them and about their role in contributing to re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of WEEE.

    We therefore believe that the Directive will make a positive contribution to increasing the amount of waste electrical goods recovered and recycled and we see no reason to anticipate an increase in the illegal abandoning of WEEE in public places.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Departmental E-mail
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards meeting his pledge that all central Government should be contactable electronically by 2005; which(a) Ministers and (b) members of the Cabinet are contactable by the public via e-mail; and if he will make a statement. [38163]

    Mr. Leslie
    The latest figures on progress towards the target of making Government services available electronically by 2005 show that over 50 per cent. of Government services are e-enabled now. In addition, Departments predict that three-quarters of services will be e-enabled by the end of 2002.

    Statistic

    1997

    1998

    Change

    Education (Bristol Local Education Authority)

    Percentage of 15-year-olds gaining 5+A*-C GCSE/GNVQ1

    32.1 per cent.

    29 per cent.

    -3.1 percentage points

    Percentage of pupils gaining level 4 plus at Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds) English2

    54 per cent.

    55 per cent.

    1 percentage point

    Percentage of pupils gaining level 4 plus at Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds) mathematics3

    52 per cent.

    47 per cent.

    -5 percentage points

    Infants in class sizes of more than 304

    3,708 (January)

    3,770 (January)

    62 pupil increase

    Funding per pupil (in real terms)5

    £2,700

    £2,750

    £50 real terms increase

    Welfare to Work (Bristol Unitary Authority)

    Number of adults in employment6

    171,000 (May)

    182,000 (May)

    11,000 (6.4 per cent.)

    Percentage of working age people in employment7

    68.9 per cent. (May)

    72 per cent. (May)

    3.1 percentage points

    Claimant count unemployed8

    13,269 (May)

    9,851 (May)

    -3,418 (-25.8 per cent.)

    Youth unemployment (18–24 claimant count)9

    3,033 (May)

    2,303 (May)

    -730 (-24.1 per cent.)

    Health (Avon Health Authority)

    Number of doctors10

    2,169

    2,326

    157 (7.2 per cent.)

    Qualified nurses11

    8,260 (September 1997)

    6,679 (September 1998)

    -581 (-7 per cent.)

    Inpatient waiting lists12

    23,104 (March 1997)

    —

    —

    Outpatients seen within 13 weeks13

    Robust data not available

    76 per cent. (June 1998)

    —

    1,2,3,4DfES published statistics (taken from DFES Internet site)

    5DfES held statistics obtained through policy officials for use in ministerial briefing

    6,7.8,9NOMIS database (Office for National Statistics)

    10DoH statistic obtained through policy officials for use in ministerial briefing

    11,12,13DoH statistics from Avon health authority briefing

    Statistic

    1998

    Latest

    Education (Bristol Local Education Authority)

    Percentage of 15-year-olds gaining 5+A*-C GCSE/GNVQ1

    29 per cent.

    31.8 percent. (2001)

    Percentage of pupils gaining level 4 plus at Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds) English2

    55 per cent.

    65.5 percent. (2001)

    Percentage of pupils gaining level 4 plus at Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds) mathematics3

    47 per cent.

    61.6 per cent. (2001)

    Infants in class sizes of more than 304

    3.770 (January)

    Zero (September 2001)

    Funding per pupil (in real terms)5

    £2,750

    £3,290 (2001—provisional)

    Welfare to work (Bristol Unitary Authority)

    Number of adults in employment6

    182,000 (May)

    205,000 (November 2001)

    Percentage of working age people in employment7

    72 per cent. (May)

    78.2 per cent. (November 2001)

    Claimant count unemployed8

    9,851 (May)

    6,266 (December 2001)

    Youth unemployment (18–24 claimant count)9

    2,303 (May)

    1,502 (December 2001)

    Health (Avon Health Authority)

    Number of doctors10

    2,326

    2,508(2001)

    Qualified nurses11

    7,679 (September)

    7,569 (September 2000)

    Inpatient waiting lists12

    —

    21,492 (September 2001)

    Outpatients seen within 13 weeks13

    76 per cent. (June)

    80 per cent. (September 2001)

    1,2,3,4DfES published statistics (taken from DFES Internet site)

    5DfES held statistics obtained through policy officials for use in ministerial briefing

    6,7,8,9Publicly available through NOMIS database—(Office for National Statistics)

    10DoH statistic obtained through policy officials for use in ministerial briefing

    11,12,13DoH statistics from Avon Health Authority briefing (available through the Government Knowledge Network)

    80W
    The Guidelines for UK Government websites encourage individual departmental websites to list Ministers and their responsibilities, and to publish contact addresses, that is, a full postal address as well as an e-mail address.

    Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
    Jean Corston
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35598]

    Mrs. Roche
    The following tables provide key data for Bristol from 1997 to 1998 and from 1998 to date. Limited data are available, given changes in methodologies within the period. The information requested prior to 1997 is not held centrally, nor in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had with representatives of the(a) British Wind Energy Association, (b) oil and gas industry, (c) Association of Sea Fisheries Committees and (d) Shellfish Association of Great Britain since October 2001. [40605]

    Mr. Leslie
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

    Lord Macdonald has not had meetings in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy with any of the bodies named since October 2001.

    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had with conservation bodies since October 2001. [40602]

    Mr. Leslie
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

    Lord Macdonald has not had any meetings with conservation bodies in his capacity as the Chancellor of the Duchy. However, Duchy surveyors regularly meet representatives from a wide section of conservation and environmental bodies and groups as part of their management of the Duchy estates.

    Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has received with regard to the regulatory impact of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. [40603]

    Mr. Leslie
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

    Lord Macdonald has not received any representations in his capacity as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to the regulatory impact of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill.

  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

    South London Metro
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when work will begin on the creation of the integrated South London Metro Commuter Network. [37232]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Work is proceeding to identify a phased programme, co-ordinated with franchise replacement, for implementation of the London Metro concept. A Steering Group, chaired by the Strategic Rail Authority, comprising the key stakeholders, including Transport for London, Railtrack, the Train Operating Companies, local authority and passengers representatives has been meeting regularly to take forward implementation.

    Rail Safety
    Hugh Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many employees of railway companies and their contractor 82W
    held certificates to (a) work on the track, (b) supervise others working on the track and (c) train people to work on the track in each year since 1990. [37715]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department does not hold such information.

    Red Route System
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the mileage in use within Greater London of the red route system. [38202]

    Ms Keeble
    This is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London. However, I understand that the length of the red route network currently in use is some 515km. Further information may be obtained from:

    Peter Heather

    The Assistant Director of Street Management Services:

    TfL Street Management

    Windsor House

    42–50 Victoria Street

    London

    SW1H OTL.

    Council Houses
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new council houses have been(a) built since 1997 and (b) brought out of disrepair and are now available. [37178]

    Ms Keeble
    [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The figures for the number of council dwellings built since April 1997 are given in the table.

    Local authority new building: England

    Number of dwellings

    1997–98

    323

    1998–99

    194

    1999–2000

    102

    2000–01

    717

    Figures are not held centrally on the number of council dwellings in disrepair in 1997 which have now been brought out of disrepair. However, we are committed to improving the condition of social housing. In July 2000, the Government set targets to ensure that all social housing meets set standards of decency by 2010 and reducing the number of households living in social housing below these standards by a third between 2001 and 2004. Most of this reduction will take place in deprived areas. We currently estimate that we are on track to meet the 2004 target which should mean 550,000 more units of social housing of a decent standard by 2004.

    Public-Private Partnerships
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which companies that have been involved in public-private partnerships with his Department have become insolvent since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [38263]

    Dr. Whitehead
    None of the companies that have been involved in public-private partnerships with the Department have become insolvent since 1997.

    Rural Exception Sites Policy
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of the rural exception sites policy. [37466]

    Ms Keeble
    [holding answer 26 February 2002]: National policy on rural exception sites is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing and my Department's circular 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing. It allows local planning authorities to adopt rural exception policies for the release of sites for small-scale residential development within or adjoining existing villages where planning permission would not otherwise be given. Under the rural exception policy an authority must be satisfied that any application to build housing would meet a local need not being achieved through existing plan policies, and that it could remain as affordable housing to meet local needs in perpetuity.

    Registered Social Landlords
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what duty of care is required for members of the boards of registered social landlords when undertaking investment decisions; and what the consequences are of failure to meet this duty. [38093]

    Ms Keeble
    Members of the boards of registered social landlords (RSLs) have the same fiduciary duty to the RSL as any company director and, if the RSL is a charity, the same duty as any other charity trustee. The consequences of failing to meet their duties will also be the same.

    The Housing Corporation, as regulator of RSLs, lays down in its Regulatory Code the fundamental obligations it expects RSLs to meet: that they must be viable, well-governed and well-managed. RSLs' governing bodies are expected to provide leadership and control and, among other things, to protect public investment in the sector. Where an RSL falls short of its obligations, the corporation has statutory powers to take action.

    Reputational Externalities
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 249W, on reputational externalities, if the concept of reputational externalities was used as an element of the financial analyses of the London Underground PPP final assessment; and if he will make a statement. [37622]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Details of the financial analysis behind the value for money appraisal of the bids for the tube modernisation contracts are given in the final assessment report produced by London Underground. This is available on London Underground's website.

    Residential Dwellings (St. Helens, South)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of residential dwellings are vacant in St. Helens, South including(a) privately rented, (b) owner occupied, (c) council rented or (d) housing association. [38266]
    84W
    Ms Keeble
    4.8 per cent. of all residential dwellings in St. Helens, South are vacant. Of this, 1 per cent. is within the council's stock, with the remaining 3.8 per cent. made up of owner occupiers, Registered Social Landlords, and the private rented sector.

    Note—information on vacant property that differentiates between owner occupiers, Registered Social Landlords and private rented sector is not available.

    Equipment Leasing
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39078]

    Dr. Whitehead
    The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list by local authority the level of(a) rent and (b) council tax arrears in each year since 1992 in England and Wales. [38323]

    Ms Keeble
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: On rent arrears, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 January 2002. Official Report, column 979W to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), which provided information on rent arrears by local authority in England.

    On council tax arrears, central Government do not collect information on the level of council tax arrears in England. However, estimates are available from 1 April 1995 on the total amount of council tax arrears in England. This information is given in the table.

    £ billion

    Estimated amount of council tax arrears for England

    1 April 1995

    0.8

    1 April 1996

    1.1

    1 April 1997

    1.1

    1 April 1998

    1.1

    1 April 1999

    1.2

    1 April 2000

    1.2

    1 April 2001

    1.4

    The council tax was introduced on 1 April 1993 as a replacement for the community charge (or poll tax). Requests for information about rent arrears and council tax arrears in Wales should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    London Underground
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers the Health and Safety Executive has in relation to withdrawing the safety cases for the London Underground PPP under the(a) Greater London Authority Act 1999, (b) Transport Act 2000 and (c) contracts between London Underground (and Transport for London when transferred) and the Infracos; and what implications this

    85W
    has for the ability of London Underground (and Transport for London when transferred) to (i) change or (ii) withdraw the Infraco contracts. [38973]

    Mr. Jamieson
    None. The relevant powers of the Health and Safety Executive are in the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, on which guidance is published by and available from HSE. HSE assesses and considers safety cases for acceptance. It can require London Underground to revise its safety case and submit the revision for assessment.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has regarding the placing of the Infracos on the London Underground into administration under(a) the Greater London Authority Act 1999, (b) the Transport Act 2000 and (c) the contracts with the Infracos for the London Underground PPP. [38980]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to Section 221 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the(a) nature and (b) length of leases of (i) real estate, (ii) property and (iii) premises on the London Underground which (A) have taken place and (B) are due to take place under the London Underground PPP; [38986]

    (2) what his Department's definition is of (a) premises, (b) real estate and (c) property on the London Underground, listing in each case the type and number of assets. [38978]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The establishment in April 2000 of the infrastructure companies, which are subsidiaries of London Underground Limited, enabled shadow running of the proposed arrangements which would operate under the PPP. The infrastructure companies have the benefit of such leases of infrastructure as are appropriate and necessary in order for the infrastructure companies to perform their contracts with London Underground Limited. Ensuring the necessary arrangements are in place is a matter for London Underground Limited and the infrastructure companies.

    The leases give the infrastructure companies sufficient interest in the infrastructure to enable them to carry out their obligations under the contracts. The freehold remains with London Underground Limited. London Underground Limited has the benefit of a sub-lease, reflecting its role as operator of the network.

    If London Underground Limited enters into the proposed PPP arrangements, the infrastructure companies' interest in the leases will remain with those companies.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes there have been to the final contracts with the Infracos on the London Underground PPP, regarding(a) the level of financial allowance for safety critical work and (b) contractual safety cases. [38979]

    Mr. Jamieson
    London Underground is responsible for the development of PPP contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure. I understand that the contracts require the infrastructure companies to comply with a contractual safety case, and to finance up to £50 million of safety changes and qualifying law changes 86W
    in any contract year. That compares to the previously proposed level of £200 million per seven and a half year review period (around £26 million per year).

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when assessments made by(a) his Department, (b) the Treasury, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) London Underground Limited, (e) the Mayor of London and Transport for London and (f) the Health and Safety Executive of (i) value for money and (ii) safety of the contracts tendered by bidders Metronet and Tube Lines wishing to enter into a public-private partnership with London Underground Limited were (1) concluded, (2) published and (3) made available for further consultation. [38968]

    Mr. Jamieson
    London Underground is responsible for implementation of the proposals for a public private partnership to modernise its infrastructure. It published on 7 February the assessment report considered by the London Transport Board, which considers, among other things, both value for money and safety. The report was sent on the same day to the Mayor and Transport for London, along with a wide range of other information, as part of the statutory duty of consultation and co-operation.

    The Secretary of State commissioned Ernst and Young to carry out an independent review of London Underground's value for money analysis for him. This was completed before the LT Board meeting on 7 February and published on that day.

    The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulation of London Underground in relation to safety, including acceptance of London Underground's statutory safety case.

    Assessments made by the Mayor and Transport for London are a matter for them.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those assets transferred to the Shadow Infracos on the London Underground; and the date on which the transfers took place. [38985]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Assets were transferred by statutory transfer scheme from London Underground Limited to the infrastructure companies BVC Limited, SSL Limited, and JNP Limited, which are subsidiaries of London Underground Limited, in April 2000. The establishment of the infrastructure companies and subsequent transfers took place in order to enable shadow running of the proposed arrangements which would operate under the PPP. The transfer schemes transferred such property, rights and liabilities as were appropriate and necessary in order for the infrastructure companies to perform their contracts with London Underground Limited.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what level of performance under the performance measurement code is required by the contracts for the London Underground PPP with Infracos for(a) each Infraco and (b) each line; what penalties will be imposed upon Infracos for failure to meet these performance targets; and if he will place in the Library copies of related documentation prepared (i) for and (ii) by his Department; [38989]
    87W
    (2) what the performance measurement code is for the London Underground Infracos under the PPP; if he will place copies of related documentation prepared (a) for and (b) by his Department in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [38990]

    Mr. Jamieson
    London Underground is responsible for the PPP contracts for the modernisation of the Underground's infrastructure. I understand that the Performance Measurement Code sets out how the performance of each of the three infrastructure companies will be monitored and measured. It does not specify the level of performance required or the bonuses and penalties to be imposed for better or worse levels of performance, which are set out in schedules to the PPP service contracts. I understand that London Underground intends to make the contractual documentation publicly available following completion of the competitions.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the contracts tendered by bidders Metronet and Tube Lines wishing to enter into a public private partnership with London Underground Ltd. [38967]

    Mr. Jamieson
    London Underground is responsible for the development of the PPP contracts for the modernisation of the Underground's infrastructure. I understand that London Underground intends to make the contractual documentation publicly available following completion of the competitions.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes there have been in the last six months to the final contracts with the Infracos for the London Underground PPP concerning with whom the responsibility for cost overrun will lie; if he will state with whom the responsibility for cost overrun will lie under the contracts with the Infracos for the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement. [38981]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The PPP plans will require three private sector infrastructure companies to carry out work to modernise and maintain the infrastructure of the underground. These infrastructure companies will be responsible for ensuring that they meet their contractual obligations on time and on budget, and they will bear the risk of any cost overruns that result from their own inefficient or uneconomic behaviour. This principle has not been changed in the last six months.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisations and individuals must be consulted regarding the contracts tendered by bidders wishing to enter into a public-private partnership with London Underground Ltd.; and what the length of time required for consultation to take place is as defined in(a) the Greater London Authority Act 1999, (b) the Transport Act 2000 and (c) subsequent decisions made by (i) his Department and (ii) London Transport. [38964]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Section 298 of the GLA Act imposes a duty on the Mayor, London Regional Transport and Transport for London to consult and co-operate with each other for the purpose of, among other things, facilitating the securing and carrying into effect of PPP agreements for London Underground. The Act does not specify the length of time required for consultation. I understand that 88W
    London Regional Transport considers that the current consultation time scale is realistic, reasonable and in compliance with its statutory obligations.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the conditions precedent, as referred to at http://www.railways.dtlr.gov.uk/lunderground/factsheets/safety/inde x.htm and as published by his Department on 11 February, that must be satisfied by London Transport before contracts are signed on the London Underground PPP; what timetable these must be satisfied by; and whether his Department must also accept these conditions precedent before final signing of the contracts. [38975]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The London Transport Board is expected to decide in March whether to enter into the proposed PPP contracts to modernise London Underground's infrastructure. If they decide to proceed, London Underground Ltd. will sign agreed contract terms with the bidders. They will sign on the basis that, before the agreements can come into effect, a number of conditions ("conditions precedent") must be fulfilled. These may relate to issues such as financing and regulatory consents, as well as acceptance of the safety case. The details of the conditions precedent themselves, like other contract terms, are a matter for London Underground Ltd. and the bidders.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what type of specific improvements are expected under the contracts of the first 7.5 years of the London Underground PPP in terms of(a) track improvement, (b) signals, (c) trains and (d) other infrastructure (i) in total, (ii) for each infraco and (iii) for each line. [38984]

    Mr. Jamieson
    London Transport's plans for modernisation of the tube are designed to deliver a comprehensive upgrade of the whole network as quickly and efficiently as possible. London Transport is currently consulting the Mayor and Transport for London on the plans following its announcement on 7 February that it is minded to proceed. I understand that London Underground intends to make the contractual documentation publicly available following completion of the competitions.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition of privatisation(a) is used by his Department as standard and (b) has been referred to in documentation published by his Department relating to the PPP of London Underground since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [38977]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 7 February 2002 Official Report, columns 1126–47.

    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list changes to the Gateway process for major Government construction projects arising from consideration of Jubilee line extension project reports; whether these will apply to construction projects undertaken by private sector infrastructure companies involved in the public-private partnership for the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [39001]
    89W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Deputy Prime Minister asked Peter Gershon of the Office of Government Commerce to consider the July 2000 Ove Amp "end of commission" Jubilee line extension report in the light of his own report on best practice for central Government procurement. Mr. Gershon concluded that the report reinforced his views that large, high risk projects should be subject to a Gateway process to test viability, approve procurement methods, etc. Following a number of successful pilot exercises, the Gateway technique was formally extended to all large, high risk Government procurement projects.

    Under the PPP plans for the modernisation of London Underground three private sector companies will be contracted to carry out work to modernise and maintain the underground's infrastructure. These companies will be responsible for the project management of the work. I understand that each intends to follow a form of Gateway procedure.

    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the result of the study by Westminster University commissioned by his Department and Transport for London into the economic impact of the Jubilee Line Extension project; and if he will make a statement. [39000]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Jubilee line extension impact study report is expected to be published jointly by Transport for London and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the spring of next year.

    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish his Department's review of its oversight of the Jubilee line extension project; and if he will make a statement. [38999]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Officials have been studying the Department's oversight of the way in which the Jubilee line extension project was carried out, with a view to providing advice to Ministers on lessons learned for the Government's role. This work is continuing and its conclusions will be submitted to Ministers. The Secretary of State's agent, Ove Amp, produced an end of commission report on the JLE project. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

    Railway Industry
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the members and/organisations, companies and individuals represented on the Health and Safety Commission Railway Industry Advisory Committee; what the frequency of meetings of the RIAC is; and what recommendations have been(a) made and (b) implemented as an outcome of the meetings and discussions which have taken place. [38971]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The current membership of the Health and Safety Commission's (HSC) Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) is as follows:

    Margaret Burns—Chair (a member of the HSC)

    John Cartledge—London Transport Users Committee, Rail Passengers Council

    David Heseldin—Rail Passengers Council

    90W

    Vernon Hince, Phil Dee—RMT

    Mick Rix, Dave Bennett—ASLEF

    John Allen, Alan Tipping—TSSA

    Paul Reuter—Amicus (formerly AEEU)

    Aidan Nelson—Railway Safety (also chair of RIAC's Human Factors working group)

    Chris Leah—Railtrack plc (in railway administration)

    Richard Gostling—Railway Industry Association

    Terry Worrall—Association of Train Operating Companies (employed by Thames Trains)

    Paul Abbott—Railtrack plc (in railway administration) (also chairman of RIAC's Freight working group)

    Allen Baker—Rolling Stock Companies (employed by Angel Train Contracts)

    David Madden—Heritage Railway Association

    Mike Strzelecki—London Underground Ltd.

    Andrew Steel—Light Rail representative (employed by Stagecoach Supertram).

    The Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of the Rail Regulator and the DTLR have observer status. This is being extended to include the Northern Ireland Department of Regional Development. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides secretariat support to RIAC, and is also currently represented at meetings by two senior officials. RIAC normally meets quarterly.

    RIAC's activities prior to April 2001 were reported in successive editions of the Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Report, copies of which are in the House Library. Since April 2001, RIAC has considered and provided the HSC with advice on aspects of all the recent public inquiry reports. Following a review of RIAC and the recommendations of Lord Cullen's public inquiry, its role was refocused in November 2001 to provide strategic advice to the HSC. Hence, at its most recent meeting in January 2002, RIAC considered HSE's draft railway regulatory strategy, and a negotiating strategy for the draft railway safety directive, both of which have subsequently been agreed by the HSC.

    Business Contacts
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how his Department define the terms(a) independent advice, (b) independent assessment and (c) independent report when (i) awarding contracts for research and (ii) referring to written documentation published for his Department by outside organisations and bodies. [38965]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department seeks and commissions advice from all types of academics, consultants, committees and other public and private sector enterprises. That advice gives rise to reports, independent of the Department's own view, which may be published by the organisation or by the Department.

    Research Documents
    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) published documentation and (b) unpublished written reports or other documentation which have resulted from research or other contracts awarded since (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2001 by (A) his Department and (B) the Health and Safety Executive to (1) Balfour Beatty plc, (2) Bombardier Transportation

    91W
    (formerly Adtranz), (3) WS Atkins plc, (4) Amey/Amec, (5) Bechtel-Halcrow, (6) Jarvis and (7) AEA Technology; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [38961]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 813W. Information about my Department's research and other contracts is made widely available through publications, websites and events. The exceptions to this policy are work-related to national security or which involve issues of commercial confidentiality. HSE research reports are published in full and free of charge on their website.

    The range of expertise of the firms identified is such that they may be commissioned by many areas of my Department. The information requested is not recorded centrally and would require searches throughout the Department, at disproportionate cost.

    SSA (Surrey)
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the initial assessment of SSA and grant finance to local authorities in the case of district councils in Surrey. [39014]

    Dr. Whitehead
    The 2002–03 local government finance settlement meant that, taken as a whole, district councils in Surrey received a grant increase of £2.75 million (2.3 per cent.) which translates into an SSA increase of £3.67 million (3.7 per cent.) All of these authorities benefited from our guarantee that districts would get grant increases of at least the rate of inflation.

    Highways Agency
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money the High/ways Agency has spent on maintenance of main roads in each of the past 10 years. [39135]

    Mr. Jamieson
    During the last 10 years the Highways Agency and its predecessor organisations have spent the following amounts on maintenance of motorways and trunk roads:

    £ million

    1991–92

    482

    1992–93

    539

    1993–94

    584

    1994–95

    595

    1995–96

    488

    1996–97

    428

    1997–98

    499

    1998–99

    638

    1999–2000

    726

    2000–01

    722

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much additional public sector investment the Highways Agency will make during the period of the 10 Year Plan over and above spending on routine maintenance. [39137]
    92W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The 10-year Plan for Transport provided for expenditure of £22.5 billion. This is broken down as follows:

    £billion

    Investment

    Major schemes over £5 million

    7.2

    Expenditure on small scale improvements to the network

    3.3

    Structural maintenance—renewal of carriageways and bridges

    4.3

    Sub total

    14.8

    Payments to the private sector for privately financed investment

    3.9

    Other

    HA Administration

    1.0

    Routine and winter maintenance

    2.8

    Sub total

    3.8

    Total 10-year plan funding

    22.5

    Travel Concessions Eligibility Bill
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of local authorities he estimates will be fully funded for the cost of implementing the Travel Concessions Eligibility Bill; and which local authorities he estimates will not be fully compensated for the cost. [39013]

    Ms Keeble
    The Government will take into account in setting the spending totals in the Spending Review the additional cost on local government overall of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002. Provision will be included in the 2003–04 general grant for local authorities, and it will be for councils to decide their spending priorities in the light of their responsibilities and the wishes of their electorate. It is not possible to identify provision for a particular responsibility within general grant, and the grant for individual councils will not, in any case, be available until the provisional local government finance settlement is announced at the end of the year.

    National Transport Model
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 800W, ref 36609, when this model will be completed; and whether there are funds allocated in the 10-year Plan budget which will enable projects to be restructured if the modelling reveals flaws in the initial analysis for the plan. [39157]

    Mr. Jamieson
    A preliminary version of our enhanced National Transport Model is under test at present. As part of the review of the 10-year Plan, expected to be completed this summer, the enhanced version will be used to provide revised forecasts for the impacts of the plan, although the model itself is subject to constant review.

    The 10-year Plan provides an investment framework with indicative funding allocations, with some unallocated moneys in later plan years. This allows flexibility for later years. Projects will emerge from multi-modal studies, from the business plans of the Strategic Rail Authority

    93W
    and Highways Agency, and the Local Transport Plan bids of local authorities, and will be subject to detailed appraisal as appropriate.

    Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the advice received from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors concerning marriage value and leasehold enfranchisement. [38477]

    Ms Keeble
    I understand that, by this, the hon. Member for Torbay wished to know whether we would make public the views expressed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in response to consultation on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. All responses to the consultation paper—with the exception of those who asked for their responses to be treated as confidential—are available to the public. The response from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is among them. Copies can be inspected by visiting my Department's library at Ashdown House. Appointments are not necessary, but we would advise visitors to contact the library in advance on 020 7944 6107 to avoid unnecessary delays.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statutory powers he has to ensure local authorities meet their statutory duty to house the homeless. [38444]

    Ms Keeble
    Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value) imposes a general duty on local authorities to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Section 15 of the 1999 Act provides the Secretary of State with a wide range of intervention powers to secure an authority's compliance with part 1. For example, he may direct the local authority to carry out a review of the function or to contract out the function. The Secretary of State also has the power, in cases of serious failure, to assume responsibility for a function and nominate a person to undertake it on his behalf.

    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he determines if a local authority is meeting its statutory duty to house the homeless. [38443]

    Ms Keeble
    The Housing Inspectorate, part of the Audit Commission's Inspection Service undertakes scrutiny of local authorities' housing functions, including their statutory homelessness duties. The Minister for Housing and Planning is notified by the Chief Inspector of Housing of any inspection which concludes that a service is poor, and the Secretary of State has intervention powers which he can use if he is satisfied that the authority is not complying with its statutory best value responsibilities. For the years 2001–01 and 2001–02 local authorities were required to assess their performance against Best Value Performance Indicator 67, the proportion of homelessness applications decided upon within 33 working days. Local authorities are also encouraged to set appropriate local performance indicators.
    94W
    The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions also collects, monitors and publishes at quarterly intervals data about local housing authorities activities under the homelessness legislation. Among other things, this indicates the numbers of applicants accepted by individual authorities as statutorily homeless and the number of households being accommodated under the legislative provisions.

    The Homelessness Act 2002 includes provisions which will require local housing authorities to carry out a homelessness review in their district and to formulate a homelessness strategy based on the review. The new Homelessness Directorate being established within DTLR will monitor the development and progress of these reviews and strategies.

    Accident Black Spots
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he proposes to take about the worst 10 accident black spots on the trunk and primary route network, with particular reference to the A5 from the A45 to the A428 in the Daventry constituency; and if he will discuss these accident black spots with the Automobile Association. [38454]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 4 March 2002:
    The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the worst 10 accident black spots on the trunk and primary route network and in particular, on the A5 in the Daventry constituency.
    Safety is a high priority for the Highways Agency and we welcome the initiative that the AA has recently taken in alerting drivers to the need to take care when using the strategic road network. The Agency's network is one of the safest in the world and, since 1998, the number of those killed and seriously injured on these roads has been reduced by more than 400. However, there is no room for complacency. The Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport sets a target for measures to be taken to further reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by a third by 2010, with a 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate.
    We are aware of the safety issues highlighted by the AA and, on certain stretches of the trunk road network we have taken, or are planning, steps to improve them. We are delivering 100 small improvement schemes, half of which are aimed specifically at improving safety at locations on the trunk road network, in addition to the programme of major improvements, eight of which are expected to be completed by March 2003. We have regular meetings with the AA and other representative road user groups at which these issues are discussed.
    The AA identified the A5 between Daventry and Rugby as the 11th most dangerous route in Britain. Since 1999, when data for the AA's survey was collected, a safety scheme between Kilsby and Weedon has been completed. This involved providing improved signing and road markings and the introduction of a Police speed check area. Accident data from January 2000 to August 2001 shows that there has been a noticeable reduction and, although it is still too early to fully assess this reduction, early indications are encouraging. In addition, we propose to install speed cameras in the Watford Gap area and that the speed limit there be reduced to 50 mph.

    Autism
    Dr. Ladyman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if members of the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee have expertise in autism spectrum disorders. [39752]

    Ms Keeble
    Members of the committee are appointed on the basis of their personal transport and disability experience. They do not represent any particular organisation or interest group. We expect the committee to take account of the needs of the widest range of disabled people in formulating their advice to Ministers.

    The committee can also benefit from the expertise of one member of the secretariat who has family experience of autism spectrum disorders.

    Dr. Ladyman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to what extent the revised Blue Badge Scheme for Disabled People takes account of the serious mobility impairment of people with autistic spectrum disorders through their behavioural difficulties and inability to perceive danger. [39753]

    Ms Keeble
    The current review of the Blue Badge Scheme will consider all aspects of the Scheme, including the eligibility criteria, administration and enforcement. Formal representations have been made by the National Autistic Society and their views will be given due consideration during the review process.

    Asbestos
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, columns 986–87W, on asbestos, if the handling of asbestos cement will be limited to licensed contractors after the regulations come into operation. [39250]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: No. There are no plans to require work with asbestos cement to be in any way limited to contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 987W, on asbestos, who commissioned the (a) 1985 Doll and Peto paper and (b) 2000 Hodgson and Darnton paper; and on what basis their reports may be deemed to be independent. [39251]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The 1985 report by Professors Doll and Peto was commissioned in 1982 by the Health and Safety Commission. Both individuals are highly respected academic epidemiologists, chosen for this task on the basis of their expertise in the subject matter. The paper by Hodgson and Darnton, was prepared as part of their day-to-day work in the HSE. Drafts of the paper were seen and reviewed by a number of external experts before it was submitted for publication, and again by peer reviewers selected by the Annals of Occupational Hygiene before its publication in this journal. Copies of the report and paper are in the Libraries of the House.
    96W
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 986W, on asbestos, if he will give a breakdown of the 2000–01 prosecution figures differentiating between white and blue asbestos. [39249]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: 1 refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 986W, on asbestos, which explained that the system for recording prosecutions does not differentiate between the different types of asbestos.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 986W, on asbestos, if he will give a breakdown of his estimate of the compliance cost of the proposed new duty to manage the risk from asbestos to include the (a) cost of replacement materials, (b) devaluation of property, (c) premature demolition of property affected, (d) cost of collection and disposal of asbestos cement, (e) replacement of blue asbestos water pipes and (f) legal costs. [39242]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Health and Safety Executive included the cost of the replacement materials in the estimated removal costs provided with the consultation document. The cost of replacement materials varies by type and location of asbestos. The research the Executive commissioned for the proposals indicates that reinstatement costs could be in the region of 35–45 per cent. of the calculated removal costs. On this basis total reinstatement costs would be between £230 million and £290 million for the asbestos that is actually removed as a result of the proposals. These reinstatement costs include labour costs. These costs were included in the original overall cost estimates.

    The Health and Safety Executive do not believe there will be any significant devaluation of property values following reinstatement if asbestos is removed or adequate management of asbestos remaining in place. Any on-going management costs are expected to be only a small fraction of annual building maintenance costs.

    The Health and Safety Executive do not expect these proposals in themselves to result in any premature demolition. Other factors, such as the overall desirability of the property, are likely to play a more significant role in any decision to demolish. Under existing legislation, an asbestos survey has to be undertaken and asbestos has to be removed under controlled conditions before a building is demolished.

    It is not possible to breakdown any cost by type of asbestos.

    Information on legal costs is not available.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the anticipated costs are of removing all blue and brown asbestos from domestic properties. [39213]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There are no plans to require the removal of blue and brown asbestos from domestic properties so it has not been costed. It is safer to leave asbestos in place if it is not going to be damaged or disturbed.
    97W
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the anticipated cost is of removing all white asbestos from domestic properties. [39214]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There are no plans to require the removal of white asbestos from domestic premises so it has not been costed. It is safer to leave asbestos in place if it is not going to be damaged or disturbed.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he plans to ban sales of domestic property containing blue, brown or white asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [39215]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: There are no such plans. Our proposals for seller's packs will help raise home buyers' awareness. The seller's pack will include a home condition report which will disclose the presence of asbestos where it is a safety hazard and is apparent from a visual inspection of the property.

    The Health and Safety Executive does not call for asbestos to be removed if it is in good condition and is not going to be disturbed. In those circumstances, it is safer to leave undamaged asbestos in place, and this is what the Health and Safety Executive recommends.

    Pilotage Exemption Certificates
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will impose a national standard for the issue of pilotage exemption certificates. [39820]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Pilotage Act 1987 assigns to competent harbour authorities the responsibility for deciding the qualifications required of applicants for pilotage exemption certificates. They have to consider skill, experience and local knowledge and, where appropriate, knowledge of English. We have no plans to change this. However, we have proposed to develop with the ports industry guidelines on the way this task might be undertaken: our aim is to assist authorities with advice on agreed industry practice. These guidelines would support the Port Marine Safety Code.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many pilotage exemption certificates have been issued on the Humber in the last year. [39819]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The issue of pilotage exemption certificates is a matter for the competent harbour authority. I understand from the authority for the Humber that 40 new pilotage exemption certificates were issued in 2001, compared with 35 in 2000. These are the latest readily available figures. There is always a turnover of certificate holders since crews change on vessels regularly using any port. I understand that almost all the new certificates were replacements of additional certificates issued in these circumstances.

    Associated British Ports
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many pilots are employed on the Humber by Associated British Ports. [39821]
    98W
    Mr. Jamieson
    This is a matter for the competent harbour authority. They have indicated that 77 authorised pilots will be employed by 4 March, that a further 17 have been recruited and are training for authorisation; and that they hope to have a full complement of 110 authorised pilots by the end of March.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much Government funding was given to Associated British Ports for their training of new pilots, under their new pilotage scheme, on the Humber. [39822]

    Mr. Jamieson
    None.

    Fire Service
    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated(a) administrative and (b) total cost is of best value in England and Wales in the fire service since its introduction. [39623]

    Dr. Whitehead
    There are a number of different categories of fire authorities in England and Wales. Broadly speaking, these divide into 34 single-purpose authorities and 16 county fire authorities, where the fire service is provided by the county council as one of a range of services. Single-purpose fire authorities are best value authorities in their own right. For county fire authorities the duty of best value applies at county council level. No overall assessment is available of the costs incurred by fire authorities on the best value process. It would not be feasible to apportion costs incurred by county councils in respect of best value for the fire service.

    Arson
    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) non-accidental vehicle fires, (b) incidents of arson and (c) incidents of arson in educational establishments there were, broken by (i) fire brigade area and (ii) local authority, in England and Wales, in each year since January 1997. [39622]

    Dr. Whitehead
    The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House. It relates to malicious or deliberate fires attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales between 1997 and 2000.

    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the Government introduced its target to cut arson by 30 per cent. by 2009. [39624]

    Dr. Whitehead
    The target to reduce by 30 per cent. the number of deliberate fires by March 2009 from the 1998–99 baseline was set as a service delivery agreement target in conjunction with Spending Review 2000. The service delivery agreement target was agreed with Treasury in November 2000.

    Telecommunications Masts
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appeal applications for telecommunications masts to be erected have been received by him; how many have been turned down; and on what grounds. [39542]
    99W
    Ms Keeble
    Information is not held about appeal decisions for telecommunications masts specifically. The following is information relating to appeal decisions about telecommunications development generally.

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Number of appeals

    147

    325

    589

    Number of appeals allowed

    85

    191

    248

    Number of appeals dismissed

    52

    108

    136

    Number of appeals withdrawn or undecided

    10

    26

    205

    Note:

    All figures relate to the year in which the appeal was received, not necessarily the year it was decided.

    While a large number of issues have been taken into account in determining telecommunications appeals, the most common issues for those that have been dismissed are the effect on the landscape, surrounding area (by reason of size, character, materials etc), areas of outstanding natural beauty or green belt policy issues, and other bad neighbour issues.

    M42
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken to alleviate traffic noise from the M42, with specific reference to where it passes through Solihull. [39492]

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

    Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. John Taylor, dated 4 March 2002:
    The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about measures to alleviate traffic noise from the M42 where it passes through Solihull.
    The Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport said that all concrete roads would be resurfaced with quieter surfacing materials by 2010. In line with that, the concrete surface of the Solihull section of M42 between Junctions 3A and 4 will be resurfaced, probably during the second half of the period covered by the 10 year plan.
    You will know that the West Midlands Multi Modal Study, carried out by consultants on behalf of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, has recommended widening the M42. You will also know that proposals for a motorway service area, which could result in the section of motorway between Junctions 5 and 6 being widened, are currently the subject of a planning inquiry. Were these widenings to go ahead, both would be subject to environmental appraisal, which would include an assessment of the impact of noise on surrounding properties.
    I should add that asphalt surface of the M42 between Junctions 4 and 7 is in good condition and is unlikely to need resurfacing as part of its normal maintenance cycle for some years. When it is, however, a quieter surfacing material will be used.
    If you would like further information, the Agency's Area Manager, David Cropper, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 IBL, or telephone on 0121 678 8482.

    Planning Applications
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance is given to people who require help to contest planning application decisions. [39485]
    100W
    Ms Keeble
    An applicant may appeal against refusal of planning permission by a local planning authority, against the imposition of conditions, or against non determination of a planning application by a local planning authority. The Planning Inspectorate provide advice on making and taking part in planning appeals.

    Third parties who object to the grant of planning permission may make an application to the courts for judicial review of the local authority's decision. Public funding is available for legal representation in judicial review proceedings on certain terms and advice should be sought from a legal aid solicitor.

    Our Planning Green Paper puts forward a range of proposals designed to improve community participation in the planning system. This includes strengthening the existing opportunities for people to comment on and influence development proposals early in the process before formal planning applications are submitted. In order to help people engage more effectively in the planning process we are working with the Royal Town Planning Institute on ways in which the service provided by Planning Aid can be expanded and better funded.

    External Contracts
    Pete Wishart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed; [38731]

    (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with his Department (a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with his Department in each of the past five years; [38730]

    (3) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with (a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years. [38729]

    Dr. Whitehead
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Housing Units (Telford)
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new housing units have been constructed by registered social landlords in Telford in each financial year since 1990. [39748]

    Ms Keeble
    The numbers of new dwellings constructed by registered social landlords in Telford and Wrekin unitary authority, as report by the local authority, for the financial years requested are given in the table.
    101W

    Dwellings completed for registered social landlords in Telford and Wrekin

    Period

    Number of dwellings

    1990–91

    2

    1991–92

    152

    1992–93

    118

    1993–94

    82

    1994–95

    228

    1995–96

    130

    1996–97

    149

    1997–98

    15

    1998–99

    59

    1999–2000

    183

    2000–01

    180

    Fire Authorities
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the separate precepting arrangements for combined fire authorities in England outlined in the latest local government White Paper will come into effect. [39727]

    Dr. Whitehead
    As announced in the White Paper, the Government are proposing to take the legislative steps necessary to make combined fire authorities in England major precepting bodies. This change will require an amendment to primary legislation, because the revised financial arrangements would otherwise conflict with the provisions of section 5 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The timetable for making the change will depend upon the Department securing a legislative slot in a forthcoming Session of Parliament for a Bill to implement proposals in respect of local government finance in the White Paper.

    Transport Research Laboratory
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the studies(a) being conducted and (b) published since 1997 by the Transport Research Laboratory. [38531]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: TRL is an independent private company and carries out research studies for many clients including DTLR. Since 1997 a large number of studies have been completed or are continuing for DTLR, and reports are normally published by TRL on completion of each study. To list the studies and reports would require disproportionate effort, but TRL should be able to provide copies of any report that has been published. Also, TRL publishes annual reports that list all the research and publications for that year and copies of these from 1997 may be obtained directly from TRL.

    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the Transport Research Laboratory's report into speed and road traffic accidents. [38530]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: TRL has published many such studies over many years. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today [38531], about TRL studies and publications. The next TRL report on this topic is due to be published in March. This is TRL report number 511, "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single carriageway roads" by M. C. Taylor, A. Baruya and J. V. Kennedy.

    Local Strategic Partnerships
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of local strategic partnerships in rural areas; and what advice is available to parish and town councils. [39396]

    Dr. Whitehead
    Parish and town councils provide a recognised role for involvement specific to people in rural areas, not only for local authorities in predominantly rural areas but also for those in areas which include some rural elements. Accountable parish and town councils can make an important contribution to the work of local strategic partnerships, for example feeding into the establishment of the long-term vision and identifying local priorities to be contained in the community strategy. The role that parish and town councils play should be a matter for local discussion between those councils and the relevant local strategic partnership. The Government produced guidance on local strategic partnerships in March 2001, and on the related subject of preparing community strategies in December 2000.

    Leylandii
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to control leylandii hedges; and what the proposed timetable is for their implementation. [39487]

    Ms Keeble
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 325W.

    European Railway Safety Agency
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a European railway safety agency under paragraph 36 of the Laeken conclusions; and what powers it will have. [39635]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government welcome the publication by the Commission on 23 January of a "second package" of proposed measures to revitalise Europe's railways. This package includes a proposal to establish a European Rail Agency (ERA). We are considering these proposals carefully and will be consulting widely on them before reaching a formal position.

    The Commission's proposal makes clear that the ERA will have no substantive powers of its own. It will act in a technical advisory capacity to the Commission on railway interoperability and safety matters, and will be staffed by experts from the industry.

    Coal Mining
    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisations with a specific remit to support coal mining and former coal mining communities receive Government funding. [39381]
    103W
    Ms Keeble
    The Government funded organisations with specific remits to support coal mining and its former communities are:

    (i) The Coal Authority, whose principal functions are to license coal mining operations and to discharge liabilities stemming from historic mining activity;

    (ii) the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, whose objective is to be a key agency promoting and achieving the social and economic regeneration of the former coalfields.

    In addition, English Partnerships are responsible for delivering the ringfenced National Coalfields Programme working with the RDAs. This programme delivers environmental improvements and development infrastructure on the 86 former coalfield sites within the programme's portfolio.

    Furthermore, a Coalfields Enterprise Fund is to be launched later this year, providing venture capital to new and expanding small and medium sized business located in the former English coalfields.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements will be made for debt to be covered by Railtrack's successor company; and if it will be guaranteed by Government. [39859]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 1 March 2002]: It is for bidders to propose their arrangements for the treatment of debt.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of indebtedness was of(a) Railtrack plc and (b) Railtrack Group immediately prior to the date of being put into administration; and how much debt the administrator has built up (i) to date and (ii) until the financial year end. [39843]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 1 March 2002]: This is a matter for the administrator of Railtrack plc and, in the case of Railtrack Group plc, the company and its auditors.

    Station Platforms
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the decision of Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate not to allow new trains to stop at short platforms. [39438]

    Mr. Jamieson
    [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate's (HMRI) policy on long trains stopping at short platforms is based on an assessment of risk. HMRI prefer to see stations' platforms modified to ensure that they are long enough to accommodate trains without the need for selective door opening. However, where this is not possible, for example where there are structural constraints, HMRI are prepared to consider proposals from operators for selective door opening.

    Braunstone Community Association
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report,
    104W
    columns 808–09W, on the Braunstone Community Association, if he will publish (a) the results and (b) the evidence obtained by his Department's audit investigation into the Braunstone Community Association; and what plans he has to alter the aims of the New Deal project following the audit investigation. [40371]

    Ms Keeble
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 808–09W.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the council tax for a band D property in each local authority in England for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [40283]

    Dr. Whitehead
    Tables showing the band D council tax in each local authority in England for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02 have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Table 1 provides information on the band D council tax for the area of each local authority, with table 2 showing each authority's own band D council tax. The figures are based on two adults and include amounts funded by council tax benefit and transitional reduction.

    Allowances (Local Government)
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities on(a) the payment of members' allowances and (b) employment of political staff. [40282]

    Dr. Whitehead
    We issued local authorities with guidance on allowances for councillors in April 2001. Local authorities are required to have regard to the statutory parts of this guidance, as well as to the relevant legislation.

    The guidance sets out that basic and special responsibility allowances are discretionary allowances, with levels set by individual local authorities, having regard to the recommendations of their independent remuneration panels. Local authorities are required to publish the details of their scheme of allowances, the amount of each allowance paid to each member, and the recommendations of their independent remuneration panel.

    The maximum levels payable to councillors for travel and subsistence are governed by section 174 of the Local Government Act 1972. They were last updated in April 2000 by an Annex to Circular 1/86.

    The employment of political staff is covered by section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. There may be no more than three political assistants in a Local Authority. These posts are usually assigned to the three largest political groups which have ten per cent. or more of the membership of the authority, unless the authority decides to allow a different minority group to appoint a political assistant. Where only one political group has more than 10 per cent. of the authority's membership, that group and the next largest group will be entitled to appoint a political assistant. A political assistant may not discharge any of an authority's functions, nor may they direct any staff except for their own clerical or secretarial support. The

    105W
    maximum remuneration of political assistants is set by the Local Government (Assistant for Political Groups) (Remuneration) Order 1995, and is currently £25,044.

  TREASURY

    Customs and Excise
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics he keeps on the ethnic background of business-owners under investigation by HM Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [36032]

    Mr. Boateng
    No such statistics are available. Customs in the course of their investigations do not collect this information.

    PIU Voluntary Sector Review
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the(a) numbers, (b) grades and (c) sections in which they work of the officials in his Department who have worked with PIU voluntary sector review: organisational forms for social enterprise; and if he will make a statement; [36034]

    (2) which Minister in his Department has responsibility for the PIU voluntary sector review: organisational forms for social enterprise. [35974]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) is not part of HM Treasury but is located in the Cabinet Office and reports directly to the Prime Minister. The sponsor Minister for the PIU voluntary sector review is the Home Secretary. In the course of normal business the PIU are in close touch with a range of Treasury officials on issues of common concern.

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs officials were employed to check personal imports of meat and meat products on 1 January(a) 2002, (b) 2001, (c) 2000 and (d) 1999. [36584]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs law enforcement officers deal with the full range of prohibitions and restrictions where Customs has an enforcement responsibility. No Customs officials are employed specifically for meat and meat product checks where local and port health authorities and DEFRA have the lead responsibilities.

    Customs officers do however participate in joint exercises organised by the lead agencies to target illicit meat as well as seizing meat found in the normal course of their duties.

    Global Crossing
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates that Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in their ministerial capacities since 1 January 1999 from Global Crossing; and if he will make a statement. [37684]

    Ruth Kelly
    Offers of hospitality which are accepted are registered in line with the requirements of paragraph 139 of the Ministerial Code.

    Departmental Development
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often the Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments) to a development by the Department; and if he will make a statement. [38710]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Treasury has not applied these provisions.

    Catering Services
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38926]

    Ruth Kelly
    Expenditure on services provided by the Treasury's caterers was as follows.

    £

    In-house staff restaurant and associated facilities:

    1997–98

    52,709.85

    1998–99

    39,643.51

    1999–2000

    129,978.39

    2000–01

    146,236.35

    Other catering services:

    1997–98

    86,095.73

    1998–99

    111,245.58

    1999–2000

    93,426.23

    2000–01

    106,466.30

    This period covers the provision of additional facilities in a second Treasury building, Allington Towers, and the provision of additional snack bar facilities in the main Treasury building. In addition, this period saw the loss of subsidy contribution when other occupants of main Treasury building moved out.

    Euro
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries pegged to the euro which are outside the Eurozone. [39642]

    Ruth Kelly
    This information was published in the European Central Bank's "Review of the International Role of the Euro", in October 2001.

    Smuggling
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been prosecuted for smuggling tobacco and alcohol into the country during the past five years; and what forms of punishment were administered to these individuals. [39764]

    Mr. Boateng
    Each prosecution case can involve a number of defendants. Customs central records collate the number of prosecution cases rather than the number of people prosecuted.

    For the number of prosecutions relating to tobacco and alcohol smuggling for the period 1996–96 to 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 15 January 2001, Official Record, column 123W.
    107W
    In 2000–01, Customs prosecuted 764 cases. Details of the penalties levied for excise and single market offences are contained in the Customs and Excise Annual Reports from 1996–97 to 1999–2000. The same information for the period 2000–01 will be detailed in the Customs and Excise Annual Report for 2000–01, due to be published shortly.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have been found guilty by a court of law of smuggling non-excise paid tobacco and alcohol into this country; how many of these individuals received a penalty fine as a result; and what was the average level of this penalty in the last three years. [39810]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs do not hold centrally information in the format requested. However, details of the penalties levied for excise and single market offences are contained in the Customs and Excise Annual Reports for 1996–97 to 1999–2000. Information for the period 2000–01 will be detailed in the Customs and Excise Annual Report for 2000–01, due to be published shortly.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many websites offering the sale of non-duty paid tobacco and alcohol have been shut down within the past five years. [39765]

    Mr. Boateng
    As part of the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy published in March 2000, Customs actively started targeting websites selling non-UK duty paid tobacco. Customs do not hold records of all websites operating prior to the start of the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy.

    Customs estimate that as a result of their actions since March 2000,85 of these websites have ceased trading.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of cigarettes that will be seized as a result of scanner operations in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [38626]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs targets for the overall number of cigarettes to be seized in the years 2000–01 to 2002–03 are included in the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy published in March 2000—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. In 2000–01 Customs substantially exceeded their target. An estimate for the revenue value of seizures in these years resulting from the installation of scanners is included in this document.

    The Government will publish annually details of the outcomes from the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy. The results from the first year of the strategy were included in the Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud paper published in November 2001—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methods he has used to measure the effectiveness of HM Customs and Excise's publicity campaign about tobacco smuggling. [38629]

    Mr. Boateng
    In common with most major Government publicity campaigns, effectiveness is measured through detailed creative development and tracking research. The outcome of the research is taken into account in planning further phases of the campaign.
    108W
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of unmarked tobacco products have been seized and detained by trading standards officers, since June 2001. [38619]

    Mr. Boateng
    Trading Standards Officers do not currently maintain central records of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco seizures, but Customs and Excise are requesting them to provide an annual return.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review his target for 2001–02 for asset seizures in connection with tobacco smuggling. [38618]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy published in March 2000 set Customs, for the first time, financial targets against tobacco smuggling involving asset seizures. Customs regularly review performance against these targets, monitoring the contribution made to the achievement of the overall outcome of reducing the size of the illicit cigarette market.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) private light goods vehicles and (b) other private vehicles used for smuggling were seized by Customs and Excise in (i) 1999–2000, and (ii) 2000–01; and how many in each category were restored to their owners in each year. [38628]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs centrally held information on vehicle seizures does not differentiate between the types of private vehicle seized. For the total number of vehicles seized across the UK in 1999–2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 125W. Figures for the number of vehicles seized by Customs across the UK during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Rogues into "The Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise" (House of Commons command 5329, July 2001), a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 July 2001.

    I regret that Customs does not centrally hold information on the number of vehicles restored.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many private and light goods vehicles have been seized by HM Customs and Excise in the last five years for suspected smuggling offences; and, of these, how many were(a) confiscated indefinitely and (b) returned for a fee. [39769]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs records of the number of vehicles seized do not disaggregate between the nature of the offence or the type of the vehicle involved in each case. For the number of vehicles seized across the whole of the UK from 1996–97 to 1997–98, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 274W. For the number of vehicles seized across the UK in 1998–99, 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 125W. Figures for the number of vehicles seized across the UK during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Rogues into "The Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise" (House of Commons command 5329, July 2001), a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 July 2001.
    109W
    Customs do not centrally hold information on vehicle restoration.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been received by HM Customs and Excise in the past five years relating to the seizure of private and light goods vehicles at UK ports for suspected smuggling offences. [39768]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs do not maintain in the form requested a central record of the number of complaints received.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many heavy goods vehicles used for smuggling have been seized by HM Customs and Excise since the introduction of the new policy in July 2001; how many of those seizures were for(a) first and (b) second or subsequent offences; and if he will make a statement. [38627]

    Mr. Boateng
    This information is currently unavailable. Customs expect to collate and publish it on an annual basis.

    EC Directive 92/83
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to transpose EC Directive 92/83; and if he will make a statement. [39356]

    Mr. Boateng
    Council Directive 92/83/EEC is already implemented in the UK.

    Overseas Aid
    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentage of GNP is committed to overseas aid in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; what plans he has to increase the percentage of GNP committed to overseas aid; and if he will make a statement. [39726]

    Ruth Kelly
    The final figures for 2002 are currently not available from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The latest DAC figures available show the UK net overseas development assistance average for 2000 was 0.32 per cent. of GNP.

    The Government remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent oda/GNP target. They have made clear their pledge that the ratio of aid to GNP will reach 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04. This would place the UK above the G7 country average of 0.19 per cent. and the OECD average of 0.22 per cent.

    In his speech in November in New York and in his pre-Budget report speech, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance and its share in national income. The impending spending review will set spending plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 and is an opportunity to consider plans for development spending beyond 2003–04, alongside other priorities and pressures.

    Ian Lucas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the proportion of gross national income devoted to overseas development assistance was in each financial year since 1979. [39970]
    110W
    Mr. Boateng
    The oda/GNI ratio is an input target whose elements are set by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Development assistance as a percentage of GNP will rise to 0.33 per cent. in 2003/04, up from 0.26 per cent. in 1997.

    The figures for the proportion of gross national income devoted to overseas development assistance for each financial year since 1979 are available in the DFID Report, Statistics on International Development 1996/–72000/01, page 143, Figure 16.1 Net oda/GNI ratios for the UK.

    The report is a National Statistics publication.

    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he intends to achieve the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent. GNP for overseas aid. [40324]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Government remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. oda/GNP target. They have made clear their pledge that the ratio of aid to GNP will reach 0.33 per cent in 2003–04. This would place the UK above the G7 country average of 0.19 per cent. and the OECD average of 0.22 per cent.

    In his speech in November in New York, and in his pre-Budget report speech, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance and its share in national income. The impending spending review will set spending plans for 2003–04 to 2005–6 and is an opportunity to consider plans for development spending beyond 2003–04, alongside other priorities and pressures.

    Fair Trade
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39827]

    Ruth Kelly
    Yes.

    Pensions
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit on future pensions. [40194]

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional contributions that(a) a 30- year-old man, (b) a 40-year-old man and (c) a 50-year-old man would have to make to a money-purchase pension scheme as a result of changes to the tax treatment of pension funds introduced since 1997. [39432]

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of months' pension contributions would now be required to achieve an equivalent funded pension to a year's pension contributions in 1997; [40281]

    (2) to what extent the value of pension funds has changed as a result of his amendments to advance corporation tax. [40279]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Government's package of corporation tax reforms included measures to boost corporate investment by removing tax distortions. The withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends was just one part of
    111W
    these measures. Pension funds will share in the long-term benefits from these changes to corporation tax. The overall effects of these changes on pension funds and future pensions will depend on a variety of factors, including: the type of scheme paying the pension; the take-up of private pensions; the level of future pension contributions; pension schemes' asset allocation and investment policies; and investment returns generally.

    Sir Ronald Cohen
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has had with Sir Ronald Cohen since 1 May 1997; what subjects were discussed at those meetings; and if he will make a statement. [39900]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 114–15W.

    EU Prospectus Directive
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed EU Prospectus Directive, with specific reference to the impact of this directive on the regulatory burden and costs of listing on non-recognised investment exchanges. [40252]

    Ruth Kelly
    It is not possible to list securities on a 'non-recognised investment exchange', but I assume that my hon. Friend's question relates to AIM and OFEX.

    The admission of securities to trading on AIM and OFEX does not currently trigger requirements in terms of the Listing Particulars Directive (which would be repealed by the Prospectus Directive). The Prospectus Directive, as drafted, would stipulate that the admission of trading of securities to trading on a regulated market would trigger a requirement for a prospectus. AIM is currently a regulated market but OFEX is not.

    However, the position in respect of both AIM and OFEX could change depending on the changes made to the definition of 'regulated market' in the new Investment Services Directive.

    Three aspects of the prospectus Directive, as drafted, could give rise to additional costs for companies that seek or obtain admission to trading on AIM: the precise content requirements of both the registration document and the full prospectus; the approval process for prospectuses; and the provision for mandatory shelf registration.

    We take very seriously the possibility that the Prospectus Directive might increase the regulatory burden for UK companies. But it is not possible at this stage of the negotiation to calculate the cost implications for companies whose securities are admitted to trading on AIM and OFEX.

    Government Management Map
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002, ref 37683, if he will list the units which report to each Minister for the organogram to which he refers; and if he will make a statement. [40543]
    112W
    Ruth Kelly
    Ministerial responsibilities are set out in HM Treasury's Departmental Report, (Cm 5116). The responsibilities of teams across the Department are also outlined in the report.

    Monetary Union
    Mr. MacDougall
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the required European Union conditions for the public sector borrowing requirement in advance of a decision of UK entry into the monetary union. [40416]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 6 December 2001,Official Report, columns 517–18W.

    Advance Corporation Tax
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional income has been realised by the Exchequer as a result of his most recent changes to advance corporation tax. [40280]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Advance corporation tax was abolished with effect from April 1999. The abolition did not in itself give rise to additional yield to the Exchequer.

    The abolition of advance corporation tax was part of a package of reforms that included the abolition of payable tax credits on dividends and cuts in corporation tax rates. These changes were designed to boost corporate investment by removing tax distortions and to improve the climate for quality long-term investment. The figures of cost and yield for these reforms were given in the FSBR for the July 1997 and March 1998 Budgets.

    X-ray Images
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the original target date, and what the latest target date is, for the completion of HM Customs and Excise's programme to train officers in the recognition of x-ray images; [38622]

    (2) by how long the Customs and Excise programme to train officers in the interpretation of x-ray images has exceeded the original plan; [38621]

    (3) for what reason the Customs and Excise programme to train officers in the interpretation of x-ray images has taken longer than planned. [38623]

    Mr. Boateng
    The original target to train sufficient staff for the proposed operation of each scanner was met for all scanners.

    However, in certain locations managers decided to extend the scope of the operation or increase the number of staff involved with image interpretation. These changes created an additional training requirement which is being met. The operational efficiency of the scanner fleet has not been adversely affected.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many Customs officers he plans will undergo training during(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 in the interpretation of x-ray images; [38624]

    (2) how many customs officers have received training in the interpretation of x-ray images. [38625]
    113W
    Mr. Boateng
    247 officers working with the mobile x-ray freight scanners have received training in the interpretation of x-ray images.

    Training for a further 100 officers will be delivered during the first half of 2002–03.

    Fuel Fraud
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will state the reasons for the size of the variation between HM Customs and Excise's upper and lower estimates of revenue lost from frauds on petrol and diesel, as reported in paragraph 7 of the National Audit Office report, HC614; [38633]

    (2) what his estimate is in respect of Northern Ireland of the revenue loss from (a) frauds on petrol and diesel and (b) legitimate cross-border shopping for petrol and diesel in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02; [38554]

    (3) what his estimate is of the revenue loss from frauds on petrol and diesel in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; [38632]

    (4) what his estimate is of the revenue lost from frauds on diesel in Great Britain in (a) 2000–01, and (b) 200102; [38631]

    (5) if he will place in the Library a description of the methodology used by HM Customs and Excise to calculate the revenue lost from frauds on petrol and diesel. [38535]

    Mr. Boateng
    The methodology used by HM Customs and Excise to estimate the revenue lost from frauds on petrol and diesel, and details of those estimates currently available, can be found in "Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud", a paper published alongside the pre-Budget report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

    Fuel (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of requiring all duty paid fuel in Northern Ireland to be chemically marked; [38553]

    (2) if he will make it his policy to require duty paid fuel in Northern Ireland to be chemically marked. [38703]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs will keep under review the feasibility and effectiveness of all measures required to tackle oils fraud. No estimate of the relevant costs has yet been made.

    VAT Departmental Trader Register
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for how many minutes of a working day the VAT Department Trader Register has been unavailable on average over the last 12 months for which figures are available; [38596]

    (2) on which occasions between February and June 1991 the VAT Departmental Trader Register was unavailable as stated in paragraph 4.7 of Volume 16 of the Appropriation Accounts 2000–01. [38597]
    114W
    Mr. Boateng
    The VAT Departmental Trader Register has been unavailable on average for 36 minutes per day over the last 12 months. Almost half of this related to pre-planned downtime for system upgrades. On such occasions staff were notified in advance enabling them to plan their work accordingly.

    The occasions between February and June 2001 on which the VAT Departmental Trader Register system was unavailable are as follows:

    Date

    Times

    February 2001

    12

    16.00–16.45

    13

    08.00–15.50

    March 2001

    19

    08.00–18.00

    27

    08.00–10.20

    April 2001

    6

    09.50–12.05

    10

    08.20–08.50

    19

    13.30–16.10

    20

    11.15–12.15

    23

    08.00–08.35

    25

    13.00–14.30

    26

    13.00–14.30

    27

    07.30–10.00

    30

    09.10–10.00

    and 15.00–16.05

    May 2001

    4

    12.45–13.15

    9

    08.00–09.45

    11

    10.15–11.10

    15

    15.46–17.02

    30

    08.00–10.47

    31

    08.00–10.47

    June 2001

    13

    08.00–18.00

    14

    08.00–18.00

    VAT Directive
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to press for the amendment of the Sixth VAT Directive following the decision of the European Court of Justice in 'Commission v. the Netherlands' (C-338/98); [38605]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom employers of the decision of the European Court of Justice in Commission v. the Netherlands, (case C-338/98). [38604]

    Mr. Boateng
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 December 2001,Official Report, column 688W.

    VAT
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requirements HM Customs and Excise impose on the suppliers of digital certificates for VAT in order for those certificates to be accepted. [38558]

    Mr. Boateng
    The digital certificates must have been issued by a trust service that meets Government guidelines for registration of businesses and individuals.
    115W
    Additionally, the service must be approved by a Government recognised approval body, or the trust service provider must have committed to achieve such approval.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what method of selection he used to determine the organisations accepted by HM Customs and Excise as suppliers of digital certificates for VAT. [38559]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Government welcome digital certificates as evidence of identity issued by any trust services that meet Government guidelines for identification of individuals and businesses, provided:

    (a) that the service has been approved by a recognised approval body, or that there is a commitment to gain such approval;

    (b) that the technical interface between the Government Gateway and the trust service provider can be established;

    (c) that the Certificate Policy and contractual issues allow the Government to rely upon the certificates.

    The Government have been, and continue to be, in discussion with a number of potential suppliers to increase the availability of digital certificate services.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases in the year to the end of August 2001 HM Customs and Excise carried out pre-VAT registration visits to traders. [38593]

    Mr. Boateng
    As part of their strategy to tackle VAT missing trader fraud, Customs carried out 4,498 pre-VAT registration visits between September 2000 and August 2001.

    Customs do not maintain data on pre-registration visits conducted for other reasons and it would involve disproportionate cost to produce.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the providers of digital certificates for VAT pay fees and other payments to the Government. [38557]

    Mr. Boateng
    No.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's policy to seek amendments to European VAT directives to allow HM Customs and Excise to refuse applications from traders to register for VAT in cases where they have continuing concerns about possible fraud. [38594]

    Mr. Boateng
    Tackling VAT missing trader fraud is a Customs VAT fraud priority. In "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", published at the pre-Budget report, the outline of customs strategy to tackle the fraud was set out. It includes a commitment to evaluate new legal and system options for tackling this fraud.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which organisations have been selected by HM Customs and Excise as providers of digital certificates for VAT; [38560]

    (2) if he plans to allow companies to submit on-line VAT returns directly to HM Customs and Excise without having to obtain a digital certificate from an outside supplier. [38561]

    Mr. Boateng
    HM Customs and Excise are currently reviewing their policy in relation to the use of digital certificates in providing a secure method of submitting 116W
    VAT returns electronically. The review aims to achieve the optimum balance between ease of use while maintaining the necessary level of security. The review will take into account any latest advice from the Office of the e-Envoy on Government policy in this area.

    Customs currently allows any digital certificate approved by the Office of the e-Envoy to be used with the electronic VAT return. Two organisations have approved products: Equifax and the British Chambers of Commerce.

    National Lottery Franchises
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases since July 2001 HM Customs and Excise(a) removed a National Lottery terminal from a trader convicted of selling unmarked tobacco products, (b) objected to the renewal of a liquor licence and (c) asked a franchise-owner to take action against a franchisee. [38620]

    Mr. Boateng
    Customs notify Camelot when a lottery terminal holder has been convicted of an excise offence. Any decision to remove the lottery terminal remains with Camelot. Since April 2001, Customs have not sent any notifications to Camelot.

    Customs notify the police when a person holding a liquor licence has excise goods seized, or is convicted of an excise offence. The police are responsible for lodging any objections to the renewal of a liquor licence. Since April 2001, Customs have notified the police on one occasion.

    The information requested relating to franchise owners is not held centrally by Customs and Excise.

    Road Fuel Testing
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if HM Customs and Excise plans to review its policy on the prosecution of offenders detected by road fuel testing units; [38549]

    (2) what the policy of HM Customs and Excise is in deciding whether an offender detected by a road fuel testing unit should have his seized vehicle restored or the seizure should be maintained. [38550]

    Mr. Boateng
    HM Customs and Excise have a wide range of sanctions available to deal with offenders detected by road fuel testing units, including prosecution. Customs current vehicle seizure policy in relation to the misuse of rebated fuels takes into account the individual circumstances of each case and seeks to ensure that individuals who are repeatedly detected misusing rebated fuel will not have their vehicle restored. As outlined in the PBR paper "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" Customs are currently developing their strategy to tackle oils fraud, and are reviewing the use of all sanctions to ensure that they are used in the most effective way against those engaged in oils fraud.

    Nursing Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in challenging the decision of
    117W
    the London VAT Tribunal in the Kingscrest case on the implementation of free nursing care and the affordability of fee levels; and if he will make a statement. [39444]

    Mr. Boateng
    The decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal in the Kingscrest Associates Ltd. and Montecello Ltd. case does not impact upon nursing care.

    Customs and Excise's appeal against this tribunal decision was heard by the High Court on 19 February. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, the Government will take steps to ensure that the residents of care homes do not face increased costs as a result of VAT.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many organisations and companies have elected to pay the climate change levy in euros. [38582]

    Mr. Boateng
    No organisation or company has elected to pay the climate change levy to HM Customs and Excise in euros.

    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reasons companies registered under Part B of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations are ineligible to participate in a climate change agreement; [38592]

    (2) what the reasons are for his decision to impose an Integrated Pollution, Prevention and Control Directive criteria for membership of a climate change levy energy efficiency agreement; [38611]

    (3) what plans he has to amend the descriptions of energy-intensive installations included in Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000; [38578]

    (4) for what reasons companies whose business is slaking lime for the purpose of making calcium hydroxide and calcium magnesium hydroxide are ineligible to participate in a climate change agreement. [38591]

    Mr. Boateng
    Energy intensive installations that are eligible to enter into climate change agreements are those covered by parts A1 and A2 of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (IPPC) (as set out in Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000). IPPC covers all the main energy intensive sectors of industry which are subject to international competition. IPPC sites also have to operate in an energy efficient manner; other sites are not subject to this requirement. The decision to use IPPC to define the eligible energy intensive sectors was confirmed following extensive consultation with industry on possible alternatives. The Government are still prepared to consider suggestions for alternative eligibility criteria, but they would have to meet the same conditions as IPPC, which provides a clear rationale, legal certainty, administrative simplicity, and compatibility with EU state aid rules.

    LNM
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what sums are owed by companies in the LNM group to HM Customs and Excise; [38705]

    (2) if HM Customs and Excise has imposed penalties or fines on companies in the LNM group for late payment of taxes and duties in the last two years; [38702]
    118W
    (3) what his policy is towards the recovery by HM Customs and Excise of taxes and duties owed by the LNM group of companies. [38704]

    Mr. Boateng
    The tax affairs of companies and of private individuals are confidential, under section 182 of the Finance Act 1989.

    LORDS Computer System
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the original target date was for the replacement of the LORDS computer system; what the latest target date is; and if he will make a statement; [38600]

    (2) what the original budget for replacing the LORDS computer system was; what the estimated cost of the project is; and if he will make a statement. [38599]

    Mr. Boateng
    The replacement of the LORDS computer system for VAT registration is one component of a series of fundamental changes under consideration to the way Customs process applications for all their taxes and duties. The total cost of these changes, which are far wider than a straight replacement for LORDS, would be in the region of £12.6 million. The original target date for implementation of the new computer system was July 2002.

    As part of this, a small number of high priority improvements to the LORDS system are planned for delivery in summer 2002. Plans for a full replacement of the LORDS system will be considered in due course as part of Customs' strategic review of their IS projects and priorities.

    CCL 100 Forms
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many CCL 100 forms were returned to HM Customs and Excise for the(a) first, (b) second and (c) third quarters of the financial year 2001–2002; how many such forms in each quarter were (i) completed incorrectly and (ii) submitted late; and if he will make a statement. [38580]

    Mr. Boateng
    Information based on individual calendar quarters is not available because registered businesses submit returns according to the particular stagger of tax period they request. The number of returns received to date for each stagger is as follows:

    Stagger 1 (returns ending in March, June, September and December)—566;

    Stagger 2 (returns ending in April, July, October and January)—150;

    Stagger 3 (returns ending in May, August, November and February)—102.

    Only one return was completed incorrectly; and all returns have been received within acceptable timescales.

  HEALTH

    NHS Trusts
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts were in debt in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and what was the level of debt for each. [16847]
    119W
    Mr. Hutton
    The information has been placed in the Library.

    Note:

    Changes (in line with best accounting practice) in the accounting and financial reporting arrangements for NHS trusts mean that the figures provided for 1996–97 and 2000–01 are not directly comparable.

    Oral Cancer
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of oral cancer were diagnosed in each health authority in England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [17415]

    Yvette Cooper
    The number of cases of oral cancer diagnosed in each health authority in England in 1998, the latest year for which figures are available, are shown in the table.

    The NHS Cancer Plan, published last year, provides a comprehensive strategy for improving cancer care linking prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research.

    Smoking is implicated in the cause of oral and many other cancers. The NHS Cancer Plan sets out a clear agenda for improving cancer prevention through changes in lifestyle related to smoking and diet. There have already been notable improvements in numbers of people giving up smoking. In 2000–01, over 64,000 people were helped by national health service cessation services to give up smoking.

    Health authority

    Number

    Avon HA

    73

    Barking and Havering HA

    21

    Barnet HA

    23

    Barnsley HA

    15

    Bedfordshire HA

    34

    Berkshire HA

    55

    Bexley and Greenwich HA

    37

    Birmingham HA

    85

    Bradford HA

    28

    Brent and Harrow HA

    34

    Bromley HA

    18

    Buckinghamshire HA

    51

    Bury and Rochdale HA

    48

    Calderdale and Kirklees HA

    48

    Cambridge and Huntingdon HA

    26

    Camden and Islington HA

    29

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

    26

    County Durham HA

    42

    Coventry HA

    24

    Croydon HA

    26

    Doncaster HA

    29

    Dorset HA

    56

    Dudley HA

    20

    Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

    48

    East and North Hertfordshire HA

    30

    East Kent HA

    39

    East Lancashire HA

    37

    East London and The City HA

    26

    East Norfolk HA

    53

    East Riding HA

    56

    East Surrey HA

    37

    East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

    51

    Enfield and Haringey HA

    46

    Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

    41

    Gloucestershire HA

    32

    Herefordshire HA

    10

    Hillingdon HA

    13

    Isle of Wight HA

    11

    120W

    Health authority

    Number

    Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

    38

    Kingston and Richmond HA

    24

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

    54

    Leeds HA

    51

    Leicestershire HA

    55

    Lincolnshire HA

    43

    Liverpool HA

    50

    Manchester HA

    41

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

    63

    Morecambe Bay HA

    22

    Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

    49

    North and Mid Hampshire HA

    29

    North and East Devon HA

    41

    North Cheshire HA

    19

    North Cumbria HA

    25

    North Derbyshire HA

    23

    North Essex HA

    47

    North Nottinghamshire HA

    28

    North Staffordshire HA

    36

    North West Anglia HA

    31

    North West Lancashire HA

    48

    North Yorkshire HA

    58

    Northamptonshire HA

    39

    Northumberland HA

    27

    Nottingham HA

    53

    Oxfordshire HA

    43

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    30

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

    21

    Rotherham HA

    10

    Salford and Trafford HA

    42

    Sandwell HA

    20

    Sefton HA

    19

    Sheffield HA

    32

    Shropshire HA

    34

    Solihull HA

    10

    Somerset HA

    36

    South and West Devon HA

    49

    South Cheshire HA

    54

    South Derbyshire HA

    49

    South Essex HA

    32

    South Humber HA

    26

    South Lancashire HA

    23

    South Staffordshire HA

    40

    Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

    54

    St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

    24

    Stockport HA

    29

    Suffolk HA

    55

    Sunderland HA

    24

    Tees HA

    52

    Wakefield HA

    18

    Walsall HA

    20

    Warwickshire HA

    32

    West Hertfordshire HA

    28

    West Kent HA

    64

    West Pennine HA

    44

    West Surrey HA

    57

    West Sussex HA

    54

    Wigan and Bolton HA

    40

    Wiltshire HA

    48

    Wirral HA

    42

    Wolverhampton HA

    19

    Worcestershire HA

    24

    England

    3,670

    Diabetes
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the proposed funding for diabetes care outlined in the interim Wanless report is earmarked for(a) eye screening and (b) eye complications associated with diabetes and if he will make a statement. [R] [22767]
    121W
    Jacqui Smith
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 169W.

    Hospices
    Mr. Horam
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase Government funding for children's hospices. [31309]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Children's hospices have access to national health service funding, the level of which must be agreed by health authorities and primary care trusts following assessment of local options available to support children with life threatening illnesses, and their families. In addition children's hospices will be eligible to apply for funding from the New Opportunity Fund's children's palliative care grant programme later this year that will make available an additional £48 million for children's paediatric care.

    Solihull Hospital
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will repeat the pledge made by the then Health Minister on 3 March 1997 concerning Solihull Hospital and the services to be provided there. [32260]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 5 February 2002]: Decisions about services at Solihull hospital are a matter first for local consideration. Any proposals for significant changes to services anywhere in the national health service require formal consultation, and where local agreement is not reached, matters are referred to Ministers. No such proposals for consultation have been received for Solihull hospital.

    Residential Care (Elderly)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Lancashire county council concerning the impact on the NHS of its proposals to reduce the numbers of residential homes for the elderly. [34570]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Social Services Inspectorate is following closely the work that Lancashire county council is undertaking to assess its current care provision, in particular the consultation with the national health service, local people and other interested parties about future strategies.

    Pesticide Residues
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given by his Department to pregnant women about reducing their exposure to pesticide residues in food. [36087]

    Yvette Cooper
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is advised on the issue of pesticides by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA has provided the following reply in consultation with the Pesticides Safety Directorate (an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)).

    When considering the approval of a pesticide the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides refers to a large dossier of information and studies carried out on
    122W
    the pesticide. The dossier has information on toxicology of the pesticide, including specific studies to address the reproductive toxicity of the pesticide and crop residues data. Only those pesticides which demonstrate an acceptable risk to all groups of consumers (including pregnant women) can be approved.

    The findings from the 2000 pesticide residues monitoring programme indicates that standards are being maintained at levels that the FSA believes provide a high level of consumer protection and confidence.

    Thus, the FSA believes it is not necessary to issue specific advice to pregnant women on this issue as the regulatory process fully takes the risks to this consumer group into consideration.

    Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning
    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what locations in the UK cockles have tested positive for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning when other shellfish have tested negative. [37096]

    Yvette Cooper
    There have been six locations where cockles have tested positive for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning while other shellfish sampled on the same day have tested negative. These are the Thames Estuary, the Wash, Whitstable, the Menai Straight, the Burry Inlet and Strangford Lough.

    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the highly toxic form of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning affecting cockles, which does not show the normally typical presence of okadaic acid, was first discovered by the FSA; at what locations; and what research has been commissioned into its causes. [37097]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Food Standards Agency became aware of the unusual aspects of the diarrhetic shellfish poisoning tests in cockles in October 2001. This has been seen in samples taken from the Burry Inlet, Anglesey, the Thames Estuary, the Wash and Strangford Lough. Initial investigations into the cause of the toxicity have been undertaken as part of the agency's on-going programmes of research and surveillance on shellfish toxins. The results of these investigations have been used to produce a structured plan of research on this toxicity, which will begin at the start of March.

    Non-EU Nurse Training
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the countries outside the EU where nurses trained, who registered with UKCC in each of the last four years and (b) the number from each such country. [37376]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested for the last three years where the data have been published is in the table.

    Entrants to the UKCC register

    Country

    Number

    Year to 31 March 1998

    Australia

    1,170

    New Zealand

    472

    Nigeria

    130

    S/Africa

    393

    USA

    143

    123W

    Entrants to the UKCC register

    Country

    Number

    Canada

    203

    West Indies

    93

    Other

    290

    Total

    2,894

    Year to 31 March 1999

    Australia

    1,335

    New Zealand

    527

    Nigeria

    179

    S/Africa

    599

    USA

    139

    Canada

    196

    West Indies

    237

    Other

    409

    Total

    3,621

    Year to 31 March 2000

    Australia

    1,209

    New Zealand

    461

    Nigeria

    208

    Philippines

    1,052

    S/Africa

    1,460

    USA

    168

    NHS hospital and community health service (HCHS) and practice nurses: nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in the community areas of work by region and grade in England as at 30 September each year

    Headcount

    England

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Trent

    Anglia and Oxford

    North Thames

    South Thames

    South and West

    West Midlands

    North West

    Others

    1996

    Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

    91,260

    11,860

    9,330

    9,710

    12,950

    13,800

    11,350

    9,340

    12,920

    10

    Total qualified

    75,280

    9,610

    7,610

    7,920

    10,640

    11,340

    9,790

    7,930

    10,450

    10

    Manager

    1,000

    180

    80

    100

    140

    170

    160

    80

    100

    0

    Registered sick children's nurse

    530

    60

    40

    70

    30

    160

    30

    90

    50

    0

    Health Visitor

    12,350

    1,640

    1,240

    1,320

    1,600

    1,830

    1,590

    1,280

    1,860

    0

    District Nurse

    14,250

    1,860

    1,380

    1,540

    1,800

    2,040

    1,840

    1,540

    2,250

    0

    Other 1st level

    25,820

    3,140

    2,830

    2,480

    4,160

    4,040

    2,960

    2,670

    3,540

    10

    Other 2nd level

    3,430

    580

    320

    330

    320

    600

    510

    190

    590

    0

    Practice Nurse

    17,900

    2,160

    1,720

    2,080

    2,580

    2,500

    2,700

    2,080

    2,090

    0

    Total unqualified

    15,980

    2,250

    1,720

    1,800

    2,310

    2,460

    1,560

    1,410

    2,470

    0

    Nursery nurse

    420

    80

    80

    30

    30

    20

    40

    70

    70

    0

    Nurse assistant/auxiliary

    15,570

    2,170

    1,640

    1,760

    2,280

    2,440

    1,520

    1,340

    2,400

    0

    Headcount

    England

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Trent

    West Midlands

    North West

    Eastern

    London

    South East

    South West

    SHAs and Others

    1997

    Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

    94,110

    12,130

    9,690

    10,370

    13,250

    9,840

    14,030

    16,130

    8,660

    *

    Total qualified

    77,250

    9,790

    8,030

    8,550

    10,650

    7,800

    11,780

    13,270

    7,360

    *

    Manager

    1,000

    170

    90

    80

    110

    120

    180

    160

    90

    0

    Registered sick children's nurse

    780

    40

    60

    200

    80

    *

    170

    200

    20

    0

    Health Visitor

    12,410

    1,560

    1,320

    1,300

    1,840

    1,150

    1,880

    2,170

    1,200

    0

    District Nurse

    14,150

    1,700

    1,310

    1,860

    2,260

    1,450

    2,040

    2,300

    1,220

    0

    Other 1st level

    27,390

    3,630

    3,160

    2,620

    3,750

    2,650

    4,490

    4,670

    2,420

    0

    Other 2nd level

    3,130

    510

    280

    210

    490

    280

    460

    440

    470

    *

    Practice Nurse

    18,390

    2,190

    1,830

    2,280

    2,110

    2,150

    2,560

    3,330

    1,940

    0

    0

    Total unqualified

    16,860

    2,340

    1,660

    1,820

    2,600

    2,040

    2,260

    2,860

    1,300

    0

    Nursery nurse

    510

    100

    90

    100

    70

    60

    20

    30

    40

    0

    Nurse assistant/auxiliary

    16,350

    2,240

    1,570

    1,720

    2,520

    1,980

    2,240

    2,820

    1,250

    0

    124W

    Entrants to the UKCC register

    Country

    Number

    Canada

    130

    West Indies

    425

    Zimbabwe

    221

    Other

    654

    Total

    5,988

    Source

    Statistical Analysis of the UKCC Professional Register

    The data published for the year to 31 March 1997 do not list the countries where entrants from overseas trained but does show that there were 2,633 overseas entrants.

    Community Nursing
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital and community health services, nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff there were within the community nursing areas of work broken down by qualification and region on(a) 30 September 1996, (b) 30 September 1997, (c) 30 September 1998 and (d) 30 September 1999.

    [37381]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is shown in the table.
    125W

    Headcount

    England

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Trent

    West Midlands

    North West

    Eastern

    London

    South East

    South West

    SHAs and others

    1998

    Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

    98,350

    13,070

    10,140

    11,400

    13,860

    10,130

    14,380

    16,410

    8,960

    *

    Total qualified

    80,110

    10,420

    8,440

    9,100

    11,040

    8,170

    12,090

    13,280

    7,570

    *

    Manager

    1,040

    170

    100

    100

    110

    120

    210

    140

    80

    0

    Registered sick children's nurse

    760

    40

    20

    240

    80

    10

    140

    220

    10

    0

    Health Visitor

    12,570

    1,560

    1,320

    1,350

    1,850

    1,190

    1,960

    2,120

    1,200

    0

    District Nurse

    14,260

    1,940

    1,380

    1,800

    2,250

    1,420

    1,910

    2,400

    1,170

    0

    Other 1st level

    29,610

    3,810

    3,290

    3,160

    4,100

    2,990

    4,580

    4,890

    2,780

    *

    Other 2nd level

    2,970

    520

    220

    230

    460

    290

    450

    390

    410

    0

    Practice nurse

    18,890

    2,370

    2,100

    2,230

    2,180

    2,160

    2,830

    3,110

    1,910

    0

    Total unqualified

    18,240

    2,650

    1,700

    2,300

    2,820

    1,960

    2,300

    3,140

    1,380

    0

    Nursery nurse

    630

    90

    140

    120

    100

    80

    20

    40

    50

    0

    Nursing assistant/auxiliary

    17,610

    2,550

    1,570

    2,170

    2,720

    1,880

    2,280

    3,100

    1,330

    0

    Headcount

    England

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Trent

    West Midlands

    North West

    Eastern

    London

    South East

    South West

    SHAs and others

    1999

    Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

    101,810

    13,090

    10,190

    11,840

    14,860

    10,230

    14,950

    17,730

    8,910

    *

    Total qualified

    82,580

    10,560

    8,500

    9,310

    11,630

    8,150

    12,670

    14,030

    7,730

    *

    Manager

    1,020

    170

    60

    80

    120

    150

    190

    170

    80

    0

    Registered sick children's nurse

    530

    40

    50

    70

    120

    10

    80

    150

    *

    0

    Health Visitor

    12,800

    1,580

    1,360

    1,420

    1,840

    1,140

    2,050

    2,220

    1,190

    0

    District Nurse

    14,260

    1,710

    1,210

    1,920

    2,180

    1,360

    2,250

    2,450

    1,180

    0

    Other 1st level

    31,480

    4,060

    3,570

    3,490

    4,530

    3,040

    4,710

    5,100

    2,970

    *

    Other 2nd level

    3,000

    570

    220

    220

    420

    230

    610

    340

    380

    0

    Practice nurse

    19,500

    2,430

    2,020

    2,110

    2,410

    2,230

    2,780

    3,590

    1,930

    0

    Total unqualified

    19,230

    2,530

    1,700

    2,530

    3,230

    2,080

    2,280

    3,700

    1,180

    0

    Nursery nurse

    740

    90

    140

    140

    120

    100

    30

    50

    60

    0

    Nursing assistant/auxiliary

    18,490

    2,440

    1,560

    2,390

    3,120

    1,970

    2,250

    3,650

    1,120

    0

    Notes:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

    Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

    Figures exclude learners and agency staff

    1996 Practice nurse data collected as at 30 October and 1997 to 1997 Practice nurse data collected as at 1 October

    Due to the new regional office boundaries in 1999 the 1997 and 1998 figures are estimated regional splits

    The community areas of work that we can separately identify are community psychiatry, community learning disabilities and community services

    * five or less and greater than zero

    Sources:

    Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

    Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

    Mental Health
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the shortage of mental health beds. [37216]

    Jacqui Smith
    The NHS Plan referred to the creation of almost 500 extra secure psychiatric beds and 320 24-hour staffed beds by April 2001. These targets were achieved. Work is on-going to meet the further NHS Plan commitment to develop 200 long-term secure beds by 2004.

    It is also important to provide alternatives to in-patient care so that patients can benefit from appropriate care and treatment in the least restrictive environment consistent with their needs, including in their own homes where this is clinically appropriate and preferred by the patient. The NHS Plan contained a commitment to create 335 crisis
    126W
    resolution teams, 50 early intervention teams and a further 50 assertive outreach teams by April 2004 so that patients can benefit from these alternatives to in-patient care. We envisage that crisis resolution teams alone will treat around 100,000 people every year who would otherwise have to be admitted to hospital.

    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a national audit of mental health beds. [37217]

    Jacqui Smith
    Information about the availability and usage of mental health beds is already collected through annual returns obtained by the Department from providers of services. The returns are made on a financial year basis and the latest year for which data are available is 2000–01. Figures are taken from the annual Korner return KHO3—"Bed Availability and Occupancy". A more
    127W
    detailed national audit of mental health beds would not be appropriate at this stage because we are in a phase of rapid change. Local services are currently engaged in the implementation of new service models such as early intervention, assertive outreach and crisis resolution, which aim to provide alternatives to in-patient care. Forthcoming departmental guidance on acute in-patient mental health care will advise local services to map their strengths and weaknesses and to plan accordingly.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 958W, what steps he has taken to ensure that (a) the £50 million allocated to health authorities and (b) the £35 million allocated to local authorities has been spent on child and adolescent mental health services; and if he will make a statement as to the effectiveness of ring fencing of the allocations. [39844]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The funding for health authorities is now in their baseline allocations and is not specifically audited. However we expect health authorities, and their successors, to continue to devote these funds to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The local authority grant is a specific grant scheme and is audited to ensure that the grants are expended on CAMHS in line with the conditions of the grant.

    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young offender institutions will have no mental health in-reach services by 2004. [39685]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The exact distribution of new mental health in-reach services to 2004 has not yet been finalised, but young offender institutions are being treated as a priority for the development of these services.

    Cervical Cancer
    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce human papilloma virus screening to test for cervical cancer. [38086]

    Health authorities with radiotherapy centres located within its boundaries

    Area

    Cambridgeshire

    Addenbrooke's NHST

    Norfolk

    Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHST

    North Essex

    Essex Rivers Healthcare NHST

    South Essex

    Southend Hospital NHST

    Suffolk

    Ipswich Hospital NHST

    Hertfordshire

    West Hertfordshire Hospitals MHST

    Barking and Havering

    Barking Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHST

    Barnet Enfield and Haringey

    North Middlesex University Hospital NHST

    Camden and Islington (2)

    Royal Free Hampstead NHST

    University College London Hospitals NHSTCH

    Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

    Hammersmith Hospitals NHST

    East London and the City

    Barts and the London NHST

    Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

    Royal Marsden NHST

    Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

    Guys and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust

    Manchester

    Christie's Hospital NHST

    North-west Lancashire

    Preston Acute Hospitals NHST

    Wirral

    Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHST

    East Riding and Hull

    Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHST

    Leeds

    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHST

    Newcastle and North Tyneside

    The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHST

    North Cumbria

    North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHST

    Tees

    South Tees Hospitals NHST

    128W
    Yvette Cooper
    As yet, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of human papilloma virus (HPV) testing as a primary screening tool. The health technology assessment (HTA) review of research into HPV testing, published in September 1999, concluded that the evidence might support testing for HPV only in certain situations, such as the management of borderline screening test results.

    A Government funded pilot study of HPV and liquid based cytology testing as triage for women with mild or borderline abnormalities began in April 2001. The HPV arm of the pilot will end in September 2002. Analysis of the data will begin in October 2002 and a report of the evaluation of the pilot will be submitted in early 2003.

    BSE
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who have consumed meat from the offspring of BSE-infected cows since 1 November 2001. [37867]

    Yvette Cooper
    No estimates are available, but the number of cases of BSE arising in cattle born since August 1996, and considered to be attributable to maternal transmission, is below expectations. In addition, certain key control mechanisms help protect consumers if there is a failure of the controls which exclude BSE offspring from the food chain. These include the ban on specified risk material from being used for human consumption and the over-thirty-months rule which prohibits older animals more likely to harbour infectivity from entering the food chain.

    Cancer Treatment
    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities that(a) have and (b) do not have the facilities to administer radiotherapy for cancer patients. [37908]

    Yvette Cooper
    All health authorities commission radiotherapy services for cancer patients. These services may be provided from a radiotherapy centre located within that health authority itself, or one nearby.
    129W

    Health authorities with radiotherapy centres located within its boundaries

    Area

    Berkshire

    Royal Berks and Battle Hospitals NHST

    East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

    Brighton Health Care NHST

    IoW, Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

    Portsmouth Health Care NHST

    Northamptonshire

    Northampton General Hospital NHST

    Oxfordshire

    Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHST

    Southampton and South-west Hampshire

    Southampton University Hospitals NHST

    West Kent

    Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHST

    West Surrey

    Royal Surrey County Hospital NHST

    Avon (2)

    United Bristol Healthcare NHST

    Royal United Hospital Bath NHST

    Cornwall and IoS

    Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust

    Dorset

    Poole Hospitals NHST

    Gloucestershire

    East Gloucestershire NHST

    North and East Devon

    Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHST

    South and West Devon (2)

    Plymouth Hospitals NHST

    South Devon Healthcare NHST

    Leicestershire

    University Hospitals of Leicester NHST

    Lincolnshire

    United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHST

    Nottingham

    Nottingham City Hospital NHST

    Sheffield

    Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHST

    Southern Derbyshire

    Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHST

    Birmingham

    University Hospital Birmingham NHST

    Coventry

    University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHST

    North Staffordshire

    North Staffordshire Hospital NHST

    Shropshire

    Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHST

    Wolverhampton

    The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHST

    Health authorities without radiotherapy centres located in its boundaries.

    Bedfordshire

    Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

    Brent and Harrow

    Croydon

    Hillingdon

    Kingston and Richmond

    Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest

    Bury and Rochdale East Lancashire Liverpool

    Morecambe Bay North Cheshire

    St. Helens and Knowsley

    Salford and Trafford

    Sefton

    South Lancashire

    South Cheshire

    Stockport

    West Pennine

    Wigan and Bolton

    Bradford

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    County Durham and Darlington

    Gateshead and South Tyneside

    North Yorkshire

    Northumberland

    Sunderland

    Wakefield

    North and Mid Hampshire

    West Sussex

    Somerset

    Wiltshire

    130W

    Barnsley

    Doncaster

    Buckinghamshire

    East Kent

    East Surrey

    North Nottinghamshire

    North Derbyshire

    Rotherham

    South Humber

    Dudley

    Herefordshire

    Sandwell

    Solihull

    South Staffordshire

    Walsall

    Warwickshire

    Worcestershire.

    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of cancer patients are prescribed anti-blood infection drugs to treat neutropenia contracted while undergoing chemotherapy; [38080]

    (2) what proportion of cancer patients are receiving reduced chemotherapy doses to avoid the onset of neutropenia; [38081]

    (3) what (a) the average cost per patient and (b) the total cost has been over the last 12 months to each health authority of prescribing Neupogen to patients undergoing chemotherapy. [38085]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Medicines Control
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2002,Official

    131W
    Report, column 1242W, on medicines control, if he will list the (a) dates and (b) issues of the articles relating to inappropriate use and overuse of medication in the publication "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance"; and what articles have been produced in respect of overuse and inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication in care settings. [37693]

    Volume

    Accidental overdose with Alfacalcidol (one-alpha drops)

    February 2001 Vol. 27

    Reminder: Methotrexate safe prescribing and dispensing

    September 2000 Vol. 26

    Medication error: Potential for confusing Humalog and Humalog Mix 25

    May 2000 Vol. 26

    Reminder: Naloxone in opioid overdose

    May 1997 Vol. 23

    Potential for confusion between Lamictal and Lamisil

    December 1997 Vol. 23

    Reminder: Paracetamol toxicity in overdose

    November 1995 Vol. 21

    The MCA and CSM have not produced any articles specifically relating to the overuse and inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication in care settings. However the following articles in relation to antipsychotics have been

    Volume

    QT interval prolongation with antipsychotics

    February 2001 Vol. 27

    Drug-induced prolongation of the QT interval

    March 1996 Vol. 22

    Cardiac arrhythmias with pimozide (Orap)

    February 1995 Vol. 21

    Neuroleptic sensitivity in patients with dementia

    May 1994 Vol. 20

    Drug-induced extrapyramidal reactions

    November 1994 Vol. 20

    Convulsions may occur in patients receiving clozapine

    June 1991 No. 31 Vol. 17

    Cardiotoxic effects of pimozide

    August 1990 No. 29 Vol. 16

    Copies of all these articles have been sent to the Library.

    Social Work Training
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many application packs for social workers training packs were sent out following the launch of the social worker recruitment campaign. [37800]

    Jacqui Smith
    One of the aims of the social work recruitment campaign is to increase the number of people applying for social work training by 5,000 by 2004. As part of the campaign, the Department, has made available two publications, including "Careers in Social Work", which outlines the role of the social worker including the training required. 12,172 have been sent out by the helpline.

    Maternity Service Liaison Committee
    Sandra Gidley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how maternity service liaison committees will fit into the new NHS structure. [37639]

    Yvette Cooper
    Anecdotal and research evidence during the past 10 years has shown that maternity service liaison committees have proved very effective in influencing and shaping maternity service provision. In future primary care trusts will be the local health organisations responsible for working with maternity service liaison committees.
    132W
    Yvette Cooper
    The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and its advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) have published the following articles in the MCA's bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" alerting health professionals to the inappropriate use of medication. These articles include the following:

    published in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" and encourage dose titration of the antipsychotics to help prevent adverse drug reactions:

    Air Rifles and Pistols
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents resulting from air(a) rifles and (b) pistols have been reported since 1996. [38246]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) system does not have definitive cause codes for accidents resulting from air rifles and pistols separately. The table shows the number of admissions with accidental firearm-related cause codes for the year 2000–01.

    Number

    W32 Handgun discharge

    48

    W33 Rifle shotgun and larger firearm discharge

    67

    W34 Discharge from other and unspecified firearms

    737

    Y22 Handgun discharge undetermined intent

    6

    Y23 Rifle shotgun and larger firearm discharge undetermined intent

    13

    Y24 Other and unspecified firearm discharge undetermined intent

    44

    Notes:

    1. The cause code is a supplementary I D10 code, which indicates the nature of the condition.

    2. Data are for 2000–01 and is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fatalities have been recorded as resulting from misuse of air rifles and pistols since 1996. [38247]

    Yvette Cooper
    Fatalities attributed specifically to the misuse of air rifles and pistols are not collected centrally.

    Fatalities attributed to various unspecified firearms and explosives are as follows.
    133W

    Year

    E9179

    E9554

    E9654

    E9854

    Total

    1996

    15

    50

    19

    10

    94

    1997

    21

    55

    22

    3

    101

    1998

    16

    46

    9

    10

    81

    1999

    11

    40

    10

    7

    68

    2000

    13

    46

    22

    11

    92

    Key:

    E9179: Striking against or struck accidentally by objects or persons

    E9554: Suicide and self-inflicted injury

    E9654: Assault

    E9854: Other accidental or deliberate injury

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of physical impairment that can result from injury by an air(a) rifle and (b) pistol. [38248]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) system does not have definitive cause codes for accidents resulting from air rifles and pistols separately. It is also not possible to accurately determine the extent of physical impairment from injuries of this sort.

    Exercise Referral Schemes
    Gillian Merron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health since the publication of the national standards for GP exercise referral schemes in April 2001, how many exercise referral programmes have been offered by(a) GPs, (b) primary care nurses and (c) registered fitness professionals in each health authority in the UK. [38088]

    Yvette Cooper
    The National Quality Assurance Framework published last year aims to improve the quality of existing schemes and help the development of new ones. The Department does not keep a national register of practices which offer these schemes. However, details of existing schemes are held locally by health authorities or local authorities.

    The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease requires that all NHS bodies will have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of a local programme of effective policies on increasing physical activity by April 2002. Exercise referral schemes can form an element in the delivery of these programmes. These schemes also contribute to the achievement of milestones relating to the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease within primary care, and cardiac rehabilitation.

    Cancelled Operations
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in 2001 in the(a) Royal Shrewsbury, (b) Princess Royal, (c) Robert Jones and (d) Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic hospitals. [37884]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is shown in the table

    Number of operations cancelled during 2001 in acute NHS trusts in Shropshire

    Hospital

    Number

    Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

    423

    Princess Royal Hospital

    80

    Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital1

    67

    1 Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital National Health Service Trust is one hospital.

    Radiation Risk
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems the National Radiological Protection Board has in place to update their radiation risk models; when the risk models were last reviewed; and when the risk models were last updated. [38275]

    Yvette Cooper
    The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) conducts a rolling programme of research and scientific review in order to update advice on the health effects of ionising radiation and the appropriate risk models for assessing these effects. NRPB has issued formal advice in the documents of the NRPB (Vol. 4(4), 1993; Vol 6(1), 1995). The NRPB's advisory group on ionising radiation will report shortly on the risks of leukaemia.

    Scientific reviews and reports on risk models are also undertaken by NRPB staff in the context of a United Kingdom input to the work of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and a committee of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. The UNSCEAR 2000 report on radiation effects and risk models included input from NRPB staff acting as consultants. This report represents the current international scientific consensus on the health effects of ionising radiation.

    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the National Radiological Protection Board's policy is on the radiation risk from(a) external and (b) internal low level radiation; when this policy was developed; and when it is next subject to review. [38274]

    Yvette Cooper
    The policy of the National Radiological Protection Board is to provide advice on the health effects of exposure to external and internal radiations which is based on the totality of relevant scientific information. These sources of information include assessment of doses to critical tissues in the body, epidemiological (human health) investigations and knowledge of the fundamental biology of radiation action on cells and tissues. In circumstances where direct epidemiological information is lacking, judgments are developed using knowledge of doses to different tissues, the biological effectiveness of different radiations and the relative radiation sensitivity of different tissues.

    Risk modelling procedures used by NRPB have been developed over many years often in conjunction with international bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

    Current risk modelling procedures are based essentially on the 1990 Recommendations of ICRP and subsequent advice published by NRPB (Documents of the NRPB, Vol 4(4), 1993 and Vol 6(1), 1995). Scientific review of the data and procedures for assessing the health effects of external and internal radiations is an on-going process. The general policy of NRPB is to review and revise these procedures in the light of accruing scientific knowledge and therefore no specific date for revision may be given.

    HIV/AIDS
    Mr. Borrow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how mainstreaming of HIV prevention and HIV treatment
    135W
    and care allocations into primary care trust budgets will take account of different levels of need in each PCT area. [38475]

    Yvette Cooper
    Health authority and primary care trust allocations are informed by weighted capitation targets. From 2002–03, targets are adjusted for HIV treatment and care and prevention using the latest epidemiology. This will ensure the uniquely skewed distribution of HIV infection in England is reflected in targets for future years.

    Home Births
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in the most recent year for which data are available home births have been refused, broken down by health authorities or trusts. [38777]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Abortion
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people seeking termination of pregnancy at NHS clinics in the UK in the last 12 months were foreign nationals visiting the UK; and if such requests are met free of charge. [38431]

    Yvette Cooper
    In 2000, 73 terminations of pregnancy were performed on non-UK residents in NHS hospitals in England and Wales. 2001 abortion data for England and Wales are not available until later in the year. Abortions performed in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

    No data are held centrally on nationality or whether the treatment was free.

    Myopia
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health where laser eye treatment for correction of myopia is available through the NHS; and what criteria are used to decide whether it should be provided. [38635]

    Ms Blears
    Laser surgery for the correction of myopia is not available under the national health service. Refractive errors can be successfully corrected by spectacles and contact lenses and optical vouchers are available to children and people on low incomes to help with the costs of these appliances.

    NHS Scrutiny
    Mr. Levitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what formal means councillors and committees of shire district councils will be involved in the scrutiny of bodies within the health service after 1 April. [38786]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Health and Social Care Act 2001 gives new powers to local government overview and scrutiny committees to scrutinise the national health service. Local authorities with these new powers will be those with social services responsibilities: specifically county councils, unitary authorities and London borough councils.
    136W
    We recognise the important role that district councils will play in ensuring effective scrutiny of local health services and will be encouraging through guidance the full involvement of district councils in the scrutiny process.

    A consultation on the proposed arrangements is currently under way and we would encourage all local authorities to feed their views into this process.

    Health Authority Expenditure
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) England and (b) each health authority area the expenditure on health by weighted head of population in 2001–02. [40069]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested will not become available until the 2001–02 national health service accounts have been completed, submitted to the Department, and subjected to audit. They are expected to be available in late autumn 2002.

    Genetics
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a green paper on genetics; and if he will make a statement. [39317]

    Yvette Cooper
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech at the conference "Genetics and Health—A Decade of Opportunity", reaffirmed his commitment to the Green Paper on genetics being published later this year. No formal publication date has been announced, but good progress is being made with six meetings of the advisory panel and a successful conference to inform the Green Paper having taken place.

    Sexual Health
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will implement his sexual health strategy; and if he will make a statement. [39314]

    Yvette Cooper
    An action plan outlining implementation of the sexual health and HIV strategy will be published in the spring. In addition, we have started to prepare for implementation by asking health authorities to undertake a baseline review and by seeking expressions of interest in chlamydia screening. Bids for chlamydia screening have now been received and are being considered. The Health Development Agency review of what works for local HIV/STI prevention will be available later this year and a new campaign to increase awareness of sexually transmitted infections (including HIV) and how to prevent them is planned for the autumn.

    Correspondence
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 30 November, 2 January, 29 January and 26 February relating to correspondence from her constituent Mr. Charles Williams of Hoddesdon. [39559]

    Mr. Hutton
    A reply was sent on 1 March.

    Mr. Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the letter of 8 February from the hon. member for Bexhill and Battle, regarding a constituent requiring radiotherapy for cancer. [37391]
    137W
    Ms Blears
    A letter from the hon. Member, dated 7 February, was received in my Department on 11 February 2002. A reply was sent to him on 4 March.

    Malnutrition
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1155W, on nutrition, how many episodes of hospital inpatients with a primary diagnosis relating to malnutrition there were, broken down by (a) age, (b) health authority and (c) region, in the last five years. [37763]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The tables show a count of episodes of care where the main diagnosis was malnutrition by age (Table 1) and regional office area of residence (Table 2). Figures for health authority of residence have not been given as the numbers are very small and subject to variation.

    Table 1—Finished consultant episodes for main diagnosis of malnutrition by age. National health service hospitals, England 1996–97 to 2000–01

    Age

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    0–4

    13

    13

    6

    11

    17

    5–14

    14

    13

    15

    6

    6

    15–44

    78

    62

    86

    68

    47

    45–64

    62

    82

    82

    87

    73

    65–74

    34

    39

    59

    46

    53

    75–84

    62

    55

    50

    67

    65

    85 and Over

    34

    36

    38

    34

    45

    Total

    297

    300

    336

    319

    306

    Table 2—Finished consultant episodes for main diagnosis of malnutrition by regional office area of residence. NHS hospitals, England 1996–97 to 2000–01

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    Northern and Yorkshire

    32

    55

    43

    Trent

    28

    17

    40

    Anglia and Oxford

    27

    10

    29

    North Thames

    28

    53

    53

    South Thames

    31

    30

    29

    South and West

    62

    43

    69

    West Midlands

    50

    45

    36

    North West

    37

    40

    33

    Wales

    0

    0

    1

    Foreign

    0

    1

    1

    Not known

    2

    6

    2

    Total

    297

    300

    336

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Northern and Yorkshire

    31

    28

    Trent

    49

    27

    West Midlands

    30

    30

    North West

    42

    47

    Eastern

    41

    42

    London

    47

    50

    South East

    43

    39

    South West

    33

    40

    Wales

    0

    0

    Foreign

    2

    2

    Not known

    1

    1

    Total

    319

    306

    138W
    Notes:

    I. A finished consultant episode (FCE) is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

    The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

    Data for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data; 1998–99 to 2000–01 are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

    Patient Numbers
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients there were in hospital(a) in total, (b) aged 65 and under, (c) aged between 65 and 75 and (d) aged over 75 by (i) region and (ii) health authority in the second quarter of 2001–02; and what the delayed discharge rate for each age group was as a percentage of the number of patients in hospital in each health authority and region. [38701]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

    Voluntary Organisations (Definition)
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define voluntary organisation as used in the documents "A Cancer Plan" and "Implementation of the Cancer Plan". [38462]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: For the purposes of the "NHS Cancer Plan" and "The NHS Cancer Plan—Making Progress" a voluntary organisation is a body which is not a public or local authority whose activities are carried out not for profit.

    NHS Budget
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS budget is accounted for by(a) research, (b) training and (c) education. [39210]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: 6.8 per cent. of planned total national health service net expenditure has been set aside for research, training and education in 2001–02.

    Heart Surgery
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart operations were carried out in England and Wales in each of the last five years, broken down by major categories of heart operation; and what comparative figures he has collated for other OECD countries. [39233]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The number of heart operations carried out in the national health service in England during the last five years rose by 30 per cent. The figures are as follows.

    139W

    Number

    1996–97

    CABG

    22,700

    PTCA

    17,045

    Other

    132,080

    Total

    162,186

    1997–98

    CABG

    22,129

    PTCA

    17,291

    Other

    131,343

    Total

    161,508

    1998–99

    CABG

    23,996

    PTCA

    19,294

    Other

    148,011

    Total

    191,301

    1999–2000

    CABG

    23,698

    PTCA

    22,341

    Other

    154,199

    Total

    200,238

    2000–01

    CABG

    24,387

    PTCA

    25,698

    Other

    161,891

    Total

    211,976

    Figures from other Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries are not available on a comparable basis. Information about heart operations undertaken in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

    Meat Imports
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigation he has made into carcases being imported into the UK with spinal cords still in place; how many of these came from countries(a) with and (b) without records of BSE infection; and if he will make a statement. [39259]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: I am advised on matters of food safety by the Food Standards Agency.

    On each occasion where consignments of imported carcase meat have been found with remnants of spinal cord still attached, the matter has been vigorously pursued with the chief veterinary officer of the European Union member state of origin, and with the European Commission. Where the incident has revealed a systematic problem, the FSA has pressed for firm action at the exporting plant. In eight cases, this has led to plant licences being suspended or certain operations halted until the authorities have been satisfied that the problems have been rectified.

    All EU member states involved in these incidents have reported BSE cases during 2001. Further information is set out in the table.
    140W

    Number of:

    Exporting country

    consignments where spinal cord found by UK veterinary inspectors1

    reported BSE cases (2001)

    Germany

    8

    125

    Netherlands

    6

    20

    Ireland

    4

    242

    Belgium

    2

    46

    Spain

    2

    82

    Italy

    1

    48

    Denmark

    1

    6

    11 January 2001 to 26 February 2002

    PFI
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which PFI projects are at Outline Business Case stage within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [38658]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The table shows schemes with a capital value of £20 million or greater which are currently developing Outline Business Cases (OBCs) with the intention of going on to tender under the Private Finance Initiative. Information is not collected centrally on schemes below £20 million, which do not have approved OBCs.

    DOH regional office

    Scheme name

    Value (£ million)

    Eastern

    Peterborough

    135

    Eastern

    Chelmsford

    80

    Eastern

    Colchester

    79

    London

    Whipps Cross

    184

    London

    Chase Farm

    41

    London

    North Middlesex

    73

    London

    Lewisham

    47

    London

    Paddington Basin

    460

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Bradford

    116

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Wakefield

    164

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Hull

    39

    North West

    Salford

    114

    North West

    St. Helens

    211

    North West

    Tameside and Glossop

    41

    South East

    Brighton

    25

    South East

    East Kent

    102

    South East

    Tunbridge Wells

    175

    South East

    Oxford

    28

    South East

    Southampton

    52

    South West

    Bristol

    104

    South West

    Plymouth

    101

    South West

    Torbay

    65

    Trent

    Leicester

    286

    Trent

    C Notts/Kingsmill

    66

    West Midlands

    Walsall

    43

    West Midlands

    Birmingham

    306

    West Midlands

    North Staffs

    224

    West Midlands

    Wolverhampton

    110

    National Lottery Funding
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money from the National Lottery was spent on the NHS and NHS projects in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [39756]

    Mr. Caborn
    I have been asked to reply.
    141W
    Of the lottery distributors, the New Opportunities Fund supports projects in the fields of health, education and the environment.

    In the period from 1 March 2001 to 28 February 2002, NOF funded a number of health related projects. Approximately £90 million was spent on 115 healthy living centres; £39.75 million was spent on projects to help in the treatment of coronary heart disease and cancer, including funding for 27 cardiac angiography machines and 16 MRI scanners. Finally, £1.4 million was provided to fund multi-viewers to view breast screening X-rays.

    Congestion Charging
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the results were of the consultation on congestion charging for essential workers which concluded on 18 January. [33493]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I have been asked to reply.

    The proposed congestion charging scheme for central London is a matter for the Mayor of London. In his statement of 26 February he explained his reasons for deciding to proceed with the scheme and his position on exemptions, including those for essential workers. Copies of the statement have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Matrons
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many modern matrons are in post in each(a) region and (b) health authority. [39443]

    Mr. Hutton
    This information is being collected and will be available shortly.

    Pedestrian Deaths (Children)
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child pedestrians from social class(a) five and (b) one have been killed in each of the last five years. [39967]

    £

    Allocation per weighted head of population

    Allocation per unweighted head of population

    Health authority

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Avon

    727

    809

    684

    751

    Barking and Havering

    746

    814

    778

    849

    Barnet'

    716

    n/a

    703

    n/a

    Barnet, Enfield and Haringey'

    n/a

    798

    n/a

    846

    Barnsley

    722

    808

    795

    887

    Bedfordshire

    706

    775

    645

    714

    Berkshire

    711

    776

    626

    685

    Bexley and Greenwich1

    789

    n/a

    800

    n/a

    Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich'

    n/a

    858

    n/a

    856

    Birmingham

    745

    821

    784

    867

    Bradford

    737

    809

    767

    842

    Brent and Harrow

    738

    843

    768

    889

    Bromley1

    747

    n/a

    717

    n/a

    Buckinghamshire

    715

    784

    617

    677

    Bury and Rochdale

    740

    817

    775

    852

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    743

    809

    755

    820

    Cambridgeshire

    713

    791

    632

    693

    Camden and Islington

    750

    867

    1,016

    1,204

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    751

    829

    752

    827

    County Durham

    730

    804

    808

    884

    Coventry

    733

    809

    757

    834

    142W
    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Ms Oona King, dated 4 March 2002:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many child pedestrians from Social Class (a) five and (b) one have been killed in each of the last five years. (39967)
    The figures requested are given in the table below:

    Number of deaths occurring to child1 pedestrians2 in social class3 one (SCI) and five (SC V), England and Wales, calendar years 1996 to 20004

    Calendar Year

    Fathers in professional occupations (SC I)

    Fathers in unskilled occupations (SC V)

    1996

    3

    2

    1997

    7

    5

    1998

    8

    3

    1996

    3

    6

    2000

    5

    2

    1 Children were classified as deaths occurring to persons aged 0 to 15.

    2 Defined as deaths where the underlying cause indicated that a pedestrian was involved in a land transport accident. Deaths from land transport accidents were defined using codes E800-E829 from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision.

    3 Registrar General's Social Class based on occupation. Father's Social Class is used for children under 16.

    4 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

    Health Authority Funding
    Andy Burnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the funding per head of population for each health authority in England in 2001–02 and the expected level in 2002–03. [37193]

    Mr. Hutton
    Health authority allocations per weighted and unweighted head of population for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are shown in the table.
    143W

    (£)

    Allocation per weighted head of population

    Allocation per unweighted head of population

    Health authority

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Croydon

    727

    797

    707

    791

    Doncaster

    751

    826

    803

    881

    Dorset

    757

    832

    742

    813

    Dudley

    735

    813

    709

    780

    Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

    723

    817

    800

    922

    East and North Hertfordshire1

    728

    n/a

    658

    n/a

    East Kent

    758

    834

    777

    854

    East Lancashire

    742

    824

    810

    895

    East London and The City

    688

    794

    901

    1,041

    East Riding

    754

    828

    741

    814

    East Surrey

    751

    846

    693

    771

    East Sussex Brighton and Hove

    758

    829

    784

    862

    Enfield and Haringey1

    729

    n/a

    783

    n/a

    Gateshead and South Tyneside

    745

    823

    849

    934

    Gloucestershire

    763

    834

    695

    758

    Herefordshire

    740

    814

    693

    759

    Hertfordshire1

    n/a

    815

    n/a

    736

    Hillingdon

    729

    824

    727

    795

    Isle of Wight1

    795

    n/a

    846

    n/a

    Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire1

    n/a

    824

    n/a

    799

    Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

    659

    757

    831

    981

    Kingston and Richmond

    742

    810

    705

    771

    Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

    737

    852

    905

    1,076

    Leeds

    753

    832

    759

    838

    Leicestershire

    719

    789

    660

    724

    Lincolnshire

    736

    811

    717

    785

    Liverpool

    767

    846

    890

    979

    Manchester

    765

    842

    902

    1,002

    Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

    762

    827

    791

    881

    Morecambe Bay

    771

    851

    776

    852

    Newcastle and North Tyneside

    759

    834

    847

    928

    Norfolk

    732

    808

    698

    767

    North and East Devon

    745

    821

    724

    795

    North and Mid Hampshire

    736

    807

    615

    678

    North Cheshire

    755

    839

    763

    839

    North Cumbria

    742

    820

    736

    810

    North Derbyshire

    743

    823

    734

    809

    North Essex

    728

    797

    674

    744

    North Nottinghamshire

    734

    814

    739

    815

    North Staffordshire

    734

    815

    776

    857

    North West Lancashire

    751

    832

    826

    911

    North Yorkshire

    730

    802

    683

    749

    Northamptonshire

    738

    807

    674

    739

    Northumberland

    748

    821

    755

    824

    Nottingham

    731

    806

    727

    799

    Oxfordshire

    712

    788

    606

    676

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire1

    739

    n/a

    701

    n/a

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest

    761

    843

    783

    884

    Rotherham

    739

    822

    784

    868

    Salford and Trafford

    761

    839

    823

    905

    Sandwell

    743

    820

    803

    883

    Sefton

    774

    861

    838

    925

    Sheffield

    764

    838

    809

    884

    Shropshire

    729

    803

    681

    748

    Solihull

    742

    817

    685

    751

    Somerset

    741

    813

    695

    757

    South and West Devon

    757

    830

    756

    826

    South Cheshire

    747

    830

    704

    774

    South Derbyshire

    721

    797

    694

    765

    South Essex

    726

    789

    692

    756

    South Humber

    758

    839

    754

    836

    South Lancashire

    746

    829

    715

    789

    South Staffordshire

    726

    804

    656

    722

    Southampton and South West Hampshire

    738

    807

    690

    757

    St. Helen's and Knowsley

    739

    822

    819

    906

    Stockport

    732

    812

    713

    785

    Suffolk

    743

    814

    667

    730

    Sunderland

    740

    833

    839

    940

    Tees

    739

    808

    802

    878

    Wakefield

    743

    818

    768

    843

    144W 145W

    (£)

    Allocation per weighted head of population

    Allocation per unweighted head of population

    Health authority

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Walsall

    726

    808

    772

    858

    Warwickshire

    744

    820

    684

    750

    West Hertfordshire1

    735

    n/a

    686

    n/a

    West Kent

    741

    817

    672

    741

    West Pennine

    727

    809

    780

    865

    West Surrey

    749

    839

    671

    745

    West Sussex

    733

    821

    718

    790

    Wigan and Bolton

    718

    799

    777

    858

    Wiltshire

    739

    812

    655

    717

    Wirral

    770

    853

    834

    919

    Wolverhampton

    737

    814

    793

    875

    Worcestershire

    737

    810

    661

    724

    England total

    738

    817

    738

    817

    1 There were health authority mergers on 1 April 2001

    146W

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Commonwealth Development Corporation
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that CDC Capital Partners, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation, continues its development work to support the poorest of the poor in the third world.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the CDC has met the investment policy targets in 2001 and continues to mobilise private finance for investment in some of the poorest countries of the world. The Government will continue to support the CDC in this challenging process.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not a fact that the company has closed offices in most of the poorest countries and opened them only in richer countries, such as Nigeria and Mexico? Aid previously went directly to farmers, but instead that money is now being put into investment—into shares and businesses. That is surely not the way to help the really poor people, in Africa in particular, who farm and live off the land.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the CDC operates within a clearly laid down investment policy. The important points of that policy include a requirement that the CDC should make 70 per cent of new investments, measured over a five-year rolling period, in poorer developing countries and that each year it should seek
2
to make 50 per cent of new investments in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Those are the parameters within which the investment policy operates and the CDC is meeting those investment parameters.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, who makes the policy for the CDC to carry out?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is laid down in statute. Ultimately, the investment policy of the CDC falls within a remit laid down by the Secretary of State, particularly with regard to the investment requirements that I spelt out. Noble Lords will acknowledge that whichever sections people come from, the Government's record on overseas development issues has been outstanding.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one reason why many noble Lords supported the passage of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill was that we saw it as a means of increasing the development potential of the C DC? The investment targets that have been set and the removal of offices from countries such as Mozambique give the impression that the CDC is now interested in profit rather than development criteria.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, offices open and offices close; there are changes. An office recently opened, for example, in Nigeria, which I am sure we all acknowledge is a country in which investment strategy is extremely important. I reiterate that the CDC is only one part of the Government's overall overseas development strategy—it cannot be seen in isolation. One of its key remits is to demonstrate that even in the poorest countries of the world it is possible to make commercial investments in order to attract increasing numbers of companies to do precisely that. In that respect, as part of the Government's overall development strategy, it is extremely important.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, the issue that the noble Baroness raised about agriculture is very

3
immediate to me—I so happen to have just come back from Uganda, where I served. There is no doubt that agriculture needs focused support in such countries. People want to work and till the land themselves, and agriculture is a crucial priority. What is the CDC's relationship specifically to the agricultural issue?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, agriculture is extremely important in development policy. However, it is not the only area in relation to which investment in developing countries is extremely important. For example, who is to say that the development of a particular agricultural business is more or less important than investment in the communications that will enable those products to go to market? I could read out the various headings of the CDC's investment portfolio. However, I reiterate that, as well as agriculture, there are many areas in which investment is important.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the change in name from "the Commonwealth Development Corporation" mean a change in purpose? Is Tanzania still included in the excellent work that the CDC was previously doing in the agricultural field? I feel strongly about the comments of the right reverend Prelate on the importance of agriculture from the CDC's point of view—that is the job that it was created to do. Does the Minister agree that it would be very sad if that job had changed?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, one of the key changes three years ago was to provide more emphasis on demonstrating to private companies that they can properly invest—and successfully invest—in some of the poorest countries in the world. That is precisely the point that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Clare Short made at Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. She said:
"If the CDC was bigger and could make investments that achieved a rate of return attractive to the private sector, it could demonstrate that the private sector could invest successfully in countries that it currently shuns".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/99; col. 40.]
Therefore, this is a very important part of the work of international development but by no means is it the only part.
The investment that takes place in many parts of Africa, including Tanzania, is extremely important. The CDC joint-manages nine funds in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Mauritius and Zambia. Those countries are extremely important as part of the CDC's strategy.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the excellent work of the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management—CPTM—and the pioneering developments of smart partnerships. Will he seek to encourage and support links between CPTM and CDC on programmes designed to enhance transnational growth in southern
4
Africa; for example, in developing the Maputo Corridor and peace parks in the region? I declare that I am an unremunerated fellow of CPTM.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord draws attention to an extremely important part of investment policy. Again, he refers to a part of Africa. I can only say time and again that at all levels—not only the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have been involved but the Prime Minister himself—the enormous importance that this Government attach to the development of Africa south of the Sahara and to putting right some of the wrongs of recent years has been emphasised. That strategy will continue.

Starter Homes Initiative
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Maddockasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the progress of their Starter Home Initiative is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, last September we allocated £230 million in Starter Home Initiative funding to 95 schemes to help 8,000 key workers. In January we published bidding guidance for the remaining £20 million funding, which we intend to allocate in May to help 2,000 key workers. Schemes are now up and running in local areas. The first key worker completed an assisted house purchase last October.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that since the scheme was announced many people believe that much of its value has been wiped out by house price increases in London and the South East. Of course, those increases are due to a lack of supply of affordable housing. However, does the Minister share my concerns that police and health authorities are continuing to sell residential properties in their ownership? When can we expect an evaluation of the scheme to be published?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when we announced the scheme in July 2000, we said that 10,000 key workers would be helped. As I indicated, the £230 million already allocated helps 8.000 workers. The remaining £20 million, which will provide funds for key workers to put down as a deposit on a property, will help a further 2,000 workers. Therefore, we have been able to maintain the number of key workers that need to be helped. The problem for such workers in London, the South East and other areas of high demand is intense. I agree with the noble Baroness that all employers of key workers, including statutory employers, need to see how they can help to ensure that as many as possible of their employees are housed.
Evaluation is certainly planned but nothing has been commissioned yet. It is anticipated that research will begin in approximately January 2003 once more

5
people have been through the scheme. That research will examine all aspects of the scheme, including the impact on staff retention and recruitment—plainly one of the vital elements of the scheme.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a difficulty is caused by the lack of house build? Does he also agree that this Government have presided over the lowest level of housing stock to be built since 1925? That obviously has an effect on the proportion of housing available under the Starter Home Initiative. Will the Minister comment on that and—he referred to the South East—on how the situation affects rural areas?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that question is a little rich. The reason why house-building is now at its lowest level since 1925 is because of the extreme reduction in money that was made available until 1996 by the previous government. We have now turned round that situation and have increased the funds available. However, as noble Lords know, one cannot, simply by turning a tap, change the amount of house-building that takes place. Perhaps I may say that that was rather a bold question.
So far as concerns rural areas, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. In many cases, rural areas experience as great a problem in relation to key-worker housing as do certain urban areas.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an increasing number of former council flats in central London are reaching well in excess of a quarter-of-a million pounds? Is he aware that this is an urgent problem of an order of magnitude different from that affecting the rest of the country?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that there are problems in relation to the price of housing, including ex-council housing, in central London. However, a very similar problem can also be found in, for example, Cambridge. As a result, people who were previously able to get a foot on the house-buying ladder can no longer do so. We need to consider that issue because the effect of being unable to house such people directly affects not only those people but the economy as a whole.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I declare an interest as a hoard director of the NHBC. Is the Minister aware that the main constraint on house-building is the planning authority? Is he also aware that inflation in the house-building industry is running way ahead of national inflation, based largely on the cost of manufactured products, which relate to fuel costs, and aggregates and landfill costs? Will the Minister comment on both the planning situation and those increased costs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the planning system is riot fast enough, not consistent enough and does not engage the community enough. People from all across the spectrum are fed up with the way that the
6
planning system works. That is why we published a suite of Green Papers at the end of last year proposing a fundamental reform. Yes, the cost of building has risen but, more significantly, the cost of land has also risen. We need to consider all aspects of the issue.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to answer the Question put by my noble friend Lady Maddock; that is, at a time when there is such a shortage of housing for public sector workers, why are the authorities selling off nurses' accommodation and police accommodation? The problem with giving extra money by way of help is that that is just more money chasing after a given stock of housing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in many cases the reason why the police or the National Health Service, for example, sell off land is to use the money to provide more policing or health facilities. There is an issue of priorities, which needs to be addressed.

Illegal Meat
2.51 p.m.
Lord Rotherwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking to stop illegal meat entering the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there are a number of concerns about illegal imports—animal disease and public health—and concerns about endangered species. Different considerations apply to illegal meat brought in by passengers and illegal meat hidden in bulk commercial imports. It is essential that in all those areas there is effective co-ordination between the various agencies on intelligence gathering and enforcement action. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is calling a summit meeting at the end of this month to discuss the next steps for intensifying our efforts.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, especially as he admits that there are acknowledged concerns over this awful trade. We have heard about the discussions which are to take place. However, can he tell the House what action the Government are taking? For instance, how many checks occur at Heathrow in one week? How many more sniffer dogs, which are used so well in many other countries, will there be? How many new x-ray machines, also used well in other countries, will there be? How many more government-trained personnel are being introduced at port authorities to catch illegal meat coming into this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, primarily, the situation is one of co-ordination and prioritisation rather than one of resources. Clearly, a number of public authorities are involved. Random checks are made on particular

7
passengers. However, the noble Lord referred to major checks. There have been nine major checks in the past year, most of which have revealed substantial amounts of illegal meat. It is important to recognise that much of that is illegal for reasons related to public health and endangered species, as well as for other reasons. Very little would be responsible, in terms of susceptible animals, for conveying disease into the country. Nevertheless, for all those reasons, procedures need to be tightened up. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is calling together all the agencies. We are focusing on what more we need to do both in terms of resources and British and European legislation.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister support the campaign currently being run by London Zoo to make the public aware of the danger posed to endangered species by the importation of bush meat? Can he tell the House whether the Government plan a more general campaign of education in marketplaces in which such products are sold?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are opposed to the import of all illegal meat. We have particular concerns about endangered species and, in that sense, welcome the campaign to which the noble Lord referred. However, it is important to recognise that only a small proportion of what we refer to as illegal meat—or even of that proportion of illegal meat which is referred to as bush meat—is from endangered species. Obviously we want to bring that figure down to zero. However, it is only a small part of the problem.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that it is now more than a year since the amount of meat coming into this country illegally was pointed out to us? Why is this taking so long? Nine checks demonstrate the huge quantity of meat being imported. Has the Minister thought about using Labrador dogs, who think only of their tummies and have an excellent sense of smell?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at present we do not use dogs to detect meat imports into the UK. We use them for other purposes. We are about to co-operate with the New Zealand Government in an experiment to see whether dogs can be used in this respect. It is also important to recognise that almost certainly by far the largest and the most dangerous amounts of illegal meat do not come in by passenger transport but by being hidden in consignments of container meat or as goods which are wrongly labelled as something else and have probably entered the European Union at a different point from the UK. It is therefore important that we focus on where the problem is likely to be most acute. That is why we have commissioned a new risk assessment to identify where such imports are coming from and where they pose the highest risk.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while import control is
8
extremely important, so too is the control of the movement of animals in the country, particularly in relation to the spread of disease, as we witnessed so obviously during the foot and mouth epidemic?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. I have always stressed that while illegal import minimisation is important, the reason that we were in such a disastrous situation in relation to foot and mouth was the rapid spread of that disease in the early stages. That was because of uncontrolled movements of animals within the country. It is important that we do not take our eye off the ball when considering imports and do not ignore or move away from ensuring that such movements internally do not spread the disease.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much illegal meat has been seized coming through Heathrow in the past six months? As regards the other meat to which he referred, what proportion has been imported illegally through other food sources in containers rather than through Heathrow? Why on earth cannot sniffer dogs be used in this respect? Is it because one department owns the sniffer dogs and therefore another department cannot possibly use them? If they are based at the airport it seems bizarre that they cannot be used for similar purposes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, dogs which are trained primarily to detect drugs cannot be transferred to alternative duties.
A noble Lord: Why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are perfectly legal amounts of meat which one is allowed to bring in, which do not pose a threat in any of these fields. Hitherto, it has been the view of successive governments that the most important substance to stop coming into the country is not meat but hard drugs. That is what our enforcement agencies and sniffer dogs have concentrated on. The noble Baroness asked about the amount of meat seized. I f she does not mind, I shall write to her giving details.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major reasons why animals from endangered species are being killed and their meat imported to the United Kingdom is the destruction of the forest habitats in their countries of origin? Therefore, will the Government consider what measures they can take to help protect the forest cover, and in particular whether they will assist NGOs such as Global Witness, which have drawn attention to the problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly that is part of the problem. However, the danger to endangered species is much more substantial within the countries of origin than from that arising from international trade. Together with DfID, my department is involved in a number of initiatives to restore and protect the forest through international partnerships.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, if there have been nine searches at Heathrow Airport in the past year, all of which were successful, why have there not been more?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one has to target resources. The searches were particularly targeted on flights which have caused problems and are known to be the main conduits for meat. In addition, any general search on a passenger may reveal particular problems of meat imports. The number of checks is not as important as the degree to which we are succeeding in maximising the seizures we make. I believe we have begun to do that. However, I accept the general view of the House that more needs to be done on that front.

Police Service: Terms of Employment
3 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstoneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether current investigations of the terms of employment and retention of senior police officers include consideration of losses of gratuities and tax-free benefits incurred by those who remain in the force beyond 30 years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we have no reason to believe that officers who remain in the police service beyond 30 years stand to lose any gratuities or tax-free benefits. The Police Negotiating Board's recent failure to agree a package of measures for modernising police pay and conditions affects the 30-plus scheme for officers in junior ranks—that is, below the rank of assistant chief constable—since it was part of their package. However, in the longer term, we remain hopeful that this or a similar initiative will go ahead.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he accept that there are probably thousands of officers who should be kept in the force who are more or less forced out because of the advantages of leaving after 30 years' service—often at the age of 48 which most noble Lords will consider is extremely young? In those circumstances, surely he should be consulting with the Exchequer as to how to deal with the advantages which now exist for people who leave after 30 years, so that these can be extended to those who stay on longer where they are desperately needed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there is a scheme on the table following the consultations and the consultants' report from last year which the Police Negotiating Board dealt with before Christmas. Obviously, there has been a failure to agree and there is a conciliation process going on at the moment. Therefore, we must be careful what we say about that because we want a successful outcome. Nevertheless, the existing 30-plus scheme applies to officers below the Association of Chief Police Officers' rank where there is a business case to be made for his
10
or her retention. The key features are retirement with a tax-free lump sum; re-entry into service in one's former rank; and pension abatement lifted to make up for any rent allowance lost on retirement. There are some other factors as well.
The point that my noble friend raised and has raised continually, I hope will be met by a successful outcome of the conciliation process.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, given that the objective of any new system is to retain experienced police officers in the service, was my noble friend the Minister as surprised as I was probably three weeks ago to receive a letter from an officer approaching the age of 60 with in excess of 30 years' service? He was quite happy to stay on in his position as a criminal intelligence officer. He was offered the right to stay on but was given three shifts working outside on patrol. That is not really an appropriate job for an officer with that length of service. Will my noble friend agree that we can change the rules forever more, but it should be underpinned by the application of common sense by chief officers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I recall the letter. I have it in my file and I shall respond to it in due course. We would not expect good managers to put people of that standing out on the frontline because, by definition, given their age, fitness levels and other factors, we want to use their skills and experience to the best possible advantage.
My noble friend raises a point. But the matter gets worse, because the officer said that one of the reasons he was not allowed to remain was that they could not get their heads around the fact that he could go any time at 28 days' notice. Once people have done 25 years they can go at 28 days' notice. So there is nothing unusual in that. That is a question of straightforward management capability—in this case of the Northumbria Police Force.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister mentioned that discussions are taking place regarding those below the level of assistant chief constable. Can he explain whether it is possible for those above the grade of assistant chief constable and chief constables to benefit, particularly when one remembers that retention is a very serious problem? Can he say whether, in considering comparable services, it will be possible to ensure that the policing experience of good people is not lost?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there are different rules for officers of assistant chief constable rank and above. There are differences in terms of retirement age. But the higher the rank of the officer to be retained, the harder it will be to make a business case for his or her retention instead of bringing in a new recruit. Of course those officers will actually be managing the scheme that comes out of the Police Negotiating Board conciliation process. Therefore, it is important that the scheme does not apply to the people actually

11
administering the scheme. The vast majority of police officers up to chief superintendent level would stand to gain under the scheme that is actually on offer.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the significance of this scheme for people who have completed 30 years' service is in its impact on the morale of the force in general. However successful the negotiations over this specific issue might be, does the Minister agree that the benefit gained will be as nothing compared to the loss resulting from some rather unfortunate remarks which have emanated from the Government in recent times, partly as a result of their failure to win—if one can put it that way—the ballot in the Police Federation over their pay proposals and also remarks made to certain chief officers about what might or might not happen if they fail to perform precisely as specified by particular government Ministers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have record recruitment and record numbers of police officers. I have mentioned twice that we are in a conciliation process relating to an industrial relations issue. Frankly, it would be counterproductive for me to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said because he was not very specific and just hinted at various things that have been said.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Absent votes and declarations of identity]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
"(c) after subsection (6) there is inserted—
"(6A) If a person presents to the Chief Electoral Officer a completed form for an absent vote on a form other than one issued and uniquely encoded by the Chief Electoral Officer, it shall be considered invalid.
(6B) Where the Chief Electoral Officer thinks it is appropriate to do so he shall issue a substitute form.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a result of some very good discussions that I was able to have last week with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt—in particular, finishing up on Friday when the noble and learned Lord invited officials to join us as well—I believe that with what he will tell us today, we have closed as many loopholes for electoral fraud as are reasonably closable without denying unwittingly the vote to those who should have it. I beg to move.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I shall reply in a moment or two. However, contained within the group is Amendment No. 3, standing in the
12
name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. So it is probably to the convenience of your Lordships if I wait for that to be spoken to.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is purely a drafting amendment. It does not change a single word of the intended legislation. Its sole purpose is to make a part of the Bill easier to read. The subject matter is the postal ballot procedure in Northern Ireland. The existing procedure under the 1953 legislation is that the ballot paper must be returned in the proper envelope together with a declaration of identity.
The amendment to this procedure proposed by the Government is that the declaration of identity shall state the date of birth of the elector, and that the returning officer must be satisfied that this corresponds with information already available to him.
Your Lordships will appreciate that there are two ways to amend a section, subsection or paragraph. One is to introduce a patchwork amendment. That is to say, the reader is directed to insert words here and delete words there, so that with scissors and paste the reader can reconstruct the enactment in its amended form. The advantage of a patchwork amendment is that it highlights the precise change that is proposed to the existing law. The only words made use of in a patchwork amendment are those which are to be added to and subtracted from the existing enactment. It is therefore a useful way of drafting before a Bill has been debated. It concentrates the mind.
The alternative method of amendment is to delete the whole section, subsection or paragraph that is sought to be changed and to set out the enactment in its amended form. That is obviously more user-friendly. It avoids the use of scissors and paste. It enables the reader to read the amended enactment immediately in its amended form, without any intervening reconstruction process.
The provision of the Bill that I seek to amend is paragraph (c)(i) on page 6, that is to say lines 5 to 15 of that page. Paragraph (c)(i) is a patchwork amendment. It reads:
"in paragraph (2), the words from 'it is returned' to the end are to be sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph, and after 'authenticated' there is inserted ', and
(b) in the case of an elector, that declaration of identity states the date of birth",
et cetera.
How much simpler to say, as does my amendment,
"A postal ballot paper shall not, in Northern Ireland, be deemed to be duly returned unless—

(a) it is returned in the proper envelope so as to reach the returning officer before the close of the poll and is accompanied by the declaration of identity duly signed and authenticated, and

(b) in the case of an elector, that declaration of identity states the date of birth",

et cetera? I have not changed a word of the intended legislation. Paragraph (c)(i) is set out in my amendment precisely as it is intended to read. There is no need for scissors and paste.

13
Does my amendment increase the length of the Bill? Not really. The patchwork amendment in the Bill takes up 11 lines. My amendment would take up 14 lines, so the Bill would be lengthened by only three lines—a small price to pay for instant clarity. There is absolutely no need to retain the government amendment in its existing patchwork form. The argument that it highlights the exact change in the law is spent. The Bill has been through the other place and has finished here. There can be no more debate on paragraph (c)(i).
The returning officer and the elector will not be interested in a patchwork presentation of the amendment. They will want only to read paragraph (c)(i) in its final form. That is what my amendment would enable them to do. The public, in the form of returning officers, other officers and the electors, are our customers. Ought we not to give them what will be easiest for them to read?
If my amendment is accepted, the House will be doing what the Companion says that it should be doing on Third Reading. It states on page 130 at paragraph 6.128:
"The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are",
and I read the second purpose,
"to improve the drafting".
We shall also be in step with the guidelines laid down for Community legislation and adopted in December 1998 under the Treaty of Amsterdam. They state:
"preference shall be given to replacing whole provisions ߪrather than inserting or deleting individual sentences, phrases or words".
To sum up the matter, now that there can be no further debate on paragraph (c)(i), either in the other place or in your Lordships' House, the argument in favour of a patchwork amendment is spent and there is no conceivable reason why we should not provide our customers with the finished article. I emphasise that I am not critical of how the Bill was drafted when introduced. A patchwork form of amendment was useful. I merely say that the time has come when the government amendment can usefully be changed from a patchwork amendment to a rewritten paragraph.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, in speaking to the three amendments before us, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, and to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for our helpful clarifying discussion late last week. I had come to the conclusion that with the double triple lock, we were doing all that was possible to prevent fraud. I speak of the double triple lock because the intention is through the Bill to get a clean register. That is to be done by first having a signature, a national insurance number and a date of birth and, secondly, on an application for a postal vote, the applicant must again provide a signature, a national insurance number and a date of birth. I am inclined to think that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not needed, bearing in mind that triple lock.
14
I must say that I am mystified by Amendment No. 3. It would be helpful to have further clarification of it. I am uncertain that it is a matter of just straightening out some wording. As I read it, it creates a triple triple lock, because the date of birth would be required at the time that the ballot paper was marked. I do not believe that that feature is required. My problem with that is that the double triple lock is most helpful in preventing fraud, but a balance must be struck. When a person marks a ballot paper, he may understand that someone must be there to certify that he is not someone else, but introducing the date of birth at that stage strikes me as something that may well put off the elector and result in more spoilt ballot papers, and so on. I may have got that wrong, but that is how I read Amendment No. 3 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he has taken his scissors and paste and worked out what the government amendment does? My amendment does not change one single word.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall deal with the discrete point about Amendment No. 3. As usual, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has courteously spoken to me about his concerns, and I recognise that there is a wider point. However, it is much wider than what we are talking about in the context of this Bill.
It is fair to say that electoral legislation is notoriously complicated. I suggest respectfully to your Lordships that, if one wants to put it right, it is better done on a wholesale basis, rather than by simply highlighting a particular element of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said that he was doing. I take the noble and learned Lord's point that it might be more user-friendly, although I am not sure that most potential users would immediately look at the amendment and say that it was the answer to their worries, troubles and concerns.
The noble and learned Lord has made a point that redounds for another occasion. I am not, as he knows, able to accept his amendment on this occasion.
In respect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I was grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Shutt of Greetland, for being available last week up until Friday, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. In particular, I was grateful for the courteous and diligent way in which the officials from the Northern Ireland Office approached the matter and for the other discussions that I have had with several other noble Lords with an interest in it. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Shutt of Greetland, share that view.
I said that, to clarify matters completely, I would set out, in a few words, what the new situation in Northern Ireland would be. From this year on, all on the electoral register in Northern Ireland will have to supply a specimen signature, a date of birth and a national insurance number or a statement that they do not have one. As your Lordships know, those

15
safeguards, particularly those in respect of the national insurance number, were not present in the original Bill. It seemed to me, as I listened to the arguments here, that the case for inclusion was well made, and I undertook at Second Reading that, if there were improvements that could be accepted, I would accept them. I am grateful to your Lordships for bringing such persuasive powers to bear.
Every registration form will be scanned and all the data installed on the new IT system in the electoral office. All applications for absent votes will have to be accompanied by the applicant's date of birth, national insurance number and signature. All such applications will be scrutinised to ensure that the information supplied on the form corresponds with that already held on the electoral office's database. If the signature, date of birth or national insurance number or the absence of it do not correspond with the information on the databank, the application will not be granted unless the chief electoral officer's queries have been resolved to his satisfaction.
As your Lordships will know, an absent vote can be granted only for a limited number of reasons and must be attested by another person, other than a member of the elector's family. The relevant categories are Service voters; an elector who is blind or has another physical incapacity; an elector who lives overseas or whose general nature of employment prevents attendance at the polling station; an elector who can get to the polling station only by air or sea; or an elector registered as an overseas voter. Such application must be supported by one of the following: a Service declaration; the attestation of a registered doctor, registered nurse or Christian Science practitioner who is treating the applicant; proof that the applicant is claiming the relevant disability allowance; or an employment declaration. An absent vote must be accompanied by a declaration of identity that must be signed and a date of birth, and both must correspond to that held on the electoral office database. Many of those matters will arise from the assurances that I gave about regulatory power and what has so far been done by the chief electoral officer.
I hope that I have discharged my undertaking to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Shutt of Greetland. I hope that it will be useful to have on public record what the new situation will be. I have said what I wished to say in respect of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. In respect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that he will seek leave to withdraw.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, in particular for the way in which he has led the House through the Bill. There has had to be a balance between practicality, technology and human rights. He has allowed us to have argument, debate and discussion and has lent his not inconsiderable weight when he believed that we had a point that needed to be made and has had the Bill corrected.
16
I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for what he has done and for what he has just said and put on the public record. We have a significantly better Bill than we did when it arrived. The Bill will do the job as well as any Bill could be created to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I can only regret that we are being left in an unnecessary drafting quagmire. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained by retaining an amendment in its patchwork form, if, at no cost, it could be put in its final polished form. We have a duty to the public to send Bills from Parliament, where possible, in such a way that they can be easily read. However, I ought not to divide the House on my amendment.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Export Control Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [General restriction on purposes of control orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (I) and insert—"(1) Controls may only be imposed—

(a) for the purpose of giving effect to any Community provision or other international obligation of the United Kingdom; or

(b) in relation to a description of thing that is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the Schedule.

(1A) In subsection (1)—
8
description of thing" means—

(a) a description of goods (in the case of export controls or trade controls);

(b) a description of technology (in the case of transfer controls); or

(c) a description of technical assistance (in the case of technical assistance controls); and

"international obligation" includes an obligation relating to a joint action or common position adopted, or a decision taken, by the Council under Title V of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on a common foreign and security policy).

17
(1B) The Schedule (which explains the categories in relation to which the different kinds of controls may be imposed by virtue of subsection ( )(b)) has effect."
The noble Lord said: The amendments tabled by the Government to Clause 5 and to the schedule are designed to clarify the role of the schedule and, in particular, put beyond doubt the Government's ability to impose controls in relation to any and all military goods and technologies. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 46, 72, 74, 75, 77, 80 and 81.
At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, suggested that, although he understood the aim of the schedule as being to identify goods with particular characteristics that warranted their being subjected to export control, he was doubtful as to whether that was satisfactorily achieved. In particular, he queried whether the schedule would effectively catch all the firearms, military equipment and dual-use goods subject to control under the present regime. Other comments made in the House and elsewhere in the context of debate about the issue of sustainable development underlined the fact that there was a good deal of confusion as to the function of the schedule, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, rightly suggested, is to identify the types of goods and technologies in relation to which controls may be introduced and the function of guidance in forming the basis for licensing decisions.
In the light of that, the Government have looked again at the schedule and Clause 5, which introduces it, and have concluded that they should be clarified to avoid the confusion that has arisen and put beyond any doubt the Government's ability to impose controls on all the firearms and other military equipment or technology as well as the paramilitary and dual-use equipment and technology that we currently control. We have also tabled amendments to strengthen the provisions on the guidance to be issued governing licensing decisions, which thereby does away with the need for a direct link between the schedule and the matters to he taken into account in such decisions. We shall debate those shortly, but I mention them now, as they will also contribute to clarifying the function of the schedule.
I shall explain in more detail what each government amendment to Clause 5 and the schedule will do. The key amendment to Clause 5 is Amendment No. 43. It will introduce new text to Clause 5 that makes clear the two basic reasons for which controls call be imposed; namely, to give effect to our Community and international obligations, on the one hand, and in relation to certain types of goods and technology and related technical assistance, as defined in the schedule, on the other.
The amendment renders unnecessary the provisions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule, which provide for controls to be imposed in relation to Community and international obligations. Amendment No. 72 would delete those paragraphs. Amendment No. 46 contains some purely consequential amendments needed to take account of the revised text to be introduced by Amendment No. 43.
18
I turn to the amendments to the schedule. The key amendment is Amendment No. 74. This makes it clear that controls can be imposed in relation to military equipment and technology, irrespective of the consequence which its export, transfer or trade might have or which technical assistance provided in relation to it might have. It is clearly right that the Government should he able to continue to control export and related activities of all military equipment and technology, which of course forms the core of our strategic export control regime. While we believe that the schedule as currently drafted should allow this, we have concluded that it is right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, recommended, to make that explicit both for the sake of transparency and to put the matter beyond any doubt.
I should perhaps observe at this point that most dual-use goods and technologies are controlled under the directly applicable European Community law, so it is not necessary or appropriate to refer directly to dual-use goods and technologies in the same way we refer to military goods or technologies. As I have already explained, Clause 5 as amended specifies that the Government can impose controls to meet Community obligations.
The new paragraphs on military equipment and technology do not replace the existing schedule, but supplement the existing provisions in the schedule. While the new paragraphs on military equipment and technology, together with the provisions in Clause 5 on international and European Community obligations, will provide the Government with the power to control all the military equipment and technology, and the vast majority of dual-use equipment and technology that we currently control, we need to continue to be able to impose controls on other items whose export, transfer or trade could have harmful consequences, or to which the provision of technical assistance could have harmful consequences.
I can best illustrate this by quoting a couple of examples of items we currently control which are neither controlled to meet Community or international obligations, nor are military equipment. We have introduced controls on certain non-military explosives because of the risk of these being used for terrorism and we have controls on certain paramilitary equipment, including equipment for which there has been evidence of its use in torture, because of the scope for these being used for internal repression or human rights abuses.
The table in the schedule therefore remains necessary to ensure that the Government can continue to place controls on these types of goods and technologies. Amendments Nos. 75 and 80 simplify the provisions which establish the role of the table and contribute to the overall clarification of the schedule which we believe our amendments as a whole achieve. Amendment No. 81 is purely consequential.
I believe that these amendments greatly improve the Bill by making much clearer the function of the schedule. The noble Lords, Lord Phillips, Lord

19
Razzall and Lord Redesdale, have suggested some changes to our Amendment No. 43 and I shall he interested to listen to their proposals. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I call Amendment No. 43A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 43B. My noble friend Lord Phillips will be speaking to Amendment No. 43A after me.
The Chairman of Committees: I am sorry, but I have called Amendment No. 43A, which seems a rational thing to do.
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, Amendment No. 43A:
Line 5, leave out "a description of thing that is" and insert "goods, technology, or technical assistance falling"
The noble Lord said: I shall cease to be shy and shall come to the fore. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 43A and 43D, which are part of the same group. They are of the most innocent kind. They are designed to render in intelligible English that which one can honestly say is unintelligible. Indeed, when reading the astonishing phrase, "description of thing", one probably ought to utilise a voice which does not vary either up or down. It is a true example of George Orwell's "newspeak". His book,Nineteen Eighty-four, states:
"Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly-created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day".
He went on to anticipate the growth of "newspeak". The amendment surely is newspeak and I hope that my attempt to render it less bizarre does no injustice to the meaning of the clause.
Lord Redesdale: I should now like to—
The Chairman of Committees: It is customary—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Committee. I have been mistaken because I thought that Amendment No. 43 was the amendment which was to be moved and that the other amendments were grouped. I was obviously mistaken in that assumption and therefore I thought that I was speaking to a group of amendments. I apologise to the Committee for speaking out of order.
The purpose of Amendment No. 43B, which amends the Government's amendment, is to remove the potential contradiction between the language used
20
in the amended Clause 5 and the amended schedule and ensure that the Government have the powers they seek to control all military and security equipment.
There is currently an ambiguity in the Government's amendment to the schedule when read with the amended Clause 5. Under the amendment to Clause 5, controls may be imposed only in relation to the categories of "things" referred to in the schedule and not to things which belong to categories not referred to even where they may have relevant consequences. That is because Clause 5(1)(b) as amended states that controls may be imposed only in relation to a description of things that is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the schedule.
That language would appear to preclude the imposition of export or trade controls, for example, in relation to goods or equipment which are not referred to in paragraph 1(1) of the schedule. However, paragraph 2 of the schedule is drafted so as to enable export, transfer, technical assistance and trade controls to be imposed in relation to any "thing" which is capable of having a relevant consequence.
The definition of "military equipment" in paragraph 1 of the amended schedule appears to be inclusive rather than exhaustive, but it is unclear whether it is broad enough to include all the items that may now or in the future be regarded as necessary to control; for example, many items for internal repression, such as handcuffs and riot shields. It would follow that in relation to items which are not referred to, controls may not be imposed even where those items are capable of having the relevant consequences set out in paragraph 2 of the schedule.
Following discussions with the DTI on this point, Matrix Chambers gave the following opinion:
"The DTI expressed the view that it would still be possible under this amendment to impose controls over a wider range of goods than those specifically referred to in the Schedule, provided that they were capable of having a relevant consequence (and leaving aside the power to impose controls in order to give effect to EC/International obligations, which is dealt with separately). In my view, that interpretation is inconsistent with the language of Clause 5 which clearly confines the scope of Clause 5(1)(b) to things within one or more categories referred to in the schedule".
We on these Benches feel strongly about this matter. Obviously, the purpose of the amendment is to be as inclusive as possible. However, in order that we do not have to bring the matter back at later stage, it would be helpful if at this stage the Minister could give an assurance that the Government believe the loophole has been covered with the strongest language possible.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Redesdale, to government Amendment No. 43 seek to clarify the new text that would be inserted by the government amendment. Naturally we share the objective of achieving clarity in the Bill. Let me say that I

21
appreciate the constructive intention that lies behind the amendments and it is in that spirit that I should like to respond.
We have considered the amendments very carefully, but the Government believe that their own draft of subsection (1A) in Amendment No. 43 achieves the desired result and that the further amendments will not quite work. Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I grant that the use of "description of thing" in the government amendment does not at first appear to be particularly elegant. Like myself, the noble Lord was probably brought up not to write English essays in which one referred to "things" all that often. However, I hope to explain why in this case it is appropriate and clear. The important point is that the Bill should express agreed policy in language that is technically accurate in a legal sense.
Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 43 refers to controls that may be imposed only,
"in relation to a description of thing that is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the Schedule".
It is in relation to that subsection that the use of the expression "description of thing" is used again in subsection (1A), so they should be considered together. I do not think there is any doubt at all what is meant here; it is simply a question of how it is expressed.
The reason why the expression "description of thing" is used in the Bill is that it is and has to be generically wide enough to embrace three quite distinct categories, or—it is difficult for obvious reasons to avoid saying this—three distinct "things". Those three things are goods, technology and technical assistance. There is no adequate alternative to "description of thing" that could include all three.
If we turn to the noble Lord's alternative wording, his proposed replacement of "description of thing" with "goods, technology, or technical assistance falling" by itself does appear reasonable. It is simple and may seem to have an advantage in avoiding the use of the expression "description of thing". However, as I mentioned a moment ago, subsections (1) and (1A) need to be considered together. The consequence of using his proposed wording in Amendment 43A is that it lacks a distinction between the terms used; namely, goods, technology and technical assistance, and the terms employed to elucidate their meaning in the definition in his Amendment No. 43D. The result is repetition which, unfortunately, goes against the generally accepted practice of not using terms to be defined as part of a definition. Thus, where we are told that "goods" means "goods", and "technology" means "technology", we are none the wiser. That failure is not rescued by the additional text in brackets.
In contrast, the use in government Amendment No. 43 of the term "description of thing" serves as a hook on which to catch the three separate terms—goods, technology and technical assistance—and it does so without repetition. Hence, in subsection (1A) "description of thing" as the generic expression used in subsection (1) enables us to say with elucidation and without repetition that it means a "description of
22
goods", and similarly with a "description of technology" and a "description of technical assistance". In each case the word "thing", with its useful generic quality, enables us to embrace all three; that is, goods, technology and technical assistance.
I agree that much of this response may sound rather like words written by George Orwell, but this is the technically correct answer to the position.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Redesdale, would provide that "description of thing" referred only to the relevant consequences listed in the schedule. However, as I have already explained, government Amendment No. 74 now makes explicit that controls can be imposed in relation to military equipment and technology. That is irrespective of whether the equipment or technology would have one of the relevant consequences set out in the table to the schedule. For that reason, this amendment would undermine the additional certainty and clarity which Amendment No. 74 will introduce as to the Government's ability to control all military equipment and technology.
I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept my explanation of what at first appears rather awkward language in Amendment No. 43 and agree that the government amendment does achieve what it sets out to do. In the light of that, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments and I invite the Committee to support the Government's proposed amendments as tabled to Clause 5 and the schedule.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: I understand that my noble Friend on the Front Bench has tried most helpfully to clarify the situation, but I hope he will agree that one of the difficulties that both he and Members of the Committee are facing is that the purpose of the Bill seems to have changed over the past year. When the Bill was discussed early last year, the whole objective was to define the purposes for which equipment might be used. Now the emphasis has changed to describing the things that might be used for the wrong purposes. Of course when one starts to describe "things", immediately there are difficulties, because however one tries to draw up the descriptions, the parameters may or may not be adequate. In that context, I wonder whether my noble friend might be tempted to take this away and think on it a little further before the final stages of the Bill.
Perhaps I may cite a specific example. My noble friend has suggested that he needs broad categories, but I wonder whether those categories are sufficiently broad. For example, riot shields, tear gas and handcuffs are not necessarily designed for military use. They are not firearms, they do not require military technology and they are not used to produce military equipment. As I understand it, under the terms of Amendment No. 43 they could not be controlled. However, they could be controlled under the wording of Amendment No. 75. Here lies the inherent contradiction to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, so clearly referred.

23
Amendment No. 75 states that:
"Export controls may be imposed in relation to any goods the exportation or use of which is capable of having a relevant consequence",
as defined in the list set out in the schedule, such as internal repression or regional instability. That is obviously a sensible piece of drafting because it gives the Government a power to control a range of equipment which may not be necessary to fulfil an international obligation, or which may not fit into one of the categories set out in the schedule, but which could, for example, be used for internal repression.
I also understand that my noble friend's own department has stated quite rightly that it favours the "belt and braces" approach as laid out in Amendment No. 75 amending the schedule. But if the Government are not inadvertently to limit the range of equipment that they are able to control, surely they should accept that Amendment No. 43B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would make Clause 5 clearly consistent with the schedule which, in all humility, I suggest to my noble friend is not altogether self-evident and clear at the moment—and that is to put it mildly.
I wonder, therefore, whether in his reply my noble friend can give a specific assurance to the Committee, on the record, that the Bill includes the power to control all police and security equipment under the wording of amended Clause 5.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I can give that assurance very clearly. Members of the Committee will see that subsection (1) of the amendment that I am proposing states that everything in the schedule can be covered. The schedule covers not only military equipment, but also all the categories which have relevant consequences. The particular issues mentioned by my noble friend are all ones which have relevant consequences in terms of the different things mentioned under those headings.
I can give my noble friend a complete assurance that all the issues to which he has referred will be covered. Indeed, I believe that when on Report he sees the Bill as amended, the position will be much clearer.
Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him one further point with regard to Amendment No. 4313. The potential loophole that we envisage could be one for emerging technologies that are not covered or even seen as potentially repressive technologies. I refer to electronic Taser weapons which at the moment are seen as police enforcement weapons, but with the development of technology could have far more significant and sinister purposes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clearly it is impossible to envisage all the emerging technologies. That is why in the Bill we give ourselves the flexibility to introduce, reasonably quickly, new areas of control. When we come to those parts of the Bill, I hope that the noble
24
Lord will remember that point. If some kind of technology which has not been foreseen should emerge, we need the flexibility quickly to take action to control it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: In responding to my two amendments the Minister made three points. The first point was that they led to repetition; the second point was that this is a technical clause; and the third point was that at second or third sight his amendment would seem a good deal better than at first sight. I think he said twice that at first sight it looked ugly or codswallop, or whatever word he used.
Let me take those justifications in reverse order. At first sight it looked gobbledegook; at second sight it looked an abortion; at third sight I was boiling with lawyerly rage. I was boiling with lawyerly rage because I am making a serious point with these two amendments. It is not enough for the Committee to say that this is a technical matter and that this is a technical amendment. Human beings have to interpret the statutes that we leave them with, and the danger in this House and the other place is that, week by week and year by year, we enter into legislation that is so alien in its language and so complex in its execution that the ordinary citizen of this land is left totally at a loss.
I hope the Committee will not think that I am getting too embroiled in a small matter, but we must put a stop to this kind of language. As the Minister refuses to accept my simple point, I shall read his amendment again. It states:
"Controls may only be imposed … in relation to a description of thing that is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the Schedule".
That is not good enough. My suggested improvement may itself not be good enough, but we have to do better. This is not a technical or trivial matter.
As to the question of repetition, this is not simply repetition. My second amendment states:
"'goods"' means goods (subject to export controls or trade controls)"—
which are terms of' art within the Bill—and similarly for "technology" and "technical assistance".
I shall have to study the Minister's justification carefully, but, on listening to it, it seemed to be without virtue and to have behind it a degree of amour proper on the part of the draftsman, which is not a relevant consideration in these matters.
The Earl of Onslow: I came into the Chamber and I heard the Minister giving his reply. I looked at him and he started to grin. He realised that what he was saying was the most frightful load of codswallop, although he did his level best to cover up. Forty million years ago we were in the same House at Eton together, so I can say this to him. Please, please listen to the noble Lord,

25
Lord Phillips. What he said is very real. We cannot pass into legislation that kind of wording. The Minister knows this. I saw his face—it was totally glorious and he giggled feebly.
The Minister was very clever in Mr Gowan's house—much cleverer than I was—so will he please go away and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is not on the basis of any relationship that the noble Earl and I may have had at Eton. Although I believe the amendment to be legally correct, technically right and absolutely clear, I agree that it sounds extremely inelegant. On that basis, I shall try again to see whether we can achieve something more elegant. It will have to meet the legal requirements and be absolutely clear. Although I believe that it is both clear and meets the legal requirements as it stands, in the spirit of the defence of good English I shall try again to meet the noble Lord's points.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is not a question of elegance. I am not looking for fanciness but plain, good, common-sense, understandable English. I am grateful for what the Minister said. Perhaps he and I can speak afterwards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 43A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, Amendment No. 43C:
Line 6, at end insert—
"( ) A control order shall be made for the purpose of giving effect to any obligation of the United Kingdom which arises out of its signature of the UNESCO Convention."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been redrafted because government Amendment No. 43 seeks to change the schedule so comprehensively that the part of the schedule that I had hoped to amend in order to draw the Government's attention to a particular issue suddenly disappeared and came under subsection (1) of Amendment No. 43.
My amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Government shall make control orders which put into effect any obligations which the United Kingdom may face as a result of the Government signing up to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Let me make it clear that I wholeheartedly support the Government's signalled intention to sign up to the convention, but one needs to know what will be the consequences and how they will fall within the remit of the Bill.
26
Page 22 paragraph 3 of the Government's consultation paper stated:
"When taken together, the purposes at paragraphs I, 2 and 4 of the schedule of the draft Bill"—
now amended by the Government to become Clause 5(1)—
"will allow the Secretary of State to make export control orders to establish a regime which would enable him to identify and control the export of goods of significance to the culture of the United Kingdom and Europe".
It continued:
"If, as announced, the United Kingdom Government accedes to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property, the purposes would allow the Secretary of State to implement measures in relation to export control which may contribute to giving it effect in United Kingdom law."
That consultation paper was published on 20th March 2001. Shortly before that, on 14th March, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press release saying that the United Kingdom's signing of the 1970 UNESCO convention was welcomed by the then Minister for the Arts, Mr Alan Howarth, as an important step in tackling the illicit trade in art and antiquities.
The Committee will no doubt be aware that the convention gives members who are signatory to it the right to recover stolen antiquities—primarily ancient and religious artifacts—which turn up across the globe in the countries of fellow signatories. But what has happened since the press release? Not much it would seem, and yet there is reference in the Bill to international obligations and, prior to the Bill, the Government made it clear that the UNESCO convention was certainly part and parcel of what should come within its remit.
Is the Minister aware of a Written Question on this subject, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, who is in his place, and answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone? My noble friend asked the Government,
"When they expect to complete the procedures for the ratification by the United Kingdom of the 1970 UNESCO Convention".—[Official Report, 28/1/02; col. WA 18.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, answered by referring to Mr Howarth's promise of 10 months previously and simply said that she hoped to be able to make a further announcement shortly.
Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made with the consequences of our accession to the UNESCO convention, if we have acceded to it? Which parts of the convention are relevant to the operation of the controls in the Bill? What other international obligations could fall under the restrictions of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. The face of the Bill is very short of references to cultural properties, although they fall within its scope. Indeed, this is where the protection of our cultural properties and the regulation of the import and, particularly, the export of illicit cultural properties falls. As far as I am

27
aware, there is no other such legislation other than one piece of Common Market legislation which has been subsequently brought into effect in this country. These are important matters which are not made clear throughout most of the Bill.
It is a matter for satisfaction, a matter of progress. A year ago, the Government announced their acceptance of the proposal by the illicit trade advisory panel, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, that the 1970 UNESCO convention would after all these years be ratified by the United Kingdom. The working party went into great detail. It explored the various implications and concluded that it would be possible for the United Kingdom to ratify the convention without further legal provision.
It is therefore puzzling that, although an announcement was made in March last year, there has been no clear or evident progress. For that reason, in January, I set down a Question for Written Answer. I was pleased to receive from the Minister for the Arts the reply to which my noble friend referred, indicating that she hoped to be able to make a further announcement to this House shortly.
What are the impediments? That is the specific question I posed previously to which I did not receive a specific enough answer. I am not aware of any impediments—nor are those with whom I am acquainted who know about the law relating to cultural properties. I understand that it was necessary to arrive at certain technical clarifications with the legal departments in Scotland to ensure that there would be no contradictions and that Scottish law would be in harmony with United Kingdom law. However, it was my understanding that those issues had been entirely clarified.
Therefore, I very much hope that in responding to the amendment the Minister may be able to tell us what precisely are the impediments to the papers now being laid by the Government before both Houses of Parliament. I believe that that is a formal procedure which will take only a few weeks, and that it will have the effect of ratifying the Bill. It is a simple matter of laying orders. I should be interested to know what is impeding the Government from laying these important but straightforward orders.
4 p.m.
Lord Hylton: This is a helpful amendment. I hope that the Minister will have in mind not only the possibility of an order preventing the export of British antiquities but also the separate and different case of antiquities belonging to another country which have been brought to London, probably for sale and possibly for re-export. A long and complicated case relating to Egyptian antiquities was written up in the press recently; but is by no means the only such case. This is an important matter.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the announcement made last March. It was made to a
28
conference hosted by the Institute of Field Archaeologists at the Society of Antiquarians at which the noble Lord and I spoke. The announcement was greatly appreciated by the archaeological community. The amendment moves that process on. I echo the question: when will the necessary convention be ratified?
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. It is the Government's intention to accede to the 1970 UNESCO convention. The Government believe, however, that the amendment is unnecessary and that it would have some unfortunate consequences. It is unnecessary because the Bill already provides that a control order may be made for the purpose of giving effect to any,
"other international obligation of the United Kingdom"—
and that commitment will be unchanged if the government amendments to the clause are accepted.
The Government announced in March 2001 that they intended to accede to the convention. That remains our intention. As the convention will impose international obligations on the UK, the Bill as currently drafted is sufficient to cover the situation were the Government to decide that a control order was needed to give effect to an obligation arising from the convention or any other to which they might decide to accede in future.
The key point is to ensure that the Bill contains the power to enable the UK to accede to its international obligations—whether in regard to UNESCO, or any other international obligation. As I have mentioned, the Bill provides that necessary power. In singling out UNESCO, the amendment is, therefore, rather specific and could be limiting. For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, although we recognise the intention behind it.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, raised the point—confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—that accession to the UNESCO convention was identified as a government commitment almost a year ago. It is the case that it has taken rather longer than anticipated to accede. Over that time, a number of legal and policy issues have required clarification in consultation within government, as have some aspects with regard to Scottish legislation to ensure compatibility. There has also been consultation with UNESCO on some outstanding issues. I am happy to place on record the fact that this process is reaching completion. My noble friend Lady Blackstone hopes to be able to make an announcement to House very shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton identified areas of considerable complexity. That explains why great care has been taken to ensure that all aspects are covered before we eventually sign up to the UNESCO convention. The noble Lord's point perhaps helped to reinforce the Committee's appreciation of just how carefully the Government scrutinise such issues. I reiterate that I am able to give an assurance that an announcement will be before the House in the very near future.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister wholeheartedly for his statement that we can expect to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, "very shortly"—which in government terms means that I may yet to live to hear it! I hope that it will be possible to make the announcement before Report. I shall consider between now and then the wording of a possible further amendment. I should, of course, be delighted to give the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the opportunity to make such a statement on the Floor of the House rather than by Written Answer.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew and to the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Redesdale, for their support. I am sure that it was given on the practical basis that we do not want in any way to limit the scope of the Bill or to exclude the possibility of the Government being able to accede in the future to other international obligations if it is proper to do so. The amendment was merely to highlight the fact that there is a long-outstanding matter with regard to accession to the UNESCO convention and that we are becoming somewhat impatient.
As I said. I shall consider carefully whether to bring an amendment back on Report which might properly raise the matter without being limiting. In the mean time, I bee leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 43C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 43, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 43 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from "order" to end of line 22 and insert—

"(a) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(b) provides—

(i) for the order to expire, or

(ii) for the provision imposing controls to cease to have effect,"

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall speak to Amendment No. 45, which is grouped with Amendment No. 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the House has an opportunity to scrutinise any resolution laid before it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 46 and that it' Amendment No. 46 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 47.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Explanatory Notes on Clause 5(2) state:
"It may be considered necessary … to introduce orders imposing export controls, transfer controls, technical assistance controls or trade controls on a temporary or emergency basis".
I accept that that is possible. Amendment No. 45 also accepts that.
However, we believe that the emergency powers that the Government are seeking last far too long. The Government seek to be able to make an emergency order that would last for 12 months. I cannot conceive of an emergency that would last for that period. Much more importantly, the Government are seeking powers to make orders that are not restricted by the schedule, which entirely defines the reasons for which a control order may be made. In other words, Parliament would be giving the Secretary of State the power to make control orders for specific purposes and in specific circumstances, but the Minister is seeking powers to go outside those restrictions in some unspecified situation.
The only restriction that the Government accept is that Clause 12(2) requires such an emergency order to be ratified by a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament within 40 days. In our view, that is the wrong way of going about the problem.
If such unforeseen circumstances arise, of course the Government should make an emergency order. However, experience tells us that those who legislate in haste often repent at leisure. Either the emergency situation will have resolved itself within the three months that we are proposing and the order can be allowed to lapse, or the situation will have clarified itself into one that requires a permanent control order. As that situation is outside the ambit of the schedule, it should he dealt with by an amending Act, not by a so-called temporary emergency order.
What happens if the emergency is not resolved within the 12 months that the Government are asking for? Is there to be a series of orders lasting 11 months and three weeks, even with the positive resolution procedure in place? It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to have the power to make orders having a considerable effect on individuals, and even to subject them to criminal sanctions, when the basis of those orders is not defined in the substantive Bill.
Lord Razzall: I support my noble friend Lord Redesdale on Amendment No. 45. Under Clause 5, the Minister can make a temporary order, provided he lays it before Parliament after 40 days. The amendment would deal with a situation in which a temporary order had a duration of less than 40 days. Bearing in mind that that would be likely to happen only in circumstances of significant emergency, we feel that it would be appropriate for there to he parliamentary scrutiny of such an order. This is a lacuna in the Bill that ought to be rectified. I would welcome the Minister's response to that point.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: Does the noble Lord agree that, further to the important point that he has just made, it is not inconceivable that under the arrangements proposed an order could escape scrutiny altogether, because it could relate to something that was going to happen and finish within the 40 days? That is a serious matter, if we take into account the firm strictures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, on the arms to Iraq affair.
Lord Razzall: As so often, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, puts the matter better than I did.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Both amendments relate to the provision in Clause 5(2) that allows orders to be made for reasons that fall outwith the schedule. Amendment No. 45 would provide that such orders should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of the draft affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 47 would limit the time that such orders may remain in force without the further express consent of Parliament from 12 months to three months. I shall deal with the two amendments in turn.
On Amendment No. 45, the Government agree that any orders made for reasons that exceptionally do not fall within the schedule must require the express approval of Parliament by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we believe that the delayed rather than the draft affirmative resolution procedure is the more appropriate tool for seeking such approval. Clause 12(2) provides for that. It is important to appreciate that any orders made by virtue of Clause 5(2) would most likely be needed to respond to unforeseen emergency situations, when the consequences of any delay might well be serious, such as in the case of emerging technologies that no one had thought of. It is vital that the Government should be able to introduce new controls to deal with such situations immediately. With the best will in the world, one cannot be confident that orders that cannot be introduced until approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament will not be subject to any delay. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Our proposals strike the right balance between being able to move swiftly to deal with unforeseen circumstances and giving Parliament the right to express its views within 40 days.
Amendment No. 47 would reduce significantly the time that temporary orders may remain in force without requiring the further approval of Parliament. While we understand the particular concern that attaches to the order-making power in Clause 5(2), the Government believe that it is reasonable and appropriate that any order made under this part of the Bill that has been expressly approved by both Houses of Parliament may be operated for up to 12 months until it lapses or is required to be resubmitted to Parliament for each House to determine whether it may remain in force. It is reasonable to expect that Parliament should be capable of judging whether any order is fit to be operated for a period of up to 12 months. I repeat that any orders introduced under
32
Clause 5(2) are likely to be needed to deal with serious emergency situations. The Government believe that 12 months is a reasonable compromise between the wish to ensure that any such temporary emergency controls can remain in force for as long as they are needed and the proper concern that controls made for reasons outwith the schedule should not be operated indefinitely.
In view of that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness and the noble Lord not to press their amendments.
Lord Razzall: Is the Minister prepared to comment now or on Report on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that if the Bill is passed in the Government's proposed format, it would be possible for an order in emergency circumstances with a termination date of less than 40 days to be brought forward without any parliamentary scrutiny? What is his comment on that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: An order brought forward in that form would have to be debated. However, the need to act quickly may require that action be taken before debate by Parliament. I shall write to the noble Lord to confirm the situation, but such an order would have to be debated.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for his reply. I also agree that the need for flexibility in certain situations covered by the Bill is of paramount importance. I shall look closely at the reasons given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4. leave out lines 21 to 31 and insert "for its expiry no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which it is made.
(3) The power to make an order which—

(a) amends an earlier order; or

(b) revokes and re-enacts (with or without modifications) an earlier order,

is restricted by subsection (1) only if and to the extent that the order strengthens the controls previously imposed or imposes new controls.
(4) In subsection (3) "an earlier order" does not include an order"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 47 cannot be moved.
[Amendment No. 48 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 48ZA.:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause —
"RESTR ICTIONS ON CONTROLS RELATING TO INFORMATION
(1) An order made under section 2 or 3 of this Act may not impose any control on—

(a) any information in the public domain anywhere in the world (whether or not it is the subject of any patent, copyright, or other form of protection for intellectual property).

(b) the placing of any information in the public domain by publication (including for the purposes of a patent copyright or other form of protection of intellectual property) unless any form of restriction is permitted by virtue of any other Act.

(2) An order made under section 2, 3 or 4 of this Act may not impose any control on any information transferred orally or in writing or electronically in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research unless the person transferring the data knows or ought to have known that such information would have a relevant consequence as defined in the Schedule."
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I should like to place on record my disquiet about some of the ways in which we have reached the current position. I say "disquiet" rather than "anger" although I felt quite cross at the time. Last Wednesday, the Minister was extremely courteous to me when he telephoned and explained that, although Clause 7 would not be included in the Bill, I could nevertheless speak to my amendments to Clause 7, and he would reply to those amendments. I expressed my concerns on the telephone.
The following day, as agreed, my office telephoned his office. I was told that I should change my amendment into a new clause and move it after Clause 6, enabling me to speak before the Minister moved his relevant amendment. The Public Bill Office confirmed that it had been told exactly the same thing by the department. We went away after tabling such an amendment.
It was not until Friday morning that we discovered that my amendment was not after Clause 6, but after Clause 7. The reason given for the change was that Clause 6 had been dealt with in our first day in Committee, After quite a hassle—it was not unpleasant, but the matter has taken quite a bit of time to work out—I found myself able to introduce this amendment after Clause 5. I raise the issue with the Minister simply because this is a very important amendment on which I have worked very long and hard, and it is important that it be considered in the right place.
I can also tell the Minister that it was when I came in on Friday—the House was sitting to consider the tobacco Bill, although I was not involved—that I discovered where my amendment had been placed in the Marshalled List. I found on my desk a letter from him saying that the New Scientist article contained many inaccuracies but that there would be no apology until after today. Therefore, had I not come in on Friday, I would have arrived today prepared to discuss my amendment—now new clause—which was based
34
on the article and on the briefings from Universities UK, unaware that, somewhere along the line, the Government did not agree with them.
I think that, as the Minister was kind enough to telephone me on the Wednesday, a telephone call could have been made to me about this matter. It should not have been dealt with in a letter left on my desk on a Friday afternoon. In taking briefings from the people concerned, I have had to contact America and serious academics in this country. I feel that this is an entirely improper way of dealing with this type of amendment. I simply wanted to put my feelings about that on the record.
This is a major and important amendment which I am proposing at the request of Universities UK, formerly known as the Council of Vice Chancellors and Principals, and the Association of University Teachers, which represents 45,000 academic and academic-related staff in universities and colleges. I am very glad to bring forward the amendment as I very much believe in its essence. It is a very important amendment which I hope the Government will decide to accept.
The amendment covers a subject of the gravest concern, prompting anxiety throughout the whole of scientific academia, both among individuals and the institutions in which they work. I have been briefed of the problem rather late in the Bill's progress and it may very well be that the proposed subsections are not in the best possible place, especially in view of the late changes and new clauses that the Government themselves have just introduced to the Bill, eight months after it was first presented to Parliament. However, so long as the Government accept the principles behind the amendment, I am sure that we shall be able to agree a new spot and any necessary modification to the wording before we reach the next stage.
Export controls on goods affect mainly trade. Important as the free movement of goods may be, it is easy to understand the claims of public policy in the interests of national security, and it is relatively easy to define the boundaries of what types of goods may not be exported—such as weapons or anything capable of being used as such. However, control over the export of ideas is a radically different issue. The whole problem dealt with by these amendments revolves around the issues of freedom of expression, freedom of teaching and freedom of research. Those freedoms are fundamental human rights that give way less readily to the claims of the state. The extension of controls on goods to controls on intangibles—the control of ideas—is therefore a radical step with serious constitutional implications.
Goods are exported if they are physically moved out of the country. Ideas are physically harder to control. In order to control the export of ideas, which is what the Government are attempting to do in Clause 2(2)(c), they propose—mark this well, my Lords—to control the exchange of ideas even within the United Kingdom. The Government offer the sop of a qualification that this totalitarian restriction applies only where,
"there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom".

35
Practically any publication of information may result in it being used abroad. It can certainly be assumed that any technology taught to foreign students will be used by them when they return home. Clearly the Government, despite their protestations to the contrary, are taking powers to license foreign students and regulate what they may be taught. What is to be avoided is any power in Whitehall to impose prior scrutiny of research and restraint of the publication of the results of research.
The Minister has given assurances to some academic representatives that the Bill will not be used to restrict the transfer of information already in the public domain. "Public domain" has not been defined by the Minister, nor is it in my amendment; however, I am sure that there is no difficulty on that score. It is already a term with which the courts are familiar in the application of the Patents Acts. I have tried to make it plain that "public domain" is not restricted to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, freedom of publication must apply to the results of research.
The Minister disclaims any intention to impose such controls and points to the existence of exemptions in the current regime. Exemption exists by the grace and favour of the Minister. It is essential, however, that academic freedom should be entrenched in well-defined primary legislation and that exception to that right should be specifically established by Parliament.
In these days of mass communication, if something is known in Lapland it can be assumed that it is known in the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States of America or wherever. However, without doubting the Minister's word, it is clearly essential to put academic freedom into words if only to protect against the actions of an over-zealous official at some future time. We are not used in this country to extra-statutory exemptions from the strict wording of an Act of Parliament, nor of a law being interpreted by ministerial ex cathedra pronouncements.
Hitherto, someone in the United Kingdom who made a new scientific discovery or technical innovation had a choice: he could apply for a patent, in which case the Government had the opportunity to suppress it as a sort of state secret, or he could effectively give it to the world simply by publishing it. In the latter case the Government had no power of control. This has been seen by academics as a fundamental freedom. However, it seems that some parts of Whitehall have seen that right to publish and exploit one's work as a loophole that they have to close. That sort of outlook has made it hard, if not impossible, for successive governments to come up with a satisfactory freedom of information Act.
There is no question but that the broad wording of Clauses 2 and 3 imposes prior restraint on academic publication and international co-operation in research. I cannot believe that it is practical to have civil servants review tens of thousands of scientific papers every year to decide whether a licence should be granted under the powers sought in the Bill. For that to be done properly would require funding far beyond
36
the regulatory impact assessment which has already been made. I believe that it is also a major breach of the human rights convention.
What is required, therefore, is an exemption for communications in the ordinary course of academic research and teaching. The Minister points to an exemption in existing controls for basic scientific research. But there are two flaws in that. First, these controls are too important to be left to secondary legislation. Secondly, the phrase "basic scientific research" is too narrowly defined, being limited to exclude work with a practical application.
The Minister justifies the exclusion of the existing exemptions from the Bill and their intended inclusion in secondary legislation on the grounds that the definition of public domain and basic scientific research are derived from international agreements which might be changed. That is the exact point. The purpose of having the exemptions enshrined in the Bill is to make it hard for them to be removed or changed on the whim of a group of international officials. It is far from reassuring that the Minister puts his department's legislative convenience above the importance of what we are talking about—academic freedom.
I ask the Minister to note that I have placed a restriction on the power to publish scientific work for copyright or patent purposes by excluding cases where other legislation permits the Government to impose such a restriction—for example, certain restrictions on obtaining patents or cases governed by the Official Secrets Act. I should like to think that the wide powers under Clauses 1 and 2 to review scientific papers are either an excess of zeal or an oversight by the department and are not due to some bureaucratic motive or something more sinister.
I cannot accept that the fears of academics—I think that I can fairly call them learned and highly intelligent academics— which have been expressed forcefully to me are due to a misinterpretation of the powers that the Government seek. In either case, the amendment in the proposed new subsection (3) would set the matter beyond any doubt.
The other part of the amendment ensures that we are not bogged down by seeking some excessively restrictive interpretation of public domain. I believe that the paragraph restricts the phrase to its ordinary, every day meaning. The Bill must not be used to introduce a restriction into academic teaching or to regulate the dissemination of well-known scientific material, including computer software. There may be a good case for strengthening the protection of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property, especially from piracy via the Internet. But this Bill, which exists for an entirely different purpose, is not the place to police such illegal activities.
I understand that the Government will shortly introduce regulations which will implement the European copyright directive which is the right way to deal with the piracy problem. The first paragraph of the amendment secures the right to publish scientific discovery and the right for academics and others to

37
teach material already in the public domain to British students and the thousands of foreign students who come here. It will also enable British academics to teach abroad without getting prior sanction from Whitehall or having their courses censored by it. While my amendments cover most undergraduate teaching, they do not fully cover research, much of which in these days of high costs and often funding by multinational companies, is itself the subject of international co-operation.
My brief informs me that most of the research students in science and technology at our top universities are foreign nationals. I understand that at Oxford and Cambridge three-quarters of them are from overseas. I shall not become involved in a debate about which are what my brief calls the top universities. But places in our universities, especially in science subjects, are rightly much sought after by foreign graduates in order for them to conduct their advanced studies and postgraduate research in this country. This country, with such a high reputation for academic excellence, will be the poorer if we drive students and tutors away to other countries by threatening them with censorship and even 10 years' imprisonment for publishing their theses.
Another question which arises from this apparent preponderance of foreign science and technology students is whether there are to be licensing controls on which students can study which subjects, and how that would affect students coming from the EU. The late Lord Reid once observed:
"Income tax, if I may be forgiven for saying so, is a tax on income".
This Bill is supposed to be about export controls, that is, the control of exports. Why are the Governrnent trying to impose restrictions on the normal exchange of information in the world of research and academic study? They would not dare to introduce such a concept in a stand-alone Bill.
How do the Government propose to enforce the provisions of the Bill concerning the dissemination of academic information? Are correspondence and scientific papers to be censored? Is there to be eavesdropping on telephones, the Internet and e-mails? What control is there to be over an overseas student when he returns home, disseminating what he has learned here? Does this already control-freak Government propose to regulate the world of teaching, study and research by the introduction of thought police? How else will they discover what is going on? How long do they think that our academics and science graduates will remain in this country and not "export" themselves rather than submit to the regime proposed by the Government? I do not exaggerate.
What degree of control will the Government have, whether or not they choose to exercise it, over international co-operation between our universities and institutions overseas? I draw the Committee's attention to the voluntary vetting scheme under which universities are encouraged to seek guidance from Whitehall before offering research places in sensitive subjects and dual-use technology to foreign nationals.
38
Many universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have refused to participate in this scheme, presumably on the grounds of its political incorrectness and racial undertones. They suggest that the problem should be resolved via the visa process, but that would not apply to students from the EU and possibly the United States.
The amendment to subsection (4) restores academic freedom for our teaching establishments with the requirement that the freedom does not apply when the institution knows, or common sense should tell it, that a particular subject is not one suitable for general dissemination. After all, one can get information on how to make dirty atomic weapons, nerve gas and even conventional explosive devices from the Internet. Restrictions on our universities will not hinder that in any way. I reject the argument— should the Minister consider trotting it out—that the Bill will bring the United Kingdom into line with European regulations made in 2000 which extend export controls to include intangibles.
The prime mover in pushing those extensions in the first place was the United Kingdom. But the European regulations do not require the United Kingdom to impose regulation on domestic transfer, nor on publication controls or restrictions on information already in the public domain. Indeed, the provision exempting matters in the public domain is plain common sense. To try to restrict that in any way would make the law a complete ass.
I summarise the problems which the Government have created by the proposals. I quote from a paper which appeared in the influential and learned journal, the New Scientist, last month, contributed by Dr Ross Anderson, a computer scientist at Cambridge, and cofounder of the Foundation for Policy Research and by Nicholas Bohm, a member of the Law Society's Electronic Law Committee. They say that the Bill will give the Government a right of prior review of scientific papers and the right to censor them. Those controls will extend to software, e-mails, designs and presentation slides. They could prevent scientists from assessing and replicating colleagues' work and it threatens to undermine the very fabric of the scientific process.
The problem of the so-called "dual use list" is that it covers anything that the MoD thinks is high-tech. I do not accept, and I hope that the Government will not say, that these matters can be dealt with in regulations. I believe that they are of sufficient importance to be dealt with in the body of the Bill, especially in view of the well-known problem of modifying and amending secondary legislation.
The Quadripartite Committee of the other place said:
"We recommend the incorporation into the Bill of the safeguards for bona fide academic activity set out in the commentary on the draft Bill and in the evidence of the Secretary of State".
Why have the Government rejected the recommendations of that very influential committee? Why have the Government resiled from what the former Secretary of State, Mr Stephen Byers,

39
apparently told the Quadripartite Committee by attempting to take draconian powers in the Bill, which they suggest that they may modify in secondary legislation?
The Minister prepared a riposte to the article in New Scientist, as I mentioned earlier when I referred to my concern, which was unfortunately apparently unable to offer him the space for its publication before today's debate. He has, however, been courteous enough to send me and others a draft and he will no doubt make his own comments shortly. But having consulted with Dr Anderson and Mr Bohm over the weekend, perhaps the kindest way I can describe his riposte to their reasoned complaints and fears is that it contains many red herrings scattered like straws in the wind, if I am permitted to mix metaphors.
At this point I believe that I should mention briefly Amendments Nos. 48E, 48F and 48G to my Amendment No. 48ZA, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. They certainly have some merit. At a later stage, when my amendment will be reintroduced, we shall together consider the matter and decide how we can incorporate their ideas into my amendment. In the meantime, I am glad that it appears that, on this occasion at least, we are together on this problem.
The Government said that they conceded that a licence should not apply to information in the public domain. However, that is not in the Bill as it ought to be, which is, therefore, why it comprises part of my amendment. I hope that even if the Government will not accept these amendments in their present position in the Bill, and even perhaps in their present form, they will agree to some alternative method of assuaging the fears of the very responsible body which has raised the issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48ZA, Amendment No. 48ZB:
Line 5, after "information" insert "already"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 48ZB, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48ZC and 48ZD. I need not detain the Committee long on this matter. The amendments seek to clarify the situation and to spell out a little further Amendment No. 48ZA. Amendment No. 48ZB is self-explanatory. It is a minor amendment. The word "already" adds a little clarification, but it is purely clarification.
Amendment No. 48ZC picks up the words that the Government used in their commentary on the Bill. As I say, it provides a little further clarification which we believe is useful. It refers to publication in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research, but also enables concerns about certain material to be met. It places the onus specifically on the Secretary of State. I refer to a situation in which an academic knows that the material he or she is publishing contravenes the terms of the schedule; namely, that it concerns
40
weapons of mass destruction or is related to missile production or is specifically prohibited by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 48ZD omits the words, "ought to have known" as it seems to me that one either knows or does not know about the matter we are discussing. The words "ought to have known" would lead to much uncertainty and it is, therefore, better for them to be omitted. The insertion of the words,
"has been informed by the Secretary of State".
in place of the words, "ought to have known", places the onus on the Secretary of State in terms of transparency. If he or she states that the material should be withdrawn, the matter is out in the open and is transparent.
While I am on my feet I should say how much I sympathise with the case that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is extremely important that we have on the face of the Bill not just promises as regards secondary legislation but that academic freedom is upheld and recognised. There are dangers as regards censorship being imposed and the Secretary of State having the right to censor academic publications. These days when publication involves not just written material but also software and e-mails, it is extremely difficult to maintain that stance. It is not necessary for the Secretary of State to have these wide, sweeping powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the danger that the Secretary of State is in effect also seeking a power to license foreign research students. There is currently a voluntary agreement with the universities as regards vetting foreign research students entering this country. However, it is implied that that would be made compulsory. Research today is an international and multinational business. Collaboration is the name of the game. One corresponds constantly with other people. One should not need to ask oneself, "Should I stop doing this because there is a danger that I may breach the terms of the export control legislation"? It should be made quite clear that in a limited number of circumstances an academic has a responsibility to consider such matters; that is, when he or she knows that they are breaching the terms of the schedule in relation to weapons of mass destruction or missile technology as regards material which might be of value to enemies of the state. However, apart from those circumstances, or where the Secretary of State explicitly makes a request in relation to certain material, it is most unfortunate and most regressive that the Government are proposing these powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not so far taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. However, I support what my noble friend Lady Miller said and the spirit of the group of amendments. I refer to my experience on the governing bodies of two universities in Scotland and of the Open University, to which the amendment is particularly applicable. I remind the Committee that this matter does not concern only Oxford and Cambridge, about which we have heard so much, although there is nothing wrong with either Oxford or

41
Cambridge. The freedom of academics to teach, to research and to share the results of their research across the world is absolutely vital to the whole international world of academia and is also vital to this country.
Too often legislation inadvertently becomes part of the law of unintended consequences. I believe that the Bill is probably a case in point of a quite dangerous nature. At various stages the Government have discussed these problems with the universities—with university teachers and vice-chancellor representatives—and I understand that they have moved in certain respects. However, the fact remains that there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that the international dimension of what universities do in the ordinary course of their work is not caught by it.
I am sure that the Minister understands that point; he is in a good position to do so. I hope that the word "resist" is not written across his brief. I look forward to cutting out, framing and hanging somewhere in my house the words he used when he resisted one of the amendments, as I considered that a special example of resistance by a government.
The point at issue here is most important. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I suspect that the wording of the amendments will have to be a matter for the Government, because this is a complicated business. I hope that the noble Lord will give us an assurance that this protection will be placed on the face of the Bill. It is not good enough for such provision to he covered by secondary legislation; it must be on the face of the Bill. I trust the Minister will tell us that that is his intention.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: While speaking in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I must declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. At the outset, I should point out that the purpose of the Bill is one that Universities UK has welcomed since it was first considered in 1998. Universities welcome measures that are designed to bring up to date legislation that dates back to before the Second World War. The existing position is clearly unsatisfactory. But at the same time, we made it clear in our response to the Government's White Paper in 1998—and, indeed, reiterated that point before the Quadripartite Committee in another place—that there is a compelling need to secure academic freedom in the Bill for those who carry out vital, cutting edge research in our higher education institutions.
My point is that we must not throw out the vital baby of academic endeavour with the murky bath water of an insecure world. The Government have certainly moved their position since 1998, and they now accept that there is legitimate concern in this respect. We welcome the fact that the present Bill has gone some way towards addressing the concerns expressed in 1998 about interference with legitimate academic activities, but the academic community is not convinced that the right balance has yet been
42
struck. Therefore, on behalf of university vice-chancellors, I should certainly like to see the legislation amended to indicate a clear commitment to academic freedom on the face of the Bill.
As has already been pointed out, the vice-chancellors are united with their academic staff through the Association of University Teachers in seeking an amendment to the Bill. Many of the criticisms and concerns that have been brought to my attention have already been articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. However, the wide definitions in the Bill have also caused concern. The phrase "relevant consequences" in the schedule is so wide that a large swathe of science and technology potentially falls within it. I am sure that that would not be the Government's intention.
It is very important to stress that many of the concerns are about potential dangers—many of which the Government have already accepted and plan to deal with in secondary legislation. That is an option that Universities UK has discussed with government officials. Those talks have convinced us that the Government in no way want to impinge upon academic freedom by way of the Bill. But academics would see this incorporation in secondary legislation as being very much a second-best option. Even with secondary legislation, the dangers would seem to remain: they will stay set out in primary legislation that could, in theory, be used by a government some time down the line. So, in my view, secondary legislation would be seen as a weak guarantee of freedom.
Ministers have indicated that one reason for leaving much of the detail to secondary legislation is to allow them to adapt quickly the export control regime to changing international obligations. Obviously, that is a sensibly pragmatic approach. But it is with the same ease that the export control regime could be adapted to meet international obligations that the guarantee of academic freedom could he altered, as it is set out in exactly the same way. It is also difficult to envisage how a guarantee of academic freedom on the face of the legislation could impinge on the UK's international obligations in the future. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will enlighten the Committee.
I do not wish to rehearse these points any further. I believe that a debate on such points is vital. The issue has certainly caused an enormous amount of concern in the academic community. I look forward to hearing what guarantees my noble friend can offer that community.
Lord Watson of Richmond: It is not a matter of the good intentions of the Minister, or, indeed, of the clarity of the noble Lord's understanding of such issues: the question is what the law might in future say. When the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was speaking to her amendment a short while ago, it was clear from the Minister's demeanour that he felt that she was painting an apocalyptic picture that was not justified by any likely outcome. With respect, I say, again, that that is not the issue. The issue is what the law might say.

43
As drafted at present, the law does not say enough and does not say the right things. That is the point we must address. It is not an issue of secondary legislation; it is an issue of primary legislation. Therefore, we are supportive of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Some of the colours in her picture may have been a trifle lurid, but her heart is most assuredly in the right place.
I have one further point to make. It is most important for all of us to understand the reality of the scientific and intellectual exchange that is so vital to the academic community in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. I declare an interest in that I now find myself chairman of the Chemistry Advisory Board at Cambridge, albeit that, by training, I am an historian.
Only last week, I was talking about this issue to Professor Saunders, who is head of the Chemistry Department at Cambridge and someone whom the Minister knows well. He expressed rather vividly the fact that he had within the past few weeks been involved in the writing of a scientific paper that had to be submitted in its final version within a 24-hour span. He did so on the basis of an hour-by-hour electronic interchange with scientists in Australia and in Europe. That exchange took place at a certain point almost on a minute-by-minute basis. That is the reality of the dynamic of research and the exchange of ideas. The phrase that the professor used was one that struck me powerfully; namely, that without conversations across the world all the time and every day, science simply could not move forward.
I remind the Minister that, as part of Cambridge University, we now have the Centre for Molecular Informatics, about which he is aware. The whole purpose of that centre is to bring to bear the very latest information technology to facilitate the day-by-day and hour-by-hour—sometimes minute by minute—international exchange of data and of ideas. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is that he should understand the basis of the concern. It is not fear about something that someone might do; the basis of the concern is that this reality and importance of scientific exchange should be explicitly recognised in the Bill. It is not a matter for the Minister to deal with at a later stage, and it is not a matter for secondary legislation. It is a matter for the Bill.
Lord Judd: In our unqualified commitment to the principles of academic freedom—I take second place to no one in this respect—we must ensure that we do not gloss over some very real issues that my noble friend the Minister has to face when dealing with this legislation. The Bill is about what can happen in the world in terms of suffering, slaughter, and the destruction of democracy; indeed, all the horrors that we have seen too frequently in recent decades. It is not simply in the realm of what are loosely called "weapons of mass destruction", although that needs to be qualified. As we recently saw most clearly, it is in the whole realm of bacteriological and chemical warfare, and so on.
44
An immense range of very complex issues is involved. We should not gloss over them. However, I should like to join noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who have stressed that, in our concern for that very real issue and the purpose of the Bill, we must remember what it is that we are trying to defend throughout the world; namely, a civilised, decent society of which academic freedom is one of the cornerstones. We must get the balance right. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reconsider the matter.
I gained the impression that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will not press the amendment to a vote and that she will go away and think further about it. I have one suggestion for her, which I hope she will find helpful. In the amendment, she refers to the transfer of information,
"orally or in writing or electronically".
I wonder, in any redrafting of amendments, whether it might not be sensible to refer to information transferred "by any means". That would ensure that the Bill could deal with any changes to the systems of information transfer that may be developed. We live in a fast-changing situation. One never knows what will happen next year in the world of information transfer. It would be unfortunate to confine ourselves in an amendment to what is at the moment without taking into account what might be in the future.
5 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I was very relieved to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. For a moment, I thought that he was going to take a different course. I, too, feel that this is an extremely important amendment. It is strange that this matter was not raised with vigour at an earlier stage and that it did not form an important part of our debate at Second Reading. Some of us were slow to be alerted to the matter. Fortunately, my noble friend Lady Miller was quicker than many of us.
This subject is one on which your Lordships' House has a very fine reputation. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others will remember a decade or so ago, when we were new to this House, that the then Conservative government proposed legislation that was felt by many to impinge on academic freedoms. Many of us from all sides of the House spoke out at that time with considerable vigour.
I do not for a moment imagine that the Government are seeking to do something nefarious at this turn. However, they are making the same old mistake that we encountered 10 years ago and subsequently; that is, they are relegating to secondary legislation the tidying up that follows and brings with it all of the dangers in question. I feel very strongly that the Government would be well advised to take these criticisms on board and bring back into primary legislation those safeguards that I am given to understand they have already given informally.

45
Some of these matters have already been rehearsed and I shall not go through them at length. The House of Commons Quadripartite Committee was told by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that,
"he was sure that the provisions … requested could be incorporated into the Bill".
The committee's report said:
"We recommend incorporation into the Bill of the safeguards for bona fide academic activity set out in the commentary on the draft Bill and in evidence from the Secretary of State".
However, the Secretaries of State for Defence, for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Trade and Industry declined to follow that recommendation of the Quadripartite Committee. They said:
"The Government was pleased at the welcome given by Universities UK to the modifications proposed by the Government to meet concerns of the academic community about the proposals on intangible transfers … The Government does not, however, consider that it would be appropriate to incorporate these points in primary legislation".
They went on to refer to the issue of convenience, which has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and others. They said:
"As strategic export controls derive largely from international obligations, the Government believes that it is important that the Bill provides the powers necessary to allow it to adapt its controls".
The Government have never previously had any problem with introducing legislation to adapt controls to new international legislation that is enacted. In fact, most international legislation requires adjustments and consequent legislation in this country. Those are weasel words for administrative convenience.
It is now clear that it is really important to have primary legislation to enshrine the academic safeguards. I shall not go into detail—the case has already been made very well by my noble friend Lady Miller, who was perhaps a shade apocalyptic at times. However, as has already been said, the apocalypse may follow, and we do not always rely on the wisdom of noble Lords opposite to take a wise course because they will not always be in that position.
I strongly urge the Government to take the matter away. The academic world has been slow to wake up to the matter and Universities UK was perhaps rather ready to accept that secondary legislation might do. I have now taken part in many debates in your Lordships' House in which many Peers, from all sides—some academic, some not—wished to defend the very principles that are at risk today. The Government would do well to take the matter away and see what they can introduce in primary legislation, via modest amendments, that will safeguard the principle without bringing them untold administrative inconvenience, which we are not seeking. We do not doubt that they are bona fide, but the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was absolutely right to say that it is important that primary legislation holds tight, although it also has to work subtly and effectively so that the Government can do their business.
46
No one wishes to exaggerate the threat, but there is a real threat in this regard. Frankly, now that the point has been brought to the surface in this clear manner, it will not be good enough unless the Government think further about it.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I declare an interest as a professor at University College. I support the principles of the amendment and of Amendments Nos. 48ZB and 48ZC, which involve a matter of law and of administration.
The Bill has given rise to very considerable concern among academics involved in advanced science and technology. The e-mails have fairly been humming this week. Those who are particularly concerned are involved in computer science and, especially, cryptography. They fear that the Bill will empower officials to prevent them from communicating their research, from collaborating on advanced projects with other countries, from recruiting research students and even from teaching abroad.
Some of the concerns and suspicions have arisen because of unfortunate interactions—I can think of no other way to put it—between officials in various government departments and the academics who are involved in these advanced areas of technology. Those interactions gave rise to considerable grounds for suspicion. Despite the best expressions from the Minister, an extremely explicit statement in the Bill is required to overcome those concerns. We need virtually a procedural development to ensure that once the Bill is enacted, there will be open discussions and seminars between the officials who will administer the matter and the universities affected. That way, everyone will understand what is involved. There is currently considerable difficulty.
As the Bill stands, it may prevent the placing of certain academic information in the public domain. Members of the Committee may not be aware that the United States has established very draconian powers along the lines that some people fear exist in the Bill. Those powers involve controlling the publication and communication of science. In relation to some scientific projects in the United States, it is obligatory for the academics involved to send copies of all e-mails to certain members of the US Government. We in the United Kingdom have benefited from such restrictions in the United States—some of the affected people have come to this country. Do we want the same situation to occur in relation to this country?
One worrying feature of the Bill is that it may lead to the anonymous application of such control powers. As we have heard, some universities have refused to accede to such an anonymous application of power, whereas other universities have gone along with it. There is a concern that a university may have to decline foreign students and accept that that is the responsibility not of Her Majesty's Government but of the university. The fear of having to be not explicit, as it were, is at the heart of some of the concerns.
I very much hope that any kind of restriction is explicitly in the hands of the Secretary of State—that is a feature of the amendment. It is improper for

47
universities to have to act with subterfuge in terms of turning people away because they may be deemed to be a security risk.
Finally, I believe that the Bill is important. Where there are major risks, the Government must be clear that they are taking responsibility for them and are not using universities in the way I have described. I very much hope that the amendment is agreed to.
Lord Morgan: I follow my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in expressing my deep disquiet about this aspect of the Bill, which otherwise I am perfectly happy to support. The principle underlying it is the political vetting of research. Academics will he second-guessed by bureaucrats or politicians who will say that their research is or is not "in the national interest".
Unless the Bill is altered, that is how it will remain, and there is nothing more destructive to intellectual freedom and freedom of inquiry. The proposal covers the whole extent of research—so broad is the definition of technology and the work done on it. It covers teaching, research and publication. It is deeply worrying that all those areas will be open and that the proposal will also affect the prospect of people coming here to work on research and the beneficial interchange that flows from that.
I do not believe that it is sufficient to rely on secondary legislation. The 20th century is absolutely riddled with examples, from McCarthyism onwards, where academics have found that all types of unexpected legal obstacles have turned out to be more serious than they were thought to be. I believe that Aneurin Bevan said that one guarantees a freedom by adding another freedom to it. I believe that that is profoundly relevant in this case.
As a member of the Association of University Teachers and an ex-member of what in my day was called the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—it now has a jazzed-up name—I share the concerns. Three fundamental principles are threatened: the freedoms of inquiry and thought; the freedom of movement of academics abroad and of research students here; and the internationalism of universities. Universities are truly part of a republic of learning that knows no boundaries. They should not be contained by bureaucratic definitions of the "national interest". Therefore, I hope that the Government will alter this provision and that they will specifically write in safeguards which are not there at present; otherwise, at some point in the future we shall be in danger of going the way of totalitarian regimes all over the world.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It was a long time ago, but I apologise to the noble Baroness if any inconvenience was caused by changing round the clauses. I shall look into the matter to ensure that it does not happen again. I believed that, in writing to her about where the New Statesman article was wrong, I
48
had fulfilled my responsibilities. I should perhaps have faxed my letter to her but, as she paid not a blind bit of notice to what was in my careful rebuttal, I do not feel in any way concerned about that.
I shall deal at length with this issue because I believe that a great deal of misinformation has been put out about it. Having suffered for many years from professors telling me to read the question carefully, I suggest to them that they read the legislation carefully and also look at the dummy orders that have been carefully produced to cover this point.
I should point out that I am not only the Minister with responsibility for taking the Bill through this House; I am also the Minister with responsibility for science and innovation. I have spent almost the past four years saying how important it is that we have international contacts for science. I am proud of the fact that in this country we carry out 4·5 per cent of all the world's science. That means that 95 per cent of the science in the world is carried out by other countries. If we are to remain a world-class scientific nation, we must have constant and frequent contact with those other scientists.
Equally, I believe that there is nothing in the Bill and in the legislation that we are producing that in any way prevents that from happening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that it is not a question of what my or the Government's intentions might be; it is a matter of what the Bill and the secondary legislation says and a question of what other legislation exists to prevent the secondary legislation being altered in a way that would make it difficult for scientists.
Amendment No. 48ZA seeks to place on the face of the Bill an exclusion from control of any information which is in the public domain or is placed in the public domain. It also seeks to exclude information transferred during the course of academic teaching or research unless the person transferring the information knows that that could have been one of the consequences listed in the schedule to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 48ZB, 48ZC and 48ZD would modify the amendment to allow the Secretary of State to prevent information being placed in the public domain by informing a person that publication of data would have a relevant consequence as defined in the schedule.
We have made clear that exemptions for information which is in or is being put into the public domain will apply to the new controls on intangible transfers to be introduced under the Bill. That means that if one publishes a scientific paper or refers to information already in the public domain, it is not in any way controlled under the Bill. There will also be exemptions for basic scientific research where the equivalent export in physical form would be exempt.
However, perhaps I may explain why it is extremely difficult to include such exemptions in primary legislation, as the new clause seeks to do. Strategic export controls derive largely from international obligations. The Bill must provide the Government with the powers to implement those international obligations and to adapt their controls to reflect any

49
changes in our international obligations in the future. For example, under the new controls the planned exemption for information in the public domain will be based on the exemption currently contained in the European Community Dual-Use Items Regulation.
That regulation, in turn, uses a concept of "public domain" derived from the international export control regimes, including, for example, the Wassenaar arrangement. That agreement is signed up to by 33 countries, including the United States and most of the major industrial countries in the world. The definition of "public domain" is kept under review by the international regimes, and the Government consider it crucial to he able to keep our own national legislation in line with the international concept and definitions used. The proposed new clause would mean that any changes to definitions used by the international regimes could be incorporated into UK law only by means of new primary legislation, making it impossible for the Government to respond to and implement international commitments promptly.
Moreover, under European Community legislation there already exists a specific control on the export or transfer by electronic means of information in the public domain. The European Community regulation to which I referred, which has been in force in the UK since September 2000, together with the UK's Dual-Use (Export Control)) Regulations, imposes controls on the transfer of technology by physical or electronic means where the provider knows, is informed by government or has grounds for suspecting that the technology or software is or may be intended for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction or related missile programmes.
No exemptions apply in respect of this end-use control. That is because the view of all members of the European Community is that knowingly to send to a weapons of mass destruction proliferator even a published book or journal which could contribute in some way to that weapons programme would be wrong. The proposed new clause would prevent the Government from continuing to implement that control in full.
I hope that all Members of the Committee will agree that to have an export control Bill which did not enable us to prevent information knowingly being given to people who wished to create weapons of mass destruction would be an absurdity. That we should spend our time in this Chamber debating whether we can control the movement of firearms from one part of the world to another—none of them in Britain—and at the same time—
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that all Members of the Committee who have spoken agree that it is necessary to prevent the creation of weapons of mass destruction and to prevent the communication of weapons relating to mass destruction. It is hoped that the Government will produce an amendment which will indicate specifically that they would be able to intervene when a fear or suspicion that information relating to weapons of mass destruction was involved.
50
That point would be accepted on all sides of the Committee, and I am sure that the noble Lord need not labour it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I raised the matter only because that is the one point introduced by the Bill and its associated secondary legislation where we are operating that type of control. I consider it necessary to make that point having listened to the apocalyptic remarks made in this Chamber about controlling every paper produced by scientists and preventing communications between scientists of every country. It is worth making the point that the Bill controls simply the oral communication of information which is not in the public domain and which would lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction. I believe that that is sensible and important. I make the point that that is what the Bill controls. I turn to the other question, which is possibly—
Earl Russell: Is the noble Lord aware that in 1982 an undergraduate in the department of nuclear physics at Princeton, subsequently a candidate for Congress, constructed a nuclear bomb in the course of his studies? Is the Minister trying to tread a line so narrow as to be invisible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, I believe that it is sensible. In the real and practical world, if we are faced with a situation in which we know that a person in this country, a scientist or whoever, is giving information, and knowingly wants to give information, to another country which would help it to make a weapon of mass destruction, which presumably it cannot do—it is still the case that not every country can do that—we should have the power to control that. The fact that in an American university there are probably lots of people who can do that is neither here nor there, compared to the situation with which a Minister could be faced and on which he would need to take practical action.
There is an issue to be debated which has rightly been debated. I refer to the role of secondary legislation as opposed to such provisions being on the face of the Bill. Concern has been expressed that without exemptions in primary legislation the powers in Clause 2 could be abused by a future government. I can assure the House that the freedom of any future government to remove exemptions for information in the public domain from secondary legislation to be made under the Bill is severely constrained. Any future government wishing to alter secondary legislation would have to comply with the Human Rights Act, which protects freedom of expression.
As regards the provisions in the Bill, I have already given a statement under Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act to the effect that in my view the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the convention rights. Those convention rights include the following:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".

51
Publication of scientific papers would be included within that right of freedom of expression. Any order made under the Bill which was not compatible with those rights would be liable to successful challenge in the courts. I make that point because if we put a provision on the face of the Bill, it would be simply an expression of similar rights within the Human Rights Act.
A further protection is provided by the fact that by virtue of introduction of the European Community's dual-use regulation, controls on exports of dual-use goods and technology are a matter of Community competence. The UK Government do not have the right to alter European controls introduced in this area. Any order attempting to modify or remove the exemptions in this regulation for technology or software "in the public domain" or for "basic scientific research" would again be liable to successful challenge in the courts.
Finally, I point out that the Bill limits the controls that could be introduced under Clause 2 to military technology and controls on transfers that might risk certain effects including contributing to weapons of mass destruction or human rights abuses. Only a limited proportion of academic research would have the potential to cause harm of that nature. By contrast, the export control powers which the Bill will replace, and which already allow controls on physical exports of technology, have no such limitations.
I turn to the controls that the Government propose to introduce under the Bill, which are set out clearly in the dummy draft orders published last autumn. Both the Bill and the proposals for secondary legislation have been welcomed in broad terms by Universities UK. While that organisation would like to see a direct reference to the protection of routine academic activity in the text of the Bill, it accepts that the option of guaranteeing academic freedom in secondary legislation is nevertheless helpful. However, it asks that that be backed up by a statement in the House about how the Government intend to protect academic freedom in that way. I believe that that has been the view expressed to us by Universities UK. From what the noble Baroness said earlier, it seems that it is now going rather further than that. However, I shall respond to the position which it put forward and say that I can now give it the statement it wants about how the Government intend to protect academic freedom.
I make clear that the Government intend to control the transfer of technology abroad by electronic means such as fax and e-mail in exactly the same way as we currently control the export of hard copy communications. That means that the same exemptions which now apply to exports of hard copies will apply to transfer by electronic means. There are already exemptions, both for information in the public domain—that includes information already in the public domain and information that is being put into the public domain by the transaction in question—and for basic scientific research.
52
As regards controls on communications in person, I make clear that there is no question of the Government licensing foreign students. I also make clear, for those who have not read the Bill, that the Bill does not give us the powers to do that. The only control we intend to introduce on communications in person is where a provider of information knows or has been informed by government that such information, if communicated to a particular person or persons, is or may be intended for use in connection with a weapons of mass destruction programme or missiles capable of their delivery. Even here, there will be an exemption for information in the public domain. We believe that most scientists would, in any case, wish to avoid their work contributing to such programmes. I hope that what I have said for the record today will reassure both the Committee and the academic community. Perhaps I may provide further reassurance by reminding the Committee that we shall be holding a full public consultation on the draft orders to be made under the Bill which will give all, including the academic community, a further opportunity to comment on the details of the proposed new controls.
In view of my explanation of why we cannot place exemptions on the face of the Bill, the fact that the amendments would achieve little which is not achieved by the Human Rights Act, the legal protections already in place against future abuse of the powers in the Bill, and finally the assurances I have given about the way in which the Government propose to use the powers in Clause 2, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister sits down, I understood him to say that to put the defence of academic freedom on the face of the Bill would simply reiterate the Human Rights Act. If that is so, it must also be the case that it would be repeated in secondary legislation. Does he not realise that for all the discussions he might have with and agreement he might get from academics, this Chamber wants to approve the wording and, if necessary, amend it? We cannot amend secondary legislation. It would be a different matter to put such provisions into secondary legislation. I think he must realise that.
My noble friend mentioned that we have debated the subject before. I remember my late noble friend Lord Beloff making a magnificent speech about what academic freedom meant. His definitions mattered very much indeed. I believe that this Chamber exists for that purpose; that is, to ensure that the wording in which freedom is expressed should be satisfactory to Parliament, not just to academics, who might not get the full agreement of the noble Lord and find that they had lost out in their discussions. I believe the Minister should understand that. I do not see any reason why the provision should not be on the face of the Bill. There may have to be other provisions in secondary legislation, but this provision should be placed on the face of the Bill. When we come to debate the matter again, if the noble Lord cannot help us in this matter I hope that we shall make the Government do that.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: To be absolutely clear about this issue, we have a Human Rights Act. It has very clear rights for people. It was no doubt drafted with great care to cover the point of freedom of expression. The point that I was making was that if one put something on the face of the Bill, it would have to be expressed in largely similar terms. They would not add great value to the Bill, given that one has the human rights legislation which prevents people altering the secondary legislation in an unsatisfactory way. That is the point I was trying to make. I think that it is a valid one to make in this case.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. The noble Lord has just commented very helpfully about the question of the control of foreign students coming here and the fact that under the Bill any controls will be, as it were, explicit and there will be a proper arrangement. Is he saying that there will be some change as a result of the Bill from the present practice? The present practice, as has been explained, is not deemed satisfactory at all.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Here there is a voluntary scheme. The nature of voluntary schemes is that they require no legal battle. I ask the noble Lord to read the legislation because he will not find in it anything which gives us the power to license foreign students. It is simply not in the Bill. I can only ask him to point it out to me, as my tutor used to say at Cambridge, and I will pay attention to it. But it is not there in the legislation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank very much all noble Lords who have supported me in relation to this new clause. My noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Renfrew, the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Watson, Lord Judd, Lord Hunt and Lord Morgan. I apologise if I have left anyone out.
I have taken on hoard what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. I have listened with great interest, but, as he can imagine, with some disappointment to what the Minister said. First, just on a light note, the fact that he thought that I did not read his memo is incorrect. It was as a result of reading his memo that I got in touch with Dr Anderson in America. I spoke to him. I followed the matter up and went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that we understood absolutely—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It was the reference to it being "red herrings blowing in the wind" that made me think that maybe the noble Baroness had not realised the full importance of the matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord should know me by now. When I do not find merit in what is said, I try to put an amusing aside to it rather than pull it to pieces in a very serious way.
The Minister started by suggesting that the people who had briefed me had clearly misunderstood or misinterpreted what the Bill said. During my speech— I apologise for taking a long time, but on such an
54
important amendment I wanted to set out all the arguments given to me—I actually said that these were the fears of highly intelligent academics and that I could not believe that they had so misinterpreted things. Indeed, listening to noble Lords from all sides of the House, I believe that they understood all too well. I am very well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is the science Minister. I intend to go away and read very carefully what he said. But I believe that he should go away and read very carefully, not only what I have said, but what every other noble Lord from all sides of the House has said.
One of the Minister's points—he repeated it again— more or less suggested that it was for legislative convenience that the provision came into secondary legislation rather than on the face of the Bill. Otherwise, when new things happened internationally one would have a difficulty and it could not be implemented immediately and so on. There must be a way that this can be on the face of the Bill. It should not be in secondary legislation, which, as my noble friend pointed out, we can neither amend nor have real control over. That just will not do for an issue such as this.
I suspect that it was a mistake on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to say that I was somewhat apocalyptic, which I think was copied by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, only because it gave the Minister the opportunity to suggest that I had over-exaggerated when what I was talking about is a very serious matter.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should like to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We have heard the weasel words of the Minister on this matter. We shall go away, read and look hard at them. I shall also consult my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill about the issues on the human rights legislation and whether or not this is really redundant and otiose as a result of that legislation. I personally at the moment do not feel convinced by the words of the Minister. I nevertheless beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 48ZB, as an amendment to Amendment No 48ZA, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48ZC and 48ZD, as amendments to Amendment No. 48ZA, not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 48ZA.
Amendment No. 48ZA, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 48A:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"GUIDANCE ABOUT THE EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS UNDER CONTROL ORDERS
(1) This section applies to licensing powers and other functions conferred by a control order on any person in connection with controls imposed under this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may give guidance about any matter relating to the exercise of any licensing power or other function to which this section applies.
(3) But the Secretary of State must give guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers to which this section applies.

55
(4) The guidance required by subsection (3) must include guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given, when exercising such powers, to—

(a) issues relating to sustainable development; and

(b) issues relating to any possible consequences of the activity being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 7 of the Schedule;

but this subsection does not restrict the matters which may be addressed in guidance.
(5) Any person exercising a licensing power or other function to which this section applies shall have regard to any guidance which relates to that power or other function.
(6) A copy of any guidance shall be laid before Parliament and published in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit.
(7) In this section "guidance" means guidance stating that it is given under this section.
(8) The consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000 shall (until withdrawn or varied under this section) be treated as guidance which—

(a) is given and published under this section; and

(b) fulfils the duty imposed by subsection (3) in respect of any export controls and transfer controls which may be imposed in relation to goods or technology of a description falling within paragraph 1 or 2 of the Schedule."

The noble Lord said: When the Government tabled this new clause and other amendments last month, we also provided your Lordships and other interested parties with a note which explained in detail the purpose and effect of these amendments. I hope that the note proved helpful to those who have taken an interest in this important subject. As it explained, we believe that the revision of former Clauses 7 and 8, which this new clause represents, will both clarify and improve the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, former Clauses 7 and 8 governed the operation of the export licensing process and enabled the Government to publish guidance about the matters to which regard might be had when taking export licensing decisions, and the reasons which might be regarded as justifying particular export licensing decisions. This new clause has a similar function, but we have made two significant changes in response to the views expressed at Second Reading in this House and more widely.
Although I am in no doubt that under the Bill as currently drafted it would be possible for the Government to reject an export licence application— for example, for an export of arms, solely on sustainable development grounds—I am very much aware of the depth of concern on this issue. In particular, I am aware that noble Lords, Members of another place and outside organisations and members of the public have been worried that a government in the future might seek to exclude consideration of relevant sustainable development issues from the export licensing process.
Through this new clause we aim to address those concerns, strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill and putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development, and all the other relevant consequences
56
listed in the schedule, in the licensing process. This new clause is the correct place to make the change as it would govern the licence decision-making process.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government announced to Parliament on 26th October 2000 that henceforward they intended to assess all export licence applications against a consolidated set of export licensing criteria. It has always been the Government's intention that the important role currently played by the consolidated criteria should continue after the Bill becomes law, which was why the current Clause 8 contains a reference to the consolidated criteria. Noble Lords will see that a similar reference has been carried forward to the new clause. However, we have now significantly strengthened the role played by the criteria under the Bill by making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers and by stating that the consolidated criteria constitute such guidance on general principles. Moreover, this change will also ensure that if any government in the future want to change the general principles on which the export control regime operates, they would be obliged to issue guidance stating what the new principles are and lay this guidance before Parliament.
As I have said, it is also the Government's aim, through this new clause, to put beyond all doubt our continuing commitment to sustainable development, and all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule, in the licensing process.
First, we propose to put an explicit reference in this new clause and thus on the face of the Bill to "sustainable development". That the Bill now includes the words "sustainable development" is certainly of symbolic significance. However, the fact that we have actively decided to amend the Bill to state that future Secretaries of State must give guidance about the consideration, if any, to be given when exercising licensing powers to issues relating to sustainable development must put beyond all doubt the continuing commitment we have to this issue.
We have also made plain in the new clause that when Secretaries of State issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers, the guidance must include guidance about the consideration, if any, to be given to sustainable development and issues listed in the table in the schedule. That change makes it totally clear that in issuing guidance on the exercise of licensing powers, sustainable development is entirely equal with the consequences listed in the schedule table. That change also maintains an indirect link between the relevant consequences set out in the schedule and the licensing process. As I said, we have been concerned to end the confusion that has arisen to date about the differing roles of the schedule and of former Clauses 7 and 8. To that end, and because it was no longer necessary, we have done away with the direct link between the schedule and the matters to be taken into account in licensing decisions currently in Clause 7. However, we are aware of concern that were there to be no link at all between the relevant consequences in the schedule and

57
the matters that must be taken into account in the licensing process, that might make it easier for a future government to avoid addressing those important issues. That is why we have ensured that an indirect link remains in the new clause.
Taken together with the change that I described, which will make it a requirement for the Government to issue guidance, that change will ensure that all future governments are required to issue guidance on how they propose to consider sustainable development and all the relevant consequences listed in the schedule when exercising their licensing powers. The only way to change that would be by primary legislation.
I add that were a future government to decide that they did not intend to give consideration to sustainable development—or, indeed, any other issue contained in the schedule table—in arms export decisions, they would have to revise and then publish new guidance. They could not do so in secret and would have to be able to justify such a decision. Without such justification, a decision of that nature would be open to challenge in the courts.
In view of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Government have taken great care to address the concerns raised by Members of this House and by others elsewhere on that important issue and will feel able to support the amendment. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, feels that changes to the new clause might be beneficial and I look forward to hearing why he believes that Amendments Nos. 48B and 48C are necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdalemoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48A, Amendment No. 48B:
Line 11, leave out from "must" to ", when" in line 12 and insert "state that regard shall be had"
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to this amendment in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Razzall and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I should like to start by saying how much we welcome the new government amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, has just spoken. We are obviously deeply concerned about the amendment's aim, which is to include the words "sustainable development" in the Bill. To achieve that end, the Bill has been significantly rewritten. That has largely addressed our concern about the deficiency of the Bill as drafted.
However, Amendment No. 48B is an attempt to address two areas. It would change the wording "consideration" to "have regard to" and leave out the expression "if any". We raised both of those issues at a meeting before the government amendment was tabled and we had hoped that those two small details would have been changed. The reason that we want to insert the expression "have regard to" instead of "consideration" is that in legal definition it would carry more weight. We have taken legal advice on that and were told that a statutory duty to "have regard to" a matter requires the decision-maker subject to the duty to take something into account and pay careful
58
attention to it. By contrast, a statutory provision that guidance is to be issued on the "consideration to be given" to a matter requires only that the guidance addresses the issue. That may seem to be a matter of semantics, but we believe that the greater weight that would be given by "have regard to" would be more beneficial than the lesser term "consideration".
The second issue, about which we are more concerned, is the inclusion in brackets of the expression "if any". The Minister said that there may be areas in which sustainability may not come into consideration. However, that is not a reason to include the words "if any". If the Secretary of State believed that the issue of sustainability did not have the weight that other issues should have, he could just say so. It would be up to him in his deliberations to say what weight he gave to the sustainability criterion in granting any export licence.
To add the expression "if any" would be to create a loophole. I am certain that the Department of Trade and Industry has no intention of creating a loophole. However, the provision must be worded in such a way that no loophole is available. We therefore hope that the Minister will consider leaving out the expression "if any". We on these Benches and many other Members of your Lordships' House will be keen to return to the matter later and press it, if necessary. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: Several of us on this Bench strongly support the amendment. We do not believe that it is simply a matter of semantics. The government amendment undoubtedly strengthens the status of sustainable development in the Bill and goes some way towards addressing concerns raised on Second Reading in January. However, we remain concerned that the weak language in the revised clause on guidance could still allow a future government to disregard issues relating to sustainable development. Ensuring that the Export Control Bill prevents irresponsible arms sales wasting the resources of poor countries is a central concern not only of churches hut of other faith communities.
It is one thing when a government that defend their population according to international law purchase military equipment. It is quite another when British companies persuade governments to spend large sums on equipment that is beyond their needs and means. Speaking from the perspective of my diocese, we are closely linked with a new black South African diocese. There are worries there about the proposed sale to South Africa of Hawk fighter jets. Not only are there outstanding questions about the strategic viability of the South African arms procurement programme, there remain concerns about whether that is a true priority for South Africa's taxpayers. At present, figures in the 1997 World Bank development report are hopeful, with defence accounting for a smaller proportion of gross national product than education or health quotas.

59
However, that picture could change when the implications of the procurement deal are fully realised. The Guardian reported on 7th January 2002 that South Africa is now looking to pull out of its £3 billion arms deal with the United Kingdom and other countries because of the collapse of the rand. The country is also ravaged by HIV-AIDS. Life expectancy falls well below the world average. That clearly underlines the importance of the need to ensure that the Bill provides that weapons that could hamper sustainable development are not exported.
It so happens that I have just returned from a visit to South Africa. The issue of sustainable development is very important, especially with regard to roads. In recent weeks, I have travelled hundreds of kilometres with the African bishop of the new diocese. Too many adults and children are killed on South African roads because of the state that those roads are in. There are potholes, blind bends and few warnings of danger spots. New roads are expensive, but they are a vital aspect of the sustainable development that we want to promote at all costs.
Apropos sustainable development, I must also mention the urgent progress needed in South Africa on wider healthcare issues. I visited a paraplegic centre in a black township just two weeks ago. Young—even tiny—children there were not only paralysed, they were unwell with other complaints, while housed in a derelict, abandoned, disused heavy vehicle hangar. It was cold and draughty, and there were only four girls in their late teens to care for the children. Those are the priorities that we should follow.
The Government have substantially rewritten the clause on guidance—Clause 8—in part to respond to claims that the Bill did not give due weight to the implications of exports for sustainable development. I welcome the Government's more explicit reference to that in the section on guidance, but I wonder whether it would have been easier if the Government had made sustainable development one of the relevant consequences in the schedule, as the original amendment set out to do. That would have given a clearer signal that development was regarded with the same seriousness as the other factors included in the consolidated criteria.
I also find it disappointing that such wholesale changes have been tabled at the eleventh hour at the Committee stage in this House, when there has been a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill and two public consultations in which no such change was proposed. Despite the improvement, subsection (4) does not deal with all concerns regarding sustainable development. In fact, it raises additional difficulties. In the existing language of Clause 7, the Secretary of State must have regard to the potential consequences mentioned in the schedule, as noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said. Under the proposed government amendment, the Secretary of
60
State need only issue guidance about "the consideration (if any)" to be given. Our amendment would retain the original stronger language and is designed to ensure that the guidance must,
"state that regard shall be had"
when making licensing decisions to issues of sustainable development and other consequences mentioned in the schedule, such as human rights and regional stability.
Although the two phrases are close in meaning, "to have regard to" is stronger than "to give consideration to". The worry, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, is that the Secretary of State could choose to issue guidance that instructed the persons exercising licensing powers and functions to disregard the consequences referred to in the schedule. Unless the Government have a persuasive argument as to why a weakening is now necessary, any change should be resisted.
The government amendment contains a further loophole, by including the caveat already mentioned— "if any"—in subsection (4). That would mean that the Secretary of State could simply ignore issues such as human rights and sustainable development when issuing guidance on export licensing. The Government have explained the inclusion of the phrase "if any" as being intended to ensure that, where, for example, it was not relevant to a particular case to consider issues relating to sustainable development, the guidance could allow for that. They gave the example of the possible need to control exports of diseased cows, but it is not clear, in that case, why consideration of the impact that such exports might have on sustainable development and of the likelihood that it would have any of the consequences listed in the schedule could not be included thereby in the decision-making process.
The amendment is not about whether we support sustainable development: of course, we do. The challenge is to devise a system that provides adequate safeguards to ensure that development is not marginalised within the decision-making process. The example of South Africa suggests that that is all too easily the case. The amendment would tackle the problem and go some way to ensuring that we have an export control policy that is ethically responsible, transparent and publicly accountable. If we do not achieve that today, we may be ducking the political and—dare I say it—the moral challenge before us.
The Earl of Sandwich: I support the amendment proposed so well by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and by the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry for recognising the strength of public feeling on the issue and specifically including sustainable development in the guidance, albeit in somewhat obscure language.
The reference, however, still falls short of what is required. I remind the Committee of the continuing public concern about the need for proper transparency and accountability during the licensing process, much

61
of it focusing on the contrast between spending on arms exports and development aid in the same national budget, as the right reverend Prelate said. We have already discussed Tanzania and the Middle East, but I should like to mention India and Pakistan.
The new clause, as amended, reinforces consideration of each case against the existing EU and national criteria. The Government have already confirmed that all export licence applications are considered case by case against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. For example, under sustainable development, which is criterion 8 of the EU code, the current application from BAe Systems to sell 60 Hawk fighters to the Indian Government for £1 billion is assessed not only against the UK economy but against the relationship between defence and social spending in the Indian budget.
Only a few days ago, just after the Foreign Secretary was in Delhi, promoting that sale, the Indian Finance Minister announced a 4·8 per cent increase in defence spending to 13·8 billion dollars. I am informed by Saferworld that, in the past two years and in the budget for next year, India's expenditure on defence amounts to an average of 15·5 per cent of the total budget, while health remains at 0·61 per cent and education at 2·33 per cent. Aid from all sources must also be taken into account under the criterion, and it is relevant that India is the largest recipient of UK bilateral aid, now over £100 million annually.
This is not the time to quote the criteria in full, but all those factors must already be taken into account by member states. Two other EU criteria will be relevant to the case of India: internal conflict and regional stability, both of which raise questions about Kashmir and the latest communal violence. I must also briefly mention Pakistan. Equipment licensed for export to Pakistan in the last annual report included components for combat helicopters and military communications equipment. The United Kingdom has taken a growing defence interest in Pakistan since September 11th. Yet its adult literacy is well below 50 per cent and defence spending is 60 per cent higher than health and education spending combined.
It is a relief that subsection (4)(a) of the new clause ensures that the guidance will now be strengthened. Sustainable development is explicitly referred to in the Bill. As the DTI note states rather quaintly, these issues, once on the statute book, can no longer be ignored by a future government.
Several noble Lords have already spoken about the need to strengthen even further the precise wording of the clause. I support those suggestions. For example, "regard shall be had" is a much stronger phrase than, "giving consideration (if any)". The words "if any" are almost offensive in this context. It would have been better to have included sustainable development as one of the relevant consequences of the schedule, a point made by the right reverend Prelate. As is the case in Amendment No. 79, that would bring it in line with other agreed major criteria. I still cannot understand why the Government have not done this. Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point.
62
I repeat, the Government have moved some way to meet the points made on Second Reading and subsequently.
6 p.m.
Lord Razzall: In rising to join the right reverend Prelate in supporting my noble friend's Amendment No. 48B, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 48C and 51, which have been included in this grouping. In the light of what the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is now for those of us on this side to indicate why, notwithstanding the significant movement made by the Government in response to representations from, in particular, the NG0s, the Churches and the Liberal Democrats, we are not yet satisfied with the government amendment that has been brought forward.
I shall give two reasons which have been encapsulated by Amendment No. 48B, as well as by the two amendments to which I now speak. First, significant concern has been expressed on all sides of the Committee that the overly weak language used in the government amendment could still allow a future government to disregard issues relating to sustainable development, human rights and regional stability in decisions on arms exports. Perhaps that sounds too cynical—I am sure that the Minister would regard it as such—but I should point out that we have been here before. Noble Lords would do well to remember why we are here debating the Export Control Bill at all.
Any student of the Scott report which, following extensive consultation, formed the origin of the Bill before us, will remember that a major debate surrounding that report concerned the interpretation of "guidelines" on the sale of arms to certain regions. One of the central charges made by the then Sir Richard Scott was that the policy was changed in 1998 so that the text of guidelines that had originally been published in 1985 was altered, but Parliament had not been informed of that change. Thus the context in which Members on both sides of the Committee are seeking extensive clarity of language to satisfy us on this point lies in that history.
I know that that was not the Labour Government and I know that governments always believe they are better than the one before. Undoubtedly they believe that they are going to be better than the one that eventually succeeds them. Nevertheless, I am sure the Minister will accept that, on this particular issue with its particular history, the traditional role of your Lordships' House to make absolutely certain that the framework is correct is the proper role for this Chamber. I cannot believe that there is a Bill whose history could justify that more than does this Bill.
First, on Amendment No. 48B moved by my noble friend, there is concern about whether the Bill should include the words,
"state that regard shall be had"
rather than "consideration (if any)", and I mention in particular the use of the words "if any". While I appreciate that this is a drafting point and that the Minister will have been advised by his parliamentary

63
counsel that we are wrong, I should say that we want to be absolutely certain that we are wrong before we concede the point. Again, I refer to the historical context of the matter.
Secondly, I turn to Amendment No. 48C which requires any guidance to be brought before Parliament within 28 days. I am sure that the Minister will respond by saying that the proposal is unnecessary, but again I refer him back to the history of this matter. Guidelines were never laid before Parliament, policy was changed and no one ever knew about it. We are particularly concerned that a timetable should be put in place.
I turn to Amendment No. 51, and note that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has also tabled amendments to this part of the Bill. Under the structure being proposed by the Government, the only control we shall have over any changes made to the guidelines, in particular changes to guidance in so far as they might relate to sustainable development, will be if the changes are brought before both Houses of Parliament. While our amendment is only a probing amendment—there have been so many alterations to the Bill that it may well be that the language now requires improvement—it seeks to separate the less consequential changes to procedures from the fundamental changes. We may not have it quite right in the amendment, but we do feel that these procedures must be correct by the time that the Bill reaches the statute book.
The only mechanism under which Parliament can control the extremely important subject of sustainable development, which has engaged debate in this House over the past two to three months, is through these provisions. For that reason, I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to give an explanation of why he feels that the amendments are inadequate so that, if he is not prepared to do so, we shall be able to improve them when they are brought back on Report.
Lord Hylton: I warmly welcome government Amendment No. 48A. I recognise that it is a real attempt to meet the very serious criticisms that were levied against the Bill both on Second Reading and in the earlier part of the Committee stage. However, having said that, I believe that Amendments Nos. 48B and 48C are necessary. I agree that we need to get rid of the words, "if any", and that the words "regard shall be had" are a great improvement on "consideration … to be given". I should like to point out that in line 30 on page 5 of the Bill as introduced, it stated "have regard", but that it was, I admit, permissive. So this is an improvement.
On the matter of seeing any guidance within 28 days, I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I hope that the Government will take both of the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended.
Lord Judd: I believe that the noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments deserve our congratulations. This is one of the most important issues that we shall be considering in Committee.
64
Although I promise not to keep repeating it, perhaps I should remind the Committee that I am the honorary Senior Fellow of Saferworld. As an independent think-tank, Saferworld has been deeply involved in the analysis of this issue and I have been very much a part of that analysis. Therefore, I feel strongly about it.
At the outset of my remarks, I should like to make the point that in these kinds of situations, we have to be careful to ensure that the victory we seek in the course of our deliberations is not ultimately a pyrrhic one, in the sense that we may achieve the words, but the way in which we get those words has no muscle or substance behind it and indeed might be described by some as a situation almost worse than it was before.
Thus, at the outset, I should like to make the strategic point that this Bill is very good thing and I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench deserves all possible support in what he is trying to achieve with it. I do not have a shred of doubt that everything he seeks to achieve is very much in harmony with that which all other Members of the Committee seek to achieve. Therefore, I am speaking to him, if I may use the phrase colloquially, as a friend and I am asking him to take some of our anxieties into account.
The Government propose to delete Clause 7 from the Bill. Whatever our concerns about the absence of the words "sustainable development", some of us feel that Clause 7 is very important. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield properly said, the issue is not only about semantics. Legal advice has been taken in reputable quarters and it would be sensible to state that advice. It is quite uncompromising. The current Clause 7 lays down a specific, unqualified duty to have regard to specified matters, whereas the amended Clause 8 simply provides for a duty to issue guidance that will describe what consideration is to be given to those matters. At the very least that is unfortunate, if not retrograde.
The language in Amendment No. 48A is weaker than the language it seeks to replace in Clause 7. Under the existing language of the Bill, in Clause 7, the Secretary of State has to have regard to the potential consequences mentioned in the schedule. Under the proposed government amendment, the Secretary of State has only to issue guidance about the consideration, if any, to be given. While it might be tempting to regard these two phrases as close in meaning, the legal advice is that "to have regard to" something is a stronger duty than a duty "to give consideration to" something. That is why Amendment No. 48B is so important.
As has been said, the most worrying weakness in government Amendment No. 48A is the inclusion of the words "if any". The inclusion of this caveat would mean that the Secretary of State could simply ignore issues such as human rights and sustainable development when issuing guidance on export licensing. Again, the legal advice I have seen is that by including the words "if any" in the clause it is arguable that a Secretary of State who was minded so to do would be entitled to issue guidance stating that no consideration is to be given to any of the issues set out in the clause.

65
The DTI has argued that it needs to include the phrase "if any" in order to provide flexibility in cases of controlling exports where issues relating to sustainable development are not relevant. It gave—it is a serious point—the example of the possible need to control exports of diseased cows, and yet it is quite possible to have this flexibility and still remove these two words and hence the loophole. Once again, the legal advice I have seen is that the Secretary or State can determine the weight to be placed on such issues and may confirm that in certain kinds of cases such issues are not relevant or may be of little consideration.
Clearly, if a Secretary of State was weighing-up exports of diseased cows, he would decide that there was no concern on the grounds of sustainable development. The Government already have a power of discretion; inserting "if any" in the Bill would simply provide a loophole that could be exploited for unacceptable purposes in the future.
The example given by the DTI of diseased cows strikes me as odd. I come from Cumbria, one of the areas of the country most affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, and I clearly recall that the Government considered whether to use the Export Control Bill at the height of the crisis to control the export of cows. They decided then that it was not the right vehicle. Indeed, during the consultation on the Bill, the issue of agricultural products was raised by the Quadripartite Committee, which asked whether extra controls should be inserted in the Bill to address it. The Government stated that exports of this nature are matters of exclusive European Community competence and that if there was any doubt then Clause 5 of the Bill already gives them all the power they need.
I conclude my intervention by putting some specific questions to my noble friend. It will help the Committee if he can answer them. Does he agree that it would be unfortunate to have a caveat in the Bill that allowed a future government to disregard concerns over human rights and sustainable development in arms exports decisions? Again, we have no doubts about my noble friend, but, as was argued on a previous amendment, we are introducing a law which will be there whoever may be in the ministerial position. Do not the Government therefore share the concern that the words "if any" could allow this to happen? Do they accept that if they removed this caveat they would still have all the necessary power they need to control exports in emergency situations?
Why do the Government propose to replace the stronger language of Clause 7—"have regard to"—with the weaker language of "consideration (if any)" in the amendment to Clause 8? Why are the words "if any" needed in the guidance to control emergencies such as diseased cows when these are already dealt with under Community law and elsewhere in the Bill? Would not the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, as amended, be a more appropriate vehicle to control the export of diseased cows? I hope that my noble friend will be able to deal with these points when he comes to reply.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: It is alleged—I say no more because I have not had an opportunity to check my source—that a Minister in a previous government once rose to move regulations against racial discrimination and said:
"I introduce these regulations in the spirit of a wine waiter asked to serve a Coke".
Can the Minister understand why the words "if any" have reminded me of that story?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure whether or not that is a technical point. I did not speak on Second Reading but, having listened to the whole debate on the proposed new clause before Clause 7 and the potential amending Amendments Nos. 48B and 48C, I understand very well why the phrase "state that regard shall be had" is so important in the minds of those supporting Amendment No. 48B.
However, my technical point is this. Subsection (6) of the proposed new clause states:
"A copy of any guidance shall be laid before Parliament and published in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit",
Amendment No. 48C seeks to amend this and requires the laying before Parliament to be achieved within 28 days. I am no lawyer, but should it not say within 28 days of what? Surely it means within 28 days of being produced. Should it not say so?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 54, which are part of this group dealing with guidance. Amendment No. 52 touches on a point mentioned by my noble friend. It is tabled because we are not happy with the idea that the guidance, even though it is to be laid before Parliament, should be published,
"in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit".
Let us suppose that he decides not to put the matter on the Order Paper but merely leaves it on a piece of paper in the Library, or pinned on the notice hoard near to the Peers' Dining Room. Is that appropriate publishing? The phrase,
"as the Secretary of State may think fit",
is unusual wording to include in a Bill. We should like it to be littler clearer.
The Minister is aware of my strong concern in relation to the Employment Relations Act 1999; namely, over the power given to the Secretary of State to amend regulations by Act of Parliament, which is fair enough, or by another regulation, which is also fair enough. But the words "or otherwise" are added— nothing else, just those words. The Minister has not yet been able to give a satisfactory explanation of what "otherwise" might be. There are enough problems with the Government trying to sideline Parliament as it is, without our giving them licence to do so by leaving in the clause the vague wording,
"as the Secretary of State may think fit".

67
Amendment No. 54 is the crux, the most important part, of what is needed to make ministerial guidance open and transparent. My husband has a framed cartoon on the board table in his office. It depicts the chairman saying to the assembled directors:
"Of course, it is only a suggestion, but let us not forget who is making it".
Let us not make any mistake here. Ministerial guidance, although not having the force of law, will obviously have considerable influence, both on applicants for licences and on the officials who have to administer the system. Indeed, any departure from the published guidelines in individual cases may well result in the Secretary of State having to face a judicial review. By requiring the Secretary of State to make changes in the criteria, which to all intents and purposes are a change in the administrative law before Parliament, in the way described in Amendment No. 54, we are simply ensuring that Parliament has a democratic say in the future policy of the department. No less importantly, the amendment would ensure that there was no possibility of any person being innocently misled as to what his rights and obligations are.
Lord Rea: I have not been present for the whole of this debate because I was listening to no fewer than three health Ministers briefing me about the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill which will come up in about 10 days' time and in which I shall be involved.
I share the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd about the words "if any" and about how they might be misused in future by a successor to my noble friend the Minister. Yesterday, we learnt that Tanzania is to go ahead with the controversial project for a rather grandiose air traffic control system. The Minister concerned said that no corruption had been involved. I suggest that "corruption" was not the main issue. It was that firms in this country had been able to apply heavy pressure to get the Tanzanian Government to agree to this inflated scheme, and that the Department of Trade and Industry had put no impediment in their way. The words "if any" might allow a future Minister to do exactly the same with a similar project. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say in answer to all these pleas.
Lord Avebury: I entirely agree with what has been said throughout the debate, especially with the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that what matters is not so much the language on the face of the Bill but the intentions of a future government and how they intend to carry these matters into effect. All that we can do is to deal with the wording as we find it and to try to pin down the present Government in so far as we can to the principles, particularly those enunciated by my noble friend Lord Redesdale; namely, that we want to see hard and fast progress made on the questions of sustainable development, human rights and regional stability.
68
The reason for our anxieties has been expressed by a number of Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just referred to the case of the £28 million scheme for Tanzania, which is well outside the relationship between the spending on that particular scheme and the development needs of the country. As regards the sale of weapons to India and Pakistan and to South Africa, I agree with everything that has been said. Those sales represent a material diversion from the development needs of the countries concerned.
I gave the Minister notice of a further question relating to the guidance that may be given in relation to Clause 4(1), which provides that trade controls can include the prohibition or regulation of the movement of "goods of any description". I want to refer in particular to the activities of British firms in moving weapons from third countries to prohibited destinations such as UNITA and the RUF.
Two British companies were associated with Mr Victor Bout, who has been mentioned in recent news reports as having conveyed large quantities of weapons to both those destinations. Will the guidance that the noble Lord intends to issue under the terms of the new clause include reference to the activities of companies engaged in the transportation of weapons from third countries to destinations such as I have mentioned which are prohibited?
The two companies about which I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, have both ceased to be associated with Mr Victor Bout, but in very recent days. It is a matter of great anxiety that it is possible for companies to engage in activities that are contrary to the principles of the United Nations—to assist in the transfer of weapons into sensitive areas of the world where internal conflicts are taking place. I hope that the guidance will make it clear that such activities are prohibited and that licences will be required for either the insurers of companies transporting weapons into destinations such as that, or any other connection with air freight for such sensitive destinations.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may begin by saying to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield that we totally agree about the principles of the Bill. We believe that sustainability is a criterion that should be applied to arms sent to countries where that may have an impact on the sustainability of the economy. There is no disagreement about that. We believe absolutely in that principle. What we are talking about are technicalities relating to that.
The remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I might be approaching the Bill rather like a wine waiter asked to put forward a bottle of Coke was rather offensive, when it is well known that I am strongly committed to the principles behind the Bill, as indeed are the Government. I approach the matter as a wine waiter asked to put forward a the most delicious bottle of Chateau d'Yquem I can find. It do it with enormous enthusiasm and commitment to what I believe is an extremely important Bill.
Earl Russell: The Minister has read into my remark an intention that I did not intend to convey and which

69
I apologise unreservedly for having appeared to convey. I merely said that the provision reminded me of this, simply by its dismissive tone. I attributed no motive to the Minister whatever. If the Minister feels that that impression was given, I should like my withdrawal of any such impression to be on the record.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I accept the noble Earl's apology, but there is nothing dismissive in our approach to the issue. There are good reasons—although the noble Earl may not agree with them—why we think that "if any" should be there.
In response to the right reverend Prelate, there is no point in having such debates if the Government do not listen to and take account of the points that are raised. To criticise us for producing the amendments at the last moment is to denigrate the process of debate. We are debating the Bill because we want to listen to views that are put forward. If we think that those views have validity, we are prepared to go to a great deal of trouble to amend the Bill, because we want to get it right and ensure that it meets the objectives that we all share. That is the right way to approach such a Bill.
I entirely understand the reasoning behind Amendment No. 48B and I have sympathy with the intention of helping to ensure that future governments could not seek to exclude consideration of sustainable development or other issues listed in the schedule from the export licensing process. However, the amendment would have a number of unfortunate consequences, which I believe those who have tabled it do not intend.
The problems that lie behind our difficulties with the proposal are ones that we wrestled with when we prepared our own amendment. We believe that the terms of our amendment provide the necessary assurances that a future government could not simply decide to ignore important considerations such as sustainable development and human rights. I shall enlarge on that point shortly, but first I shall describe the difficulties that the amendment presents, focusing on the two most serious issues.
First, one consequence of the amendment would be to require this and future governments to consider sustainable development and schedule issues whenever they exercised licensing powers under the Bill. It may seem easy to take out "if any", which is a natural reaction when looking at the amendment, but there are difficulties. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill does more than control just arms and other military equipment and technology. For example, the Bill allows the Government to introduce controls on exports in pursuit of international or EC obligations. It would not necessarily be for the UK, in these circumstances, to decide what considerations were or were not relevant when taking export licensing decisions.
Let me give an example. At a point in the future, the international community might decide to control exports of widgets, on the grounds that they were a risk to health. The UK Government of the day might choose to implement that international obligation to
70
introduce export controls on widgets using the powers in Clause 5 of the Bill, as amended. However, the Government would only be empowered to implement the exact terms of the obligation. Unless the international obligation empowered the Government to control widgets on grounds of their effect on national security or sustainable development, for example, as well as on grounds of public health, it would not be open to the Government to consider anything other than public health reasons in taking licensing decisions.
The amendment would force the Government to have regard to the schedule table and sustainable development considerations in all export licensing cases, even in a situation in which they were not legally entitled to give any consideration to those issues when taking export licensing decisions.
Another serious difficulty is that the amendment would fetter the Government's ability to give guidance that said that in certain cases consideration of sustainable development and issues in the schedule table were not relevant. The Government need to retain that flexibility, as there may be cases in which it would not be relevant or appropriate to consider sustainable development or any other issue. That is why the reference to "if any in the Government's new clause is needed.
For example, our new clause will require the Government to lay before Parliament guidance on the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers on objects of cultural interest. The Government do not envisage that sustainable development or consequences in the schedule table, such as development of weapons of mass destruction, are likely to be an issue with regard to objects of cultural interest. The guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will state that, in general, no consideration will be given to such issues when exercising licensing powers on cultural objects, as such considerations would he neither relevant nor appropriate.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise for intervening, but could the Minister clarify what he has said? There are certain instances in which the Minister believes that "if any" would cut out vast areas that should not be covered in the Bill. That is not the intention of the amendment. At what point would sustainability come into effect? When would the relevant Minister or the Secretary of State say that an issue had a bearing on sustainability? If sustainability is not a hard and fast rule, there will be areas of debate over what fits into the criteria for sustainability and what does not.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We have to examine the areas in which we would want to give guidance that sustainability would not be applicable. There would be rather few of those, but I have mentioned two cases—in one it could not be done and in the other a government would certainly want to be able to give guidance that in certain cases such considerations did not apply. Otherwise we would not be able to give guidance that sustainability would not apply in those

71
cases. That would be unfortunate, because we want to be able to convey reasonably to people what criteria would be applied in particular circumstances.
We also need to remember that the guidance we provide will have profound importance for those affected by the Bill. To ensure effective compliance with the new legislation, we need to be able to offer those who must comply as much clarity and legal certainty as possible. We must not be bound to a costly, mechanistic process that obliges us to consider every issue in every case, whether relevant or not, and which would detract from the legal certainty and clarity as to the reasons for the taking of particular licensing decisions.
When we published the consolidated criteria on arms exports in October 2000, we promised Parliament that we would apply the criteria "using judgment and common sense". However, maintaining that necessary flexibility and ensuring that this and future governments can continue to act within the legal bounds of our international obligations does not mean that we have created a loophole in the Bill so that future governments could simply choose to ignore sustainable development and schedule table considerations. The need to balance the need for flexibility with the need to ensure that such a loophole is not created has led the Government to devise the text that we have proposed. I entirely understand the concerns that some may have on that point, but I believe them to be unfounded. I hope that I shall he able to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary.
The words "if any" in the new clause would not allow a future government freedom to decide to ignore sustainable development or any of the schedule table issues by saying that they had considered sustainable development and concluded that it had no place in the consideration of any export licences.
The Bill makes it clear that it will be a requirement on all future governments to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers and that the guidance must address sustainable development and the other important issues, such as human rights. Were a future government to decide not to take sustainable development considerations into account in arms exports, our new clause would require them to publish the decision, and so take it in the full glare of parliamentary scrutiny. It would also require the government to justify such a decision. Without such justification, a decision of that nature would be open to challenge in the courts.
Noble Lords will be aware that sustainable development and the issues listed in the schedule table are all reflected in the EU code of conduct on arms exports. While the UK is a member of the European Union and committed to the EU code of conduct on arms exports, it is hard to see how any future government could ignore any of the criteria, including that on sustainable development, without facing a real likelihood of successful challenge in the courts.
72
The code of conduct is a politically binding commitment to our EU partners under the common foreign and security policy. The only ways open to any future government to renege on that commitment would be either to renegotiate the code of conduct with our EU partners to remove one or more of the criteria—changes that I believe our partners would he most unwilling to make—or to withdraw unilaterally from the code, which would have enormous political consequences.
As long as the EU criteria exist and have not been denounced by the UK, a future government would find it very hard to justify any deviation from full application of the criteria. Moreover, the explicit reference to the consolidated criteria that we have included in subsection (8) of the new clause and the clear statement that they,
"shall (until withdrawn or varied under this section) be treated as guidance"
under the Bill reduces still further a future government's room to deviate from any part of the criteria.
I hope that what I have said today has reassured noble Lords that the Government's proposed drafting does strike an appropriate balance between maintaining a right and proper flexibility to decide—where it can be justified—that certain considerations are not relevant and preventing a future government from simply ignoring the schedule table and sustainable development issues. While I have very real sympathy with the aims of this amendment, not only do I feel it is not necessary, I also feel that it would be damaging to the Bill. In view of this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 48B.
Amendment No. 48C seeks to provide that any guidance issued under the new clause must be laid before Parliament within 28 days. Although I have every sympathy with what the amendment is seeking to do, the fact is that it is not required. The effect of the new clause as drafted is in fact to set a more demanding deadline for laying guidance issued under this clause before Parliament than the amendment seeks to do. The new clause already provides that any guidance issued under it shall be laid before Parliament and published, and there are powerful reasons why the Government will have to do that promptly and certainly well within a period of 28 days.
The new clause requires the Government to issue certain guidance, on general principles, to lay it before Parliament and to publish it. Were it not so published and laid before Parliament—the Government would expect to do both as nearly at the same time as is practically possible—doubt would be cast on whether that guidance had been properly issued as guidance under the new clause. I say as nearly at the same time as possible because a few days may be needed to publish a document suitable for laying before Parliament, while there may be a need to publish by more informal means—such as on the department's website and notices to exporters—any new guidance needed to deal with, for example, a crisis abroad.

73
Therefore, the Government would not be entitled to take licensing decisions in accordance with guidance that had not been published without risking challenge to such decisions by judicial review. We would also have to take steps to lay it before Parliament as quickly as possible thereafter—certainly within a few days—for the same reason. I think that that also deals with the point on the number of days after which guidance should be issued. As no effective action can be taken on the guidance until it is published, the Government have every incentive to get on and issue guidance as quickly as possible.
In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Redesdale, will agree that their amendment is not necessary to ensure prompt laying of guidance under the new clause before Parliament.
Finally, and returning just briefly to the issue of sustainable development, given the interesting and important discussion we have had, I thought that the Committee would wish to be aware that the Government have recognised the need to consider how the sustainable development criterion—criterion eight—of the Consolidated Criteria can most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications. The Government agree that there is a need for clearer procedures within Whitehall for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue. Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that the Cabinet Office has offered to lead an interdepartmental discussion of the issue, involving all departments with an interest.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 51 and 54. The amendments would have the effect that any guidance altering export licensing criteria issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 8 would be subject to parliamentary approval. As I explained, the government amendments that have just been agreed to will require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers. This change will ensure that if any government wish in future to change the principles upon which the export control regime operates, they would be obliged to issue guidance stating what the new principles are and to lay that guidance before Parliament. This will ensure that no future Secretary of State could alter export licensing policy without informing Parliament.
The Government do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for there to be a duty to consult on guidance, or for the guidance to be subject to parliamentary approval. As is made clear in the Bill, guidance on the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers will incorporate the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which is a political agreement between EU member states. The code is kept under review by member states who may wish to agree changes and improvements to it. The Government need to be able to commit to such changes. We do not believe that it would be right for changes or additions to international agreements such as the EU code to be subject to potential veto by Parliament.
74
For similar reasons, it would be misleading to consult industry or non-governmental organisations on agreements that the Government are obliged to implement by virtue of their membership of international organisations. However, the Government are aware of the degree of public and parliamentary interest in export licensing. That is why we have carried out extensive consultation during formulation of the Bill. We also intend to hold a full public consultation on the draft orders to be introduced under the Bill, and would expect at the same time to explain in more detail what guidance we intend to issue under the Bill. In addition to formal public consultation, the Government are in regular contact with those organisations with an interest in export control policy in order to hear their views.
The proposed amendments also seek to ensure that any guidance under Clause 8 is laid before Parliament and published within 40 days. This time limit is unnecessary as Clause 8 already provides that any guidance issued under it shall be laid before Parliament and published, and there are powerful reasons why that should be done promptly. Publication of guidance gives exporters a degree of certainty as to how controls can he expected to be operated in a particular case. An exporter is entitled to assume that any licensing power would be exercised in accordance with guidance already published. If the power were not so exercised, he would be able to challenge a licensing decision by judicial review. To avoid that risk of challenge, the Secretary of State will need to publish guidance as soon as possible and in any event before taking a decision based on it.
Moreover, the Government do not consider it sensible for all guidance, including practical guidance on procedure, to have to be laid before Parliament as proposed by Amendment No. 51. The Export Control Organisation publishes on its website a vast range of guidance for exporters; for example, instructions on how to fill in export licence application forms or details of forthcoming export control seminars. This is updated constantly and if necessary on a daily basis. To lay this material before Parliament every time it was updated or changed would be unnecessarily to overburden the procedures for laying documents before Parliament. It would be unnecessary because this material is of course accessible to all Members of Parliament and the public from the DTI's website or on request from the Export Control Organisation..
Amendment No. 52 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from having the flexibility to publish guidance in such manner as she thinks fit. This phrase is included to make it clear that the Secretary of State may publish guidance in whatever manner is most appropriate to that particular case. For example, guidance informing exporters of the introduction of a new arms embargo is usually published in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette as well as on the Export Control Organisation website, while guidance on procedures to follow in applying for an export licence might be published on the Export Control Organisation web site and in information packs for new exporters. Although removing this phrase as proposed in the amendment would not alter the Secretary of State's discretion to

75
publish in whatever manner she thought fit, we believe for the sake of clarity and transparency that it should remain in the Bill.
In view of the explanations I have given, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Razzall, Lord Redesdale and Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will be content to support Amendment No. 48A and agree to withdraw or not to press their amendments to it.
Lord Redesdale: As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said, the purpose of Amendment No. 48B was to highlight the issues of accountability and transparency. As the Tanzanian affair has shown, there are conflicting pressures on government members. We were therefore attempting to beef up the Bill's wording to avoid possible loopholes. The Minister has given a full reply which I shall read closely in Hansard. Nevertheless, this is an issue to which we may well return, perhaps with a different form of words, at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48C not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 48A agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 48D to 48G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 7 [Exercise of licensing powers under control orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I speak also to Clause 8. The new clause proposed by the Government in Amendment No. 48A, which the Committee has approved, effectively replaces the existing Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. As I have explained, the new clause improves the Bill by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill and by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development, and all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule, in the export licensing process.
In view of that, and the explanation I have already given as to why the new clause should replace the existing Clauses 7 and 8, I urge the Committee to agree that the existing Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill shall not stand part.
Lord Avebury: I asked the Minister a question about the activities of Mr Victor Bout and the two companies which were associated with him in the United Kingdom. Willis Insurers insured the aircraft which were used by Mr Victor Bout to ferry illicit weapons to the armed opposition movements in Sierra Leone and Angola. It has also been reported recently that he took arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, all the time apparently being insured by a British company, Willis Insurers, which cancelled the policies only in December 2001.
76
As regards the registration of the aircraft, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, told me in a letter—I believe that I sent the Minister a copy—that United Air Services only deregistered the aircraft belonging to Mr Victor Bout two weeks ago. I asked whether the guidance that he intends to issue under the Bill will deal with the activities of air freight companies—and those who insure them—which are engaged in ferrying illicit weapons to armed oppositions movements or movements with which we were at war such as the Taliban.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering that question. The issue relates to trafficking and brokering. That is not particularly applicable to this part of the Bill. Clearly, the guidance will cover trafficking and brokering. The Bill will now cover factors like insurance. I can assure the noble Lord that the issues he raises will be covered by the guidance although they come under trafficking and brokering rather than this clause.
Clause 7 negatived.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Guidance]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 54 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 8 negatived.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 6, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 62. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Export Control Bill refers to the British overseas territories and to UK persons who are citizens of the territories in terms which are consistent with those used in the British Overseas Territories Act which received Royal Assent on 26th February this year. The British Overseas Territories Act updates the terminology employed to refer to the overseas territories in existing legislation such as the British Nationality Act 1981 and the Interpretation Act 1978. In particular, it replaces the outdated terms "British Dependent Territory" and "British Dependent Territories citizen" with the terms "British overseas territory" and "British overseas territories citizen". It is naturally important that the Export Control Bill and secondary legislation made under it should follow suit in this regard. I invite the Committee to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 6, line 24, after second "of" insert "archaeological,"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 10 covers definitions of terms to be used in the Bill. The clause states that the term,
"'objects or cultural interest' should include objects of historical or scientific interest".
I have tabled the amendment in order to ask the Government to explain why they have said that the term includes "objects of historical or scientific interest". Does that imply that scientific objects do not have to reach any historic threshold before they are caught by the definition? Could they be newer than 50 years old and be caught by the Bill? In other words, does it gel round the definition that will come in the dummy draft order?
Why have the Government chosen to put those two categories and no others on the face of the Bill? I do not object to the inclusion of the two categories. But why have those two been chosen and not others? I suggest a third category: archaeology. At col. 766, on the first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to the problem the Government have in finding a definition of "fossil". We found that intriguing. He said that if a definition were to be found it would be put in the draft order. In the meantime, he considered that the drafting of the Bill to include objects of historical or scientific interest was sufficient to cover fossils for the time being. If it is only for the time being, and temporary, can we expect some later amendment? Is it still all right for the time being? Would it not be more appropriate to signal that the Bill covered such matters simply by putting archaeology on the face of the Bill?
I am moved to raise the issue because I noted some incongruity between the drafting of this Bill and that of the late lamented Culture and Recreation Bill. In that Bill the Government adopted a somewhat different approach. In Part 4 of the Bill—it is, of course, burned on noble Lords' hearts—the Government defined objects of cultural, historic or scientific interest as though they were separate matters. History and science were listed as separate from culture.
The Government then said that the objective of culture online was to promote knowledge and appreciation of culture, history and science, again treating them as different. If they were different matters in the Culture and Recreation Bill, why are they now brought under the heading of culture in this Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I declare an interest in the amendment as a professional archaeologist. I thank my noble friend for it. Not surprisingly, it seems entirely appropriate although I imagine that the Minister will explain that he would wish to subsume archaeological objects under historical objects, and no doubt cultural objects likewise.
However, I have a further reason for rising to my feet. The Government have shown recently more interest than previously in the issue of diminishing the
78
flow through this country of looted antiquities. Looted antiquities come from destroyed archaeological sites. Had I been present for the earlier debate on Amendment No. 48A and the notion of sustainable resources, I would have pointed out that sustainability is an important question for many countries whose archaeological sites are being systematically looted. I give the example of Peru where many archaeological sites have been and are being looted. This diminishes not only the archaeological resource, but also the tourist potential of such regions. In Peru, for example, there is one site where the local archaeologist, Walter Alva, was able to stem the looting and set up a highly influential museum which has attracted many tourists. I refer to the site of Sipan.
Therefore, I was dismayed to hear the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury, if I heard him aright, indicate that he explicitly wished to exclude cultural objects from the provisions on sustainability. One of the purposes of the Bill—it may have escaped the noble Lord's notice, but I hope that it has not escaped the notice of his noble friend—is to maintain a control on the export of cultural objects, not only those originating within this country, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, indicated earlier, to diminish the flow of looted objects entering this country and leaving it again in the process of the illicit traffick in antiquities. One purpose of the measure—this is acknowledged and will, I am sure, be acknowledged by the noble Lord who will reply to the amendment—is to control the import and specifically the export of antiquities. The noble Lord will recall that his noble friend Lady Blackstone announced in a Written Answer that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation making it a criminal offence to traffick in, to sell or to import, stolen antiquities or antiquities which have been illegally excavated. That is where the issue of sustainability conies in. It is for those reasons that the issue of archaeology is particularly relevant to the subject area of the Bill and to the proposed legislation which I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, announced.
For those reasons I believe that archaeology, or objects of archaeological interest, have a special place in the Bill because it is they, the covetousness they inspire and the illicit traffick in them, which leads to the destruction of archaeological sites. Consequently, in many countries of the world there is a diminishing resource for which the criterion of sustainability would be entirely relevant. I support my noble friend's amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I echo that support for the amendment. Archaeology is a much underrated profession and should be included in many other Bills. There is an important issue here which illustrates why archaeology should he included in the Bill's provisions. I refer to the nature of the illicit trade in antiquities, one of the largest markets for which occurs in Britain. That trade is often used as a means of laundering money involved in drugs or even arms

79
deals. Given the scale of the trade in illicit antiquities, it is appropriate to include archaeology in the Bill's provisions.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In Committee on 7th February I declared an interest at cols. 761 to 762 of Hansard in relation to the art market and I shall not repeat it. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench and the observations that my noble friend Lord Renfrew has just made. His qualifications for speaking are far greater than mine. However, I should declare an interest as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. My noble friend Lord Renfrew alluded to the drafting issues to which the Minister may allude in responding to the debate.
I say light-heartedly with regard to that longstanding definition of prehistory as being a combination of Sir Rider Haggard's She and Sir Leonard Woolley's Excavations at Ur, that there are distinctions in these matters. There is something to be said for the definition being larger rather than smaller. I well remember in the works of the late Douglas Woodruff an account of entering a cathedral on the Continent. In the treasury where reliquaries were held, he was offered the opportunity to see both the skull of the infant Samuel and the skull of Samuel as an old man. Both those objects would have been of historic and scientific interest if they were side by side. Therefore, it seems to me no bad thing that our extension should be broadened.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew referred to Peru. For 20 years I was the trustee of the Cusichaca Trust and chairman for most of that period. That trust was set up to explore a particular archaeological site on the Cuzco/Machupicchu railway at Cusichaca. It was a distinguished dig which lasted several years. In the process we completely restored the Inca canals. It was in the process of restoring the Inca canals that we discovered that a valley which had sustained 1,800 people in the time of the Incas had sustained less than a quarter of that number in the previous century. That took us as a trust into the areas of developmental activity and ecology. I totally support what my noble friend has just said. Setting up a museum for the finds which we discovered in terms of the original archaeological work was a part of the development work we subsequently carried out. As regards sustainability, I very much support the identification of archaeology as a separate issue. I certainly endorse everything my noble friend said about the illicit trade and, as I said earlier, I am delighted to support both my noble friends.
Lord Davies of Oldham: There are times when one cannot help but envy the experience that is brought to bear in the Chamber. My envy on this occasion is directed at the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I have long wished to visit Machupicchu. To hear that he had the opportunity to take part in such an exercise fills me with great envy. I congratulate him on the work that he carried out and on the lessons he drew from that.
80
Lest I be cast as some kind of Philistine without interest in archaeology, I hasten to say that I do not present the following arguments in the hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I have nothing but total admiration for the value of archaeology and the work of archaeologists. For a short while my daughter carried out some archaeological work. I have never known her to be more fulfilled and happy than when she did that.
The issue that we are debating is whether it is helpful to define "archaeology" within the framework of the Bill and include it in the clause that we are discussing. The Government resist that suggestion as we have sought to include as wide a definition as possible of goods, artefacts and scientific dimensions. As regards creating a list, the danger is that none of us can foresee a particular category into which some commodity in the future might not fit and therefore would not fall within the parameters of the legislation. We sought to draft the Bill in the widest possible way so as not to run the risk of inadvertently excluding any category.
If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, it might have the unfortunate consequence of narrowing by implication what is at present a wide definition which is deliberately designed to be so. If certain categories of objects are not specifically referred to, queries might be raised as to whether they are therefore excluded from the definition. For example, as there is no express reference to artistic objects it may be argued that such items are excluded from the definition. The danger is that we would embark on the slippery slope of having to provide an all-encompassing definition comprising an extensive list which still falls short of the protection that Members on all sides of the Committee seek to achieve for the objects that we are discussing.
The schedule to the dummy order on the Export of Objects of Cultural Interest, which mirrors the existing Export of Goods (Control) Order, refers to,
"any objects of cultural interest manufactured or produced more than 50 years ago".
That is a very broad definition and one that would include items of archaeological interest. The Government previously announced that it is not their intention substantially to change the export control regime for cultural objects. Of course, that regime includes archaeological items. I can assure the noble Baroness that that will continue to be the case under the legislation, when enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the illicit trade in such goods. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to impose export controls to give effect to any international obligations, which will include the UNESCO convention of 1970, when the Government have completed accession. As I sought to express in our discussion on an earlier amendment, we expect that to take place very soon. As the noble Lord knows, that convention is very much aimed at stemming the trade in any cultural objects that are on the market illicitly.
I recognise and value the way in which the noble Baroness presented her amendment, and, indeed, the support that she rightly received from all sides of the

81
Committee. It is only right that noble Lords should be reassured that the legislation contains adequate protection for archaeological objects. Without straining the issue too much, I also realise that the concept of sustainability might well be included in respect of economies where the archaeological dimension of the country forms a very important part of its tourist trade and, indeed, of its foreign earnings. That point has been well taken. I can assure the Committee that the breadth of definition and the lack of precision in the Bill is intended to be its virtue; in other words, it is intended to ensure that we are able to meet all our obligations within this framework and cover the whole range of objects to which noble Lords have rightly drawn our attention this evening.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I should like, first, to thank all those who have supported my amendment. I have in mind my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Brooke and also the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, all of whom have far greater experience and expertise in archaeology than I, even though my first-ever prize at school was a book on the subject. However, I hasten to add that that was some 40 years ago.
The crumb of comfort that I can perhaps draw from the Minister's response is the fact that he pointed out that he places value upon archaeology. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is a much underrated and undervalued profession and subject. I was pleased to hear noble Lords provide a little further information on the subject of archaeology to the annals of the records in this place.
I am always intrigued when the Government try to prevent us from extending a list by adding further definitions on the basis that, if one does so, then somehow it will become an exclusive rather than an inclusive list. I am sure that this is a matter to which we shall return on many an occasion and, indeed, when dealing with many a Bill. However, on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert "including, for the avoidance of doubt, a limited liability partnership"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63. Both amendments relate to the definitions clause. Amendment No. 62 is purely a drafting matter. The clause defines the phrase "a United Kingdom person", which is used in the legislation and includes,
"a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
We now have a new form of legal entity called a "limited liability partnership" which is a cross between an ordinary partnership between individuals and a private limited company.
82
Limited liability partnerships are, as I readily concede, bodies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom. To that extent, I expect that the Minister will say that this amendment is unnecessary. However, I have prefaced my amendment with the words,
"for the avoidance of doubt".
This is a device that has been used in other legislation. It is certainly used in legal documents in cases where a general definition could, or indeed does, include something or other that is nevertheless specified in detail to make it absolutely clear.
Limited liability companies are newly introduced into the world of commerce, where few people are aware of their existence at present. For the sake of clarity, the novelty of this type of body calls for the addition of just the 10 words that I propose. They do not in any way detract from the Bill as drafted but only strengthen and clarify it. I trust that the Government will find it possible to accept my proposal.
Amendment No. 63 is of more substance but is, nevertheless, constructive. I hope that it will close a potential loophole and thus strengthen the Bill. The legislation uses the phrase "a United Kingdom person" to define those affected! by the Bill's provisions. Subsection (2) of Clause 10 covers: various categories of British citizens; British subjects; and a British protected person. However, the definition does not cover the activities of a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom—a person who may be conducting or managing a business exporting the sort of goods and services that are governed by this legislation.
The latter is particularly important in relation to Clause 4(8), which authorises the imposition of trade controls on acts carried out outside the United Kingdom, but only if they are carried out by what the legislation calls "a United Kingdom person" or someone acting under his control. This subjection, quite rightly, eschews any attempt to obtain extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign persons. However, there is no reason why any person normally resident in the UK should be exempt from the provisions of this legislation in relation to activities that he conducts abroad. Persons ordinarily resident in the UK are, and should be, subject to all of its laws. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: When we debated this in a preliminary way in Committee on 7th February I raised the matter at times when the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was dealing with the amendments. I apologise to noble Lords for not putting the issue to the Minister as clearly as I might have done. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Miller on having composed an amendment that implies exactly the point that I was seeking to raise at that stage. However, because I raised the matter earlier and was not absolutely confident that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and myself were mutually understanding each other, I greatly look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): Amendment No. 61 seeks to ensure that limited liability partnerships are included in the definition of a -United Kingdom person" and hence can be controlled under the Bill. I can assure the Committee that, as the noble Baroness generously conceded, limited liability partnerships are bodies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom—indeed, those are the words that are found, more or less, in the text of Clause 10(1)—and are, therefore, already included in the definition of a "United Kingdom person" in the Bill. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on the basis that to include those words would add absolutely nothing to the meaning of the legislation.
I agree with the noble Baroness that Amendment No. 63 deals with the more substantial point. It seeks to extend the definition of a "United Kingdom national" in Clause 10(2) to include persons who are,
"ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom".
The effect of this amendment would be to widen significantly the scope of the extra-territorial powers provided under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. By consequently broadening the definition of a "United Kingdom person", as employed in those clauses, to include any persons ordinarily resident in the UK—that is, including foreign nationals—the amendment would make it possible for the Government to prosecute foreign nationals ordinarily resident in the UK for acts carried out by such persons entirely overseas, including acts carried out in their home state. We believe that that would be an inappropriate and unjustifiable extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction in those areas.
As Members of the Committee know, our policy is to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction extremely sparingly. Where it does exist, it is generally applied only in respect of UK nationals. Corruption and assisting illegal immigration are examples. Any further extension of jurisdiction to anyone other than UK nationals has been limited to the very few areas where we are required to do so under international obligations or where there can be said to be an overwhelming international consensus—for example, in relation to war crimes, sex tourism, hijacking or acts of piracy.
We believe that it is right to take the power to prohibit or regulate the activities of British nationals abroad under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. The dummy draft orders that were published last October describe the activities to which we propose to apply extraterritorial controls—for example, the trafficking and brokering of arms to embargoed destinations or the provision of technical assistance intended for use in a weapons of mass destruction or related missile programme. We believe that activities of that kind are sufficiently serious to warrant the UK taking the power to sanction any British national who engages in such activities overseas. However, it cannot be said that all or even most other countries share our belief in the need for controls on all the activities targeted by Clauses 2, 3 and 4. By extending the extra-territorial
84
powers in the Bill to include any persons ordinarily resident in the UK, it would be possible for a foreign national who normally resides in the UK to face prosecution in this country for an activity that was carried out in his own country but which remains entirely legal there. Taking such a power would be likely to attract the same kind of criticism that the UK has quite rightly directed at other countries that have sought to impose extra-territorial controls on our nationals for activities that are not subject to prohibition or control in this country.
Finally, I point out that while the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to apply controls that are made under the Bill to activities that are carried out entirely overseas by foreign nationals who are residents of the UK, such persons will be subject to control if any relevant part of the activity takes place in the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether inadvertently I have covered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on an earlier occasion. I have with me the Official Report of 7th February, and I have read that debate. However, I do not recall precisely the point that he made then but I do not want to conclude without having tried my best to answer his point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to the Minister. On 7th February, I raised the case of the "sheikh"—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the association of such sheikhs with the Al'Qaeda network—who did not fall under the Bill's classifications and definitions. He would fall under them if we agree to my noble friend's amendment. My question was: if that person were engaged in controlling activities abroad in a manner of which the Government disapproved, would he be covered by anti-terrorist legislation—I am aware that there is antiterrorist legislation in this area—or would he escape? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, replied on that occasion that, as he understood my question, the situation would be covered. I raise the matter again—I have the example of my noble friend and her amendment—so that we can be certain beyond doubt and peradventure that all is well.
Lord Bach: The Terrorism Act 2000, as the noble Lord forecast, makes it an offence for UK citizens to provide, or invite another to provide, property that may be used for the purposes of terrorism. That applies to activities in this country and to activities that are carried out by UK persons abroad. There are already UN sanctions in place to prevent brokering to Al'Qaeda members and their associates, as designated by the Security Council. The Al' Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 makes it an offence for anyone in the UK or any UK persons abroad to supply or arrange to supply arms to those who are designated, wherever they are located. I believe that that final sentence answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: What the Minister has just read out confirms that the case that

85
I raised is covered by prior legislation. I am not in the least surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was not able to point to the legislation at which I hinted in our exchange on 7th February.
Lord Bach: The only reason that I can do so is because I have been briefed on it. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We are clearly satisfied with the answers that we have been given. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for raising that matter again and the Minister for reading out such a good brief, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 6, line 38, leave out "British Dependent Territories Citizen" and insert "British overseas territories citizen"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6. line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 70A. All of those amendments have the same purpose. We move from the esoteric subjects that we have been debating so far to the less esoteric topic of the Isle of Man.
The purpose of the amendment and those grouped with it is to ensure that the Bill's provisions, so far as they apply by order to the Isle of Man, are mandatory on the government rather than discretionary. I shall not waste the time of Members of the Committee by explaining how that arrangement works—it is apparent from the way in which the amendments are set out.
The background to this matter involves the significant concern that the Isle of Man has in the past provided a loophole for the export of arms. In particular, there is significant evidence that in 1994 the Isle of Man was used to provide a loophole for the export of arms to Rwanda. Those arms were used in the genocide in that country at that time. A UK government inquiry in 1997 found that the UN arms embargo on Rwanda was not implemented in the Crown dependency, and there was also a delay in its implementation in the dependent territories.
There is significant concern among those who have examined the matter that the Isle of Man could be used to provide a loophole unless it is closed. The amendment would ensure that the restrictions were mandatory by Order in Council in relation to the Isle of Man rather than discretionary. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Amendment No. 69 appears in my name. I support all of the amendments that were spoken to by the noble Lord. I had prepared a beautiful speech on Amendment No. 69 but, given
86
the time and the fact that the noble Lord moved the amendment so well, there is no point in saying more on this matter.
Lord Razzall: should I Worry?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: I believe that it is I who should worry. The collective effect of the four amendments in this group would be to extend the Bill, and any provisions made under it, to the Isle of Man. I am grateful far the opportunity to explain why this new legislation does not, in our view, require to be extended to the Isle of Man.
The territorial extent of the legislation that the Bill will replace—that is, the export control provisions of the 1939 Act—includes the Isle of Man. However, in the years since that legislation was introduced, the Isle of Man and UK governments have agreed that the Isle of Man will legislate for and operate its own system of import and export controls and that those controls will mirror those in place in the United Kingdom.
The Customs and Excise Agreement 1979, which governs the customs union that exists between the UK and the Isle of Man, sets out arrangements for cooperation between the UK and the Manx authorities on matters of export and import control. It obliges the Isle of Man to maintain parallel export controls to those which operate here.
In accord with the 1979 agreement, and following consultation between the Isle of Man and UK governments, we have received firm and detailed assurances from the Isle of Man authorities that they have put into place legislation—that is, the Customs and Excise Act 2001, as amended—that will enable the Isle of Man to give full effect to all the controls provided for or made under the Export Control Bill, including the new controls to be imposed on arms trafficking and brokering, intangible transfers and technical assistance.
Given that, it is not necessary, and indeed would not be appropriate, for the Bill's territorial extent to include the Isle of Man. Therefore, Clause 15(4) makes clear that the Bill does not extend to the Isle of Man, except in so far as Clause 14(5) provides for the existing export control law no longer to apply to the Isle of Man. The UK and Manx authorities are agreed that the Bill should none the less include a permissive extent provision that would allow any of its provisions, or any orders made under it, to be extended if necessary to the Isle of Man. Indeed, that is provided for by Clause 15(5).
We have no reason to believe that the Isle of Man will not be able to give full effect under Manx legislation to all the new controls. But both governments believe that it is prudent for there to be an alternative means of implementing in the Isle of Man any future controls introduced under the Bill should it not prove possible for these readily to be given immediate effect under Manx legislation. By way of example, any temporary order introduced for reasons not covered by the schedule would almost

87
certainly require to be given effect in both the UK and the Isle of Man without delay. If it were not possible to implement an equivalent order at the same time under Manx legislation, then it would be possible instead to extend the order directly to the Isle of Man by Order in Council under Clause 15(5).
That is the explanation as to why we have taken the attitude that we have towards the Isle of Man. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, did not surprise me by mentioning a case which arose a few years ago and about which there may be some misunderstanding. The difficulties in that case, as I understand it, were due principally to a deficiency in the United Nations sanctions order then in place in the UK governing the supply of arms to Rwanda rather than to a delay in introducing the order in the Isle of Man. To the extent that there was a delay in introducing the order in the Isle of Man at that time, the responsibility lay with the UK Government rather than with the Isle of Man authorities.
I want to assure the Committee that, following that case, new arrangements were introduced to provide for closer and more timely liaison between Whitehall departments over the implementation of new United Nations sanctions orders in the whole of the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. We do not believe that there could be another case such as that, and I want to make three points.
First, with regard to the delay issue, as I said, there are new arrangements for closer and more timely liaison. Secondly, the Isle of Man has given the Government a firm assurance that it has put in place the legislation needed to allow it to implement in parallel with us all the new controls that we propose to introduce under the Bill. Thirdly, should the situation ever arise where the Isle of Man is not able to give immediate parallel effect to any new controls introduced under the Bill, Clause 15(5), to which I referred, will allow the relevant provisions to be extended to the Isle of Man by Order in Council instead. Therefore, so far as this matter is concerned, we believe that we have covered all the angles.
I have taken a little time to reply because the noble Lord raised a serious issue.
Lord Razzall: On the basis of what I take to be as close to an undertaking as the Minister could possibly give that, were Manx legislation, for whatever reason, not to be implemented mirroring the orders applicable in the UK, the UK Government would exercise their powers as set out in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to modify the Schedule]:
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 7, line 5, at end insert "after consultation with relevant non-governmental and industrial organisations".
88
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment which I believe is self-explanatory. Basically, its purpose is to ensure that consultation is carried out with relevant non-governmental and industrial organisations before the provisions of the schedule are modified. I believe that that would enhance the Bill and give interested parties—say, non-governmental organizations— that were particularly interested in the issues of sustainability prior warning of any proposed change. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: This may appear an innocent little amendment but I consider it to be very important. The Minister has said how much he values listening and consulting in order to get things right. If that has been true in building up the Bill to its present level, any changes would require the same approach in the interests of ensuring that not only did we make a change but that we got it right. I believe that, not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is to be thanked for having made such a good point in his amendment.
Lord Bach: Clause 11 provides for the Secretary of State to modify the schedule. The amendment would require consultations with NGOs and industrial organisations before any such modifications could he made. Of course, we appreciate the benefit of consulting generally, but we envisage that the schedule would be changed only when it was absolutely necessary to do so. Consultations could not determine such necessities. We want to resist the amendment and I shall explain why shortly.
The most significant point to make about changes to the schedule is that they can be made only by means of the draft affirmative resolution procedure under Clause 12(4). Our original proposal was for the delayed affirmative procedure, but we accepted the recommendations of the former Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and changed it to the draft procedure. That is, of course, the tightest form of parliamentary scrutiny one can have.
We could not have gone further down that road. The draft affirmative procedure underlines the point that the schedule, as a fundamental part of the Bill, should only be modified, if at all, by the express approval of Parliament. Parliament must decide the matter.
However, as to the question of consultation, it is hard to believe that, when there is a draft affirmative resolution, some notice should not have been given of that fact and thus undoubtedly consultation would, in any event, take place. Anyone who has taken part in proceedings on the Bill cannot but fail to know that a great deal of attention has been paid to it by NGOs and also by industry. Such attention has been manifested by briefs, some better than others, which have been sent to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber.
There is no danger in the real world that effectively there would not be consultation for something such as this. However, as far as I am aware there is no reason why the draft affirmative procedure should not allow parliamentarians the opportunity to

89
consult informally with interested organisations about the proposed modification of the schedule, which does not require provision in primary legislation.
My final point is that as a country we have signed up to a number of the international export control regimes such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the International Missile Technology Control Regime. While those are not formal obligations of the kind covered by the schedule, but instead represent political commitments to countering the proliferation of weapons, we may wish to make changes to the schedule in response to agreements reached by such regimes. Meeting such international commitments is as important as any formal obligations under, say, the EU or UN and, just as in those cases, it would not be appropriate to subject our commitments to consultations.
I hope that the noble Lord will at least appreciate the arguments I make on that point. We argue that consultation in any other sense is not necessary; it would happen in any event. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: After that tempting request, I feel I have to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 7. line 5, at end insert—
"(2) An order under this section may make transitional provision in connection with any modification made by the order."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 66 is described as a technical amendment, which raises no new issues of policy. It puts beyond any doubt that any order modifying the schedule may also make any necessary transitional provision. For example, an order altering the schedule could affect the categories of goods or technology coming under control or the descriptions of goods or technology falling within particular defined terms. It might be necessary to provide transitional provisions clarifying that export licences issued under control orders drafted with reference to the earlier version of the schedule remained valid. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Orders]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 7, line 10, after "section" insert "1, 2, 3, 4 or"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 67 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68. Both amendments relate to the parliamentary scrutiny of orders that are made under the Bill. In simple terms—indeed, in the very simplest terms—the amendments require all orders made under the Act to be subject to
90
the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative procedure that the Government propose for certain of the provisions of the Bill.
As the Bill stands, all the Government are offering to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure are orders made under Clause 5(2). Members of the Committee will recall that that clause contains the wide power which the Government seek to make orders for purposes not sanctioned by the schedule. In other words, in return for being given power to go beyond what Parliament is specifically sanctioning by the Bill in some unspecified way—as we have already debated in relation to Clause 5—the Government are offering to allow Parliament to have the right to vet such orders by the affirmative procedure. However, the orders which the Government are empowered to make under the Bill are wide ranging. They can have major effects on the defence industry, which accounts for 10 per cent of our industrial output, to say nothing of the effect that they will have on what the Bill calls "objects of cultural interest". In other words, they are orders which can affect our trade in art, where the UK is a leading international market.
The history of export control legislation is that it is of very long duration. As Members of the Committee will recall, the last major Bill on the subject was passed over 60 years ago. By this Bill we are sanctioning rule by secondary rather than primary legislation. It is beyond argument that the negative procedure is a lesser form of scrutiny than the affirmative resolution procedure. Considering the importance to our defence industry, our technological industry and to our art trade, and taking into account that orders made under the Bill could endure for a couple of generations—the last was for a very long time—it is not too much to ask that the legislation that the Secretary of State is putting into place should receive much closer scrutiny than the hit or miss negative procedure will allow for.
The honourable Member for Aberdeen North raised the matter before the Standing Committee in the other place in which he gave a most interesting explanation of the difference between affirmative and negative resolutions. I should like to anticipate the answers that the Minister may wish to give, following the line of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the other place. The Under-Secretary first said that the 1939 Act made no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. I am not sufficiently versed in legal history to say what was the practice in 1939. I have made reference in my notes to what part of school I was in at that time, but I have decided to let that go. Now, two generations on from the previous Act, secondary legislation always does receive parliamentary scrutiny. The only question is what form such scrutiny should take.
I should like to remind Members of the Committee about three other aspects of the 1939 Act. First, it was not an enabling act to the extent that the present Bill is. Secondly, I am sure that the government of the day and, indeed, Parliament, did not anticipate that it would stay in force for 63 years. We have only to look

91
at the title: Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. Thirdly, it was part of the legislation intended to meet the world crisis that existed in 1939.
In those dangerous days, when there was a national emergency prevailing, Parliament was naturally prepared to cede almost unlimited powers to the Government. There is no such need for that today. The historical precedent of the 1939 Act has no relevance today. The Under-Secretary also advanced the argument that:
"Most orders to be made under the Bill for which the negative procedure is provided will be predominantly technical".
I hope that I am mistaken in interpreting that as suggesting that the orders might be too complicated for mere parliamentarians to understand. The more complicated the orders, the greater the need for detailed scrutiny, especially by those Members of the Committee whose experience and expertise makes them well versed in such matters.
The Under-Secretary also said:
"The most frequent need for amendment is as a result of changes to lists of items subject to control".
Even with the rapid changes in technology that we see these days, I really cannot accept that frequent changes in the orders will be needed. I have every confidence that the parliamentary draftsmen are skilled enough to draft orders sufficiently widely worded to anticipate reasonably foreseeable advances in technology. In any case, apart from the pressure on parliamentary time, the fact that changes will sometimes be needed because of changing circumstances is no reason why they should not be subject to the affirmative vetting procedure. On the contrary, it seems even more reason why they should be.
The Under-Secretary also claimed that it might be necessary to introduce specific controls under Clause 3(2) to deal with emergencies. He said that in such circumstances the Government will be required to act without delay. The Government have already provided themselves with powers to deal with emergency situations under Clause 5(2), which enables them to make time-limited orders, and which we discussed much earlier today. The Under-Secretary contended that positive resolutions were not necessary in respect of the record-keeping requirements. However, I venture to suggest that once they have been settled, they will be more or less permanent.
The Under-Secretary concluded by stating:
"The consequential loss of the affirmative resolution procedure in no way diminishes parliamentary scrutiny of orders under the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 18/10/01; cols. 139 and 140.]
We fundamentally disagree with that statement as a matter of general principle. There is definitely a difference between affirmative and negative legislation.
The honourable Member for Aberdeen North was persuaded by the Under-Secretary of State to withdraw his amendment. However, as I have indicated, I am not convinced by the Government's arguments, which is why I tabled the amendment
92
again. I should like to see whether the noble Lord can provide us with more persuasive arguments than those of his colleague in the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The effect of these two amendments is to subject control orders made under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill to parliamentary scrutiny by the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. That seems appropriate for Section 5(2) but not for Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the Bill provides for different scrutiny provisions for different kinds of order. That appropriately reflects the distinction between orders that can change the reasons for which export controls can be imposed and orders that set out the details of those controls. Where the fundamental purposes of export control are concerned, the Bill properly provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply. It is right that the Government should not be able to change the reasons for which controls may be imposed, or to introduce emergency orders that fall outwith those reasons, without the express consent of Parliament.
The Government believe, however, that scrutiny of orders which simply set out the details of controls, and which must always operate within the reasons set out in the schedule, is best achieved by means of the negative resolution procedure. Such orders will frequently be of a technical nature. That is perfectly understandable to Members of this Chamber, but they may not want to spend a great deal of time talking about them; for example, amendments to orders resulting from changes to lists of items subject to control. Those changes are usually a result of alterations to the international export control regimes upon which many of our export controls are based, such as the missile technology control regime. The Government believe that the negative resolution procedure is best suited for orders of that kind.
The Government recognise, however, that Parliament quite properly has an interest in the controls to be introduced by Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill. That is why in October we published dummy draft orders which set out the details of new controls which allow Parliament to see how the Government propose to use the powers in the Bill. Additionally, the Government have announced that they will be holding a full public consultation on draft secondary legislation before the new controls are introduced. That will provide a further opportunity for all those with an interest to consider and comment on the new controls that are to be introduced. In that way, I think that we have the proper position on affirmative orders in the Bill. In view of that, I would welcome the noble Baroness withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think that in an enabling Bill it is more appropriate to have positive rather than negative resolutions. Therefore, clearly I am disappointed by what the noble Lord has said. I was interested in his views that everything is probably technical and that many noble Lords would not want to spend time debating such matters. That is

93
absolutely true. But then of course they would not have to. It would be left to those noble Lords who are interested in scrutinising them carefully to do so. I do not think that that is a reason against having the provision. However, at this stage in the evening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 70A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule [Purposes for making control orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 9. leave out lines 3 to 10.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
"1 (1) Export controls and trade controls may be imposed in relation to—

(a) military equipment;

(b) goods on which military technology is recorded or from which it can be derived;

(c) equipment intended, designed or adapted for use in the development or production of military equipment.

(2) Transfer controls may be imposed in relation to military technology.
(3) Technical assistance controls may be imposed in relation to any services connected with the development, production or use of—

(a) military equipment;

(b) military technology; or

(c) equipment falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c).

(4) In this paragraph (without prejudice to the generality of the terms)—
"military equipment ' includes—

(a) firearms and other weapons (whether or not intended, designed or adapted for military use or in military use);

(b) goods intended, designed or adapted for military use (whether or not in military use); and

"military technology" includes technology intended, designed or adapted—

(a) for military use; or

(b) for use in connection with the development, production or use of military equipment or equipment falling within sub-paragraph (1)(c).

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) the reference to firearms and other weapons includes a reference to—

(a) component parts of firearms or other weapons;

(b) accessories for use with firearms or other weapons; and

94

(c) ammunition, missiles or projectiles of any kind which are intended, designed or adapted for use with firearms or other weapons."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 9, leave out lines 11 to 27 and insert—
"2 (1) Export controls may be imposed in relation to any goods the exportation or use of which is capable of having a relevant consequence.
(2) Transfer controls may be imposed in relation to any technology the transfer or use of which is capable of having such a consequence.
(3) Technical assistance controls may be imposed in relation to any technical assistance the provision or use of which is capable of having such a consequence.
(4) Trade controls may be imposed in relation to any goods the acquisition, disposal, movement or use of which is capable of having such a consequence."
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner): The Question is that Amendment No. 75 shall be agreed to. I have to say that if this is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 76 on the grounds of pre-emption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 9, line 28, leave out "this Schedule" and insert "paragraph 2"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert "or the police services"
The noble Baroness said: Scattered through the schedule to the Bill are the recommendations of the Scott report as to the purposes,
"for which export controls may, subject to Parliamentary approbation, be imposed and used".
I believe that those purposes will be strengthened by adding the police service to its colleagues in the Armed Forces whose security deserves protection.
The police around the world are often in the forefront of the fight against terrorism, insurrection and public disorder. One often sees rioting, orchestrated by masked organisers standing well back from the police lines.
In Northern Ireland, the police have long been We target of IRA assassins; likewise, the Spanish police have been the target of ETA. These terrorist groups exchange intelligence and advice on how to carry out their murderous purposes and supply each other with material support in the form of arms and explosives.
Members of the United Kingdom police service, as well as members of overseas police services, deserve no less protection under the Bill than their colleagues in the Armed Forces. I hope that the Government agree and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendment seeks to include a reference to the police services under paragraph 7(2)(A)(b) of the schedule to the Bill. I shall not use the word "unnecessary". I shall say that it is "not required" or "does not add anything of value to the Bill", because I know that the noble Baroness does not like that word.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue as it gives me the opportunity to explain how, under the Bill, we would have the necessary powers to impose controls where this was judged necessary for the protection of members of our police forces both at home and abroad.
First, of course, the schedule, as amended, makes clear that the Government can impose controls in relation to any military equipment and technology. That will therefore ensure that all weapons and related equipment, which arguably are likely to pose the greatest threat to the police, can be controlled. There are also a number of other reasons for which controls could be imposed that would be relevant to protecting the safety of our police forces at home and abroad.
Paragraph E of the table to the schedule refers to the risk of acts of terrorism or serious crime being carried out anywhere in the world. That allows us, for example, to impose controls in relation to items which might be used for such purposes either abroad, or indeed where there was a risk of their being diverted from the intended end user and smuggled into the UK for use in terrorism or serious crime.
In addition, paragraph A of the table in the schedule provides that controls can be imposed where there is a risk of an adverse effect on national security. That allows controls to be imposed in relation to types of equipment or technology that poses a significant threat to the police forces in this country or those of other member states or friendly states.
Finally, under paragraph B of the table in the schedule we can impose controls to avoid risks of an adverse effect on peace, security or stability in any region of the world or within any country. Under paragraph D we can impose controls in relation to equipment or technology where there is a risk that it might be used for internal repression or breaches of human rights. These powers allow us to impose controls that would be relevant to the protection of any police officers of the UK, other member states or friendly countries working abroad.
So we believe that the Bill would allow us to impose controls on goods or technologies posing a specific threat to our police forces and those of other EU member states and other friendly countries, whether in the UK or abroad. But I remind Members of the Committee that even if we found that we needed to impose controls on particular items that posed a threat only to our police forces abroad and which we could not bring in under the schedule as drafted, we would have the power to introduce temporary controls—with Parliament's express approval—on goods and technologies that fall outside the categories permitted in Clause 5 and the schedule. In the longer term, we could add to the table in the schedule. We therefore
96
believe that the Bill as drafted gives the Government the necessary powers to impose controls where that might be needed to protect the police. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am comforted by what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 10, line 16, at end insert—
"Economic capacity and sustainable development
F An adverse effect on—

(a) the economic capacity; or

(b) the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred."

The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendment No. 79 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Razzall. The Government have made a series of complicated amendments to address the concerns raised regarding the status of sustainable development. However, this simple amendment to include the reference to "sustainable development" in the schedule would have been sufficient.
The Government have never answered the straightforward questions as to why a reference to "sustainable development" was included in the draft Bill but removed when the Bill was presented to Parliament. The Government have presented a number of arguments stating that the role of the schedule now relates solely to defining equipment to be controlled. The Government have argued that that has always been the case but as mentioned during discussion of earlier government amendments that was certainly not the impression given by Ministers in oral evidence to the Quadripartite Committee, or in briefing material on the Bill.
One issue remains to be addressed. An export or transfer order can be made only for a purpose elaborated in the schedule, therefore excluding sustainable development from the schedule means that an order could not be made for that purpose. Our advice states:
"However much other matters have to be taken into account, they cannot justify making an order for a purpose which is not listed on the Schedule".
That means that it would not be possible to introduce specific secondary legislation under the Bill in order more tightly to control exports that could hamper sustainable development, whereas the Government could introduce orders laying out a more detailed definition of what constitutes internal repression, for example. It is important not to restrict the powers of future secretaries of state in that way. For example, secondary legislation could be useful to provide a more detailed definition of sustainable development. We believe that there is no legal reason why the provision could not be added to the schedule and we hope that the government will accept that. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: It is late, and fortunately some of the things that I was going to say have already been said. I still want to add a voice of thanks to the Government for taking sustainable development seriously as a principle, but we remain concerned about the weight to be given to sustainable development and whether it will be mandatory.
Accepting the amendment and making sustainable development one of the relevant consequences in the table schedule would, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, send a clear signal. It would be an obvious way to set out the facts if we were to include it in the table. The simple amendment is unambiguous and transparent and would be sufficient to satisfy many of our concerns.
Sustainable development is such a significant criterion because of the quantitative dimension that comes into play when we think about export sales. In the case of large weapons platforms, whether aircraft carriers or lighter planes, the intrinsic expense can prove problematic, as we have seen in the case of Tanzania. Alternatively, a similar situation can arise with lower cost items when purchases are on a large scale.
But there is more to such sales than those who arrange the finance, those who license such exports and the government of the country to which such goods are exported. Many Members of the Committee will be aware that in the debate about cancelling the debts of the poorest countries, attention is now given to poverty reduction strategy papers. Each country applying for debt relief must set out how it will organise its internal affairs, structure its economy and plan its spending so that the resources made available through loans and debt remittance can benefit the poorest.
At least three parties must be involved: the government of the country concerned: the external funders such as the World Bank and wealthy nations; and, thirdly, civil society represented by local nongovernmental organisations, people in local organisations and voluntary groups right down to the grass roots. That is a very different scenario from the World Bank or similar bodies imposing policies on the grounds that they know best and very different from private and secret deals between external powers and the government of the day in a heavily indebted nation.
I return to the case of Tanzania. The Tanzania Association of NGOs has been shocked to learn that its government have committed the nation to an additional 40 million dollars of commercial debt in addition to their existing unsustainable debt, bearing in mind the work that still needs to be done to educate the poorest in that country. It seems to those in Tanzanian civil society who are aware of what is going on that that act is inconsistent with the United Kingdom Government's own international aid, debt relief and sustainable development policies. It is ironic that we in the United Kingdom may be giving vital budgetary support for debt relief with one hand and taking it back with the other.
98
I said on the Bill's first day in Committee, citing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in earlier debates, that there needs to be a moral presumption against arms sales unless the case for a particular transfer can be proven. Tonight, I go a stage further. There needs to be a moral presumption in favour of poverty reduction, sustainable development and the enabling of human flourishing—what is known in another place as joined-up thinking. There is a moral imperative to help to shape the world so that all can live in what is now a small globe in justice and peace.
The Secretary of State for International Development, citing recent figures—some of them familiar to us, but we need to continue to absorb them—said that one in five of the world's population, two-thirds of them women, live in extreme poverty on less than a dollar a day. About 150 million children are underweight, which is a severe risk to their physical and mental development. More than 36 million people worldwide are infected with HIV; 130 million children have never been to school.
If we call ourselves civilised, we will want to contribute significantly to world development by ensuring that not simply charitable, voluntary work but our economy, our legislation and our politics are conducted in such a way as to enable global human flourishing. I was not able to be present—perhaps some Members of the Committee were—but I am aware that a few days ago, on 26th February, I think, here in Westminster, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development convened a meeting at which the United Nations Millennium Development Goals were endorsed by representatives of the governments of Africa, Latin America, Europe, the Pacific Rim and North America, together with leaders of the United Nations bodies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and development agencies.
I say all that because I want clearly to lay clown not only the need for sustainable development but the huge international pressure that we might work together for debt relief, the reduction of poverty and, indeed, sustainable development. The amendment offers a way to ensure unambiguously that it is a mandatory element of the Bill—not simply on the face of the Bill but a mandatory element of its table—to ensure that the economic capacity and sustainable development of the country to which goods are to be exported or technology transferred are taken into account in the process of deciding the illegitimacy or otherwise of such exports. We have already heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the proposed sale of Hawk aircraft to India. I shall not repeat the figures, but simply say that alongside the obvious security concerns of allowing that sale to proceed are, as the noble Earl reminded us, serious developmental concerns.
The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, stands. If there is no reference in the table in the schedule to the whole question of sustainable development, does that exclusion mean that it will be possible to argue that an order cannot be made for that purpose? I have also consulted lawyers and I am

99
advised that there is no justification at law, however much other matters have to be taken into account, for making an order for a purpose not listed in the schedule. A lawyer could argue that it could not be taken into account. I need to be assured by the Government that if sustainable development is not listed in the schedule, it will—not can but will—be taken into account as a mandatory requirement.
I take some interest in urban areas in England, and I find it strange that a Government that could in May 1999 produce a sensible and coherent strategy for a better quality of life and sustainable development for the United Kingdom are now so shy and coy about doing so on a global scale. The reason that I cited the case of Tanzania and the involvement of civil society is that that removes from us the sense that we cannot make decisions that involve other people—that when we are talking to other governments it must be their decision on their own. It will seem strange to many people, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally, if we are so coy about the matter.
We must make sustainable development a mandatory requirement for consideration, which is why I support the amendment to include it in the table.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I must say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that something that is on the face of the Bill is mandatory. I should explain the context because there has been great confusion about this matter throughout the passage of the Bill and we now have the position clear.
The Bill does two things. First, it defines the categories of goods that can be controlled. That is what the schedule is about, and it is mainly about setting out the military equipment that can be controlled and equipment the export of which has relevant consequences with regard to terrorism and so on. We do not believe that sustainable development should be on the list because we do not think that we should put in the category of goods that should be controlled goods that are simply defined by the fact that they could have an effect on sustainability. That would lead to a massive extension of the powers of the Government in this matter. It would also be an impossible task: we would have to control practically everything because it could have an effect on sustainability. That would be difficult.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Can the Minister explain, in the light of what he has just said, why this amendment relating to sustainability is qualitatively different from item B in the schedule which refers to,
"An adverse effect on peace, security or stability"?
Why is it in a different league from that? The logic of the point that the Minister has just made is that we should remove item B as well. I am all for item B being there; it seems to me that the proposed item F should be there too.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We resist the amendment for exactly the reasons that I have just given. We
100
believe that we should control military equipment and items that can lead to repression or be used in terrorism; we do not believe that we should seek to control goods in a category that would be difficult to define and absolutely vast, including any products, goods or services that could have an impact on sustainability. That has been our consistent policy throughout: we should not seek to control all those items but, in controlling the items specified in the schedule table, we should apply the sustainability criterion. That is why we put that in the relevant clause, where it is made clear that it is absolutely mandatory that it should be considered.
Lord Judd: My noble friend the Minister is being considerate and helpful, as he has been throughout the Committee stage. However, this is an important point: what the Minister has just said seems to suggest that, in the mind of the Government, there is no connection between sustainable development and peace and stability. The House has debated that quite a lot of late, not just in Committee, and there is a view that we should do things about development because it would be right, not because it is in the interests of peace and security.
It is not either/or; we should do it because it is right and is demanded of us ethically and morally. After a lifetime working in that area. I am convinced that the battle for security and stability in the world is a battle for hearts and minds. That is related to sustainable development. If one part is to be retained in the schedule, it would be helpful to have the other, for the same reason.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I do not totally disagree with that argument, but we must be clear that, if we were to include that category, we would effectively include export controls on practically every category of goods that leaves these shores. We would certainly have to include agriculture, construction and energy equipment and consumer goods. It would not be practically possible to operate a system that would do that, leaving aside the almost impossible decisions that would have to be taken as to whether goods in those categories would affect sustainability. I am not certain how we could make sensible judgments about that.
We believe that it would be wrong to put sustainable development in the schedule. It would empower the Government to impose controls on almost any type of goods or technology, as almost all exports of goods or technology have the capacity to have an effect on the sustainable development of the recipient countries. It would also run completely contrary to the recommendations in the Scott report, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, deplored the fact that, under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, the power to impose export controls was not restricted.
We believe that, when we are considering the export of goods that are controlled by the schedule table, it is important that sustainable development should be included as a criterion. We have made it clear that it is a mandatory requirement. That is why we have made

101
the amendments to the Bill that we have made. I hope that that makes clear the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process. However, it is not right that it should go into the schedule, and we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am still uncertain whether he answered the question why the Bill originally had sustainability in the schedule, only for it to be removed. I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester that peace and security are in the schedule at item B. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that sustainability must be based on peace, stability and the eradication of poverty. That is an important point.
I will not be able to change the Minister's mind at this late stage. He set out clearly the Government's thinking on the amendment. With the caveat that we may well bring the matter back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:
Page 10, line 16, at cod insert—
"( ) The question whether an activity involving goods, technology or technical assistance of any particular description is capable of having a relevant consequence is to be determined by the Secretary of State at the time the order imposing the controls is made."
Page 10, line 22, leave out from beginning to "objects" in line 23 and insert "Export controls may be imposed in relation to"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Honours
8.18 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the operation of the honours system.
The noble Lord said: I welcome the opportunity of making some proposals about the working of the honours list, which annually honours 2,000 people, half of them in the new year list and half in the birthday list. It is not my intention to be critical of individuals who have received honours, even if I go on to be critical of the system through which the honours have been obtained. I know some individuals who have achieved honours in a way that, I believe, should not be the case in the future. Nor do I wish to take issue with the Queen's own list of honours, which, I think, is called the Royal Victorian Order. This debate is about honours given out by the Government and the state.
102
I do not suggest that there should be any changes in the granting of honours for bravery in the Armed Forces or for equivalent acts of courage by civilians. Nor do I wish to get embroiled in allegations that honours are sometimes a reward for political donations. That has been the case in the past; I trust and believe that it is no longer true.
I also welcome the reforms of the honours system initiated under the Conservative government by John Major when he was Prime Minister and continued by the present Government. My contention is that more needs to be done if we are to modernise the system.
As regards this House, I welcome the Government's intention to make a clear distinction between being a Member in the future and having a title. That is the Government's intention as stated in the White Paper and I trust that it will be carried through in the legislation when it comes forward.
I also welcome what the Government have done in abolishing the concept of honours for political services and in putting more emphasis on ordinary people and on education, the NHS, law and order and the voluntary sector.
I now turn to my key points. I want to make only seven proposals for change. First, I want to see abolished the present hierarchy of honours, the more so as they are directly related to the status or seniority of the recipient. Who receives knighthoods as against who receives MBEs? I do not believe that it is right. It is wrong in principle to devalue, by implication, the many people who receive the lower level of honours.
Perhaps I may say as an aside that I await the day when the chief executive of a multinational company receives an MBE and his driver a knighthood. That is absurd, and it would not happen in our society. But if we can change the way in which the honours system works we shall have a better approach.
I believe that the Government have not yet done enough to stop the practice of seeming to give honours, virtually automatically, to people in senior positions in business, industry and the Civil Service. It is wrong to use honours merely to reward success. They should not be based on rank, occupation or status. In principle. I am against giving honours to people merely for doing their jobs, be it in business, industry or the Civil Service, or even in areas such as entertainment, sport and politics. I know of two senior civil servants who declined the honour which normally goes with the rank they achieved in their departments.
My key point is that honours should mainly be given for voluntary efforts in the community to people who have put in the extra effort, often without reward, to help others. Perhaps I may give examples of people I know. When I was at the Refugee Council a member of my executive committee was Mrs Novotna who received an OBE for services to refugees. I attended a number of parties at which the Polish community, of which she was a member, celebrated that fact. She gave her work to all refugees, not just to Polish refugees. It was heart-warming to see the pleasure and enthusiasm with which her friends and colleagues in the Polish community and other refugees greeted the reward of

103
an honour. It made such a difference to her and many other people; a difference which I do not believe is made to those who receive knighthoods and so forth at the other end of the scale.
More recently, Mrs Jeannie Hope received an M BE in the honours list. She lives in the village in which I have a home in the Lake District and she received her award for services to the local community in Cumbria. She has, for example, been secretary to the Loweswater annual show for 24 years; she has been secretary of the local village hall; she has been involved in the League of Friends at Cockermouth Hospital; and she represented Cumberland on behalf of the women's institute at a ceremony in London. She has done much in the local community; all a voluntary unstinting effort on her part for others.
I agree that in exceptional cases it might be appropriate to give honours to people who have done exceedingly well in their jobs or professions. However, the emphasis would have to be on "exceptional effort" in such work. If not, we shall merely be returning to the principle, "With the job goes an honour", which surely we do not want.
I also believe—here I may be entering a more contentious area—that we should no longer use the titles of our honours to reflect the British Empire. It is out of date; the Empire has gone and we now have a Commonwealth. I do not believe that we should any longer have a list of titles all of which pretend or suggest that we are still an imperial power. We are not—it is not the case—and we should move on.
Furthermore, honours should in no way be related to titles, not just for the future Members of this House but generally. Honours should not involve being called "Sir", "Dame", or whatever. We should have a simple system but I have not thought of what the titles should be. Perhaps they should be an order of merit, but that might be confused with the existing Order of Merit. Australia has an Order of Australia and perhaps we could have a United Kingdom order. I believe we should have something of that sort which is simple.
I am open-minded about whether there should be more than one grade of that honour. My inclination is probably not but I would need to be assured that in becoming hierarchical the defects of the present system would not be repeated.
There appears to have been a regional bias in honours towards London and the South East and mainly at the higher level. Those who receive those higher levels tend to have jobs associated with London and the South East. Incidentally, the lower level of honours were evenly scattered across the country, which says something else about how the system works.
Furthermore, we need to consider the situation in the devolved administrations. Perhaps they should have the right to recommend honours. As regards Northern Ireland, of which I have experience, I am concerned that some nationalists do not feel able to accept honours because of the imperial connotation in
104
the nomenclature. That is not my only reason for saying that we should not have Orders of the British Empire and so forth, but it is an additional argument.
Finally, I believe that responsibility for granting honours should be removed from the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office and given to an entirely independent commission, somewhat on the model of the committee which elects Cross Bench Peers. I hope it will work a bit better than that committee—no disrespect to those who came by that system. I had better be careful! I do not believe that the system worked very well although it produced some excellent people. However, I believe that an independent commission would be the best way of granting honours because it would be totally removed from the political process and from government.
If the Government feel it necessary to consider further before making the changes I have suggested, there might be a case for having a Royal Commission. However, that is often a way of batting a subject into touch for years so I would rather the Government dealt with the matter.
In short, I am looking for an honours system which reflects a modern 21st century country. That is what we are and that is the system we ought to have to reflect the work which our fellow citizens do mainly on a voluntary basis for the rest of the community.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for raising this issue. As former colleagues on the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which the noble Lord now chairs. I have always had a high regard for his opinions even though, as today, we shall probably not agree on every detail.
I have two interests to declare. First, I am a Member of this House and, secondly, I am a Commander of the British Empire. I would be sad if that were abolished—but then I would say that, wouldn't I?
First, I want to make plain my firm belief in the value of an honours system. I share that view with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As in many other countries, it is a widely respected way of expressing public recognition of an individual's service and/or achievement. And I would argue that it has overall stood the test of time. When I say that, it is to acknowledge that our system has rich historical roots.
My second point is that we are far from being alone in that. Let us take, for example, France which has at least nine major orders of merit and dozens of minor ones. The best knows is the Legion D'Honneur which was founded in 1802 by the first Consul of the Republic, Napoleon Bonaparte himself. Two thousand awards are made each year, on New Year's Day and Bastille Day, and there are well over 100,000 members.
Perhaps the most notable feature in the context of this debate is that even in the revolutionary birthplace of fraternity and equality the most prestigious order is divided into no fewer than five ranks or classes from

105
Chevalier to Grand-Croix. Their second order, Ordre National de Merite, created by de Gaulle in 1963, has over 200,000 members and so on.
Other great democracies are not so different. The United States, for example, has several awards and orders dating back perhaps not surprisingly to 1776 and 1861, but again there are more than a dozen other awards, most of them established over the past half century.
Some criticisms of how the honours system can be used have been legitimate, but now they are substantially dealt with and kept under review, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord. For example, 1 cite the undue linkage between honours and political contributions. Such aspects have been considered on at least two occasions over the past century. The 1920s and 1930s saw the Lloyd-George scandals, while recently recommendations were made by the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and endorsed by the Government's response in July 1999.
However, other kinds of criticism continue to recur, in particular the percentage of honours awarded to public servants again, as has already been pointed out, almost automatically. Those awards appear to "come with the rations", going to what sometimes looks like a rather random sample. I agree with the principle that has been spelt out that honours should be awarded for actions over and above the requirements of any job or profession, but that does not mean that public servants should be excluded from consideration. Often they perform well above the call of duty, and often too in difficult and dangerous situations. It is also right to acknowledge that during John Major's time in Downing Street, a substantial shift was made towards recognising the unsung and under-recognised voluntary pillars of the local community.
Even so—I come to my third point—I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the shift in emphasis could and should be taken further. For example, it is still surprising that, given how much voluntary work at the grass roots, regional and national levels is carried out by women, comparatively so few women still figure in the Honours List, in particular in the very top grades. Overall, I am glad to say that the percentage has risen from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. We must give credit to this Government for that.
But I must not fail to make my fourth point, if only because it is the one that I wish to emphasise the most. I believe that we need to move decisively towards a much more open and transparent system. I should like to support that point by sharing with noble Lords my experience of an operation in this kind of openness in which I was lucky enough to take part some 40 years ago.
I was appointed by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, to serve on the Advisory Committee on the Appointment of Magistrates for Inner London. Our chairman was none other than the redoubtable Lord Denning. I arrived to find that our names were not disclosed to the public—I was reliably informed
106
that the members of the committee were terrified that they would be lobbied. The sole source of "recommendations" were lists from each of the three political parties. From those we 'were expected to choose a given number and pass them on to the Lord Chancellor for formal appointment.
Well, we soon put a stop to that. We decided to make full use of the media, saying who we were, what qualities and experience we were looking for and inviting individuals to apply or to he put forward with references from those who knew them well within their own communities. I can still remember the concerns expressed to the effect that we would be inundated with applications from cranks and lunatics.
What we actually got was a much wider and more comprehensive cross section of the whole community, which we duly sifted and then interviewed. We were then able to submit to the Lord Chancellor a, in my view, much better qualified and well balanced list of potential magistrates. I believe that today—I certainly hope it is the case—all such advisory committees are equally transparent and accountable.
That is the background against which we should be looking for a much more open system for awarding honours. Today there is, I believe, at least a little more transparency, at least for those who take the trouble to ask about how to apply. But why is not information of this kind made much more widely available to the public at Consignia offices, on the Internet, or in broadcast and newspaper adverts? That should be done, together with more information about the kind of candidates that are being sought, how long the process is likely to take and the guidelines by which the system will make its judgments.
I have to say, from my own experience and that of many others who have put forward names, that there appears to be complete bafflement at how and, above all, by whom the choices are made and what, if any, logic is applied. There appears to be a network of nameless and faceless committee members, which is in complete contrast to today's arrangements for selecting members of the magistracy or, indeed—as was pointed out by the noble Lord—for appointing independent Members of your Lordships' House, and all appointments that are made or are under review by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Beyond that, there is little or no feedback on why some names with wide and well-founded support that are put forward repeatedly over many years are riot chosen. Is it because they do not measure up or because the list's quota of, say, OBEs has been used up and they would be considered again in six months' time? All one ever sees is a uniquely bland, uniquely uninformative formalised response.
If one needs a model for an apparently far-reaching change of the kind one would like to see, then one need only to look to Australia—again, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Incidentally, that country is still one of Her Majesty's dominions, but with a system fundamentally transformed in its method of

107
operation. There is complete openness about how it works and about how the ordinary citizen can make it work. Above all, the people who run it are known.
In our own country, we still do not know who makes these judgments. Are they entirely civil servants or entirely "experts" in each field of "expertise"? Are they sufficiently representative of the outside world—by which I mean representative of both sexes and proportionately of the races that we have within our country? Is there a regular turnover of the membership? I realise of course that the answers may not be as simple as the questions imply, but surely we can make a start on achieving greater transparency and accountability in this whole area.
8.37 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this Unstarred Question for debate. In speaking I remind the House that I have an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I am just about to be awarded my Territorial Decoration, the TD.
The noble Lord referred to the reform of this House. I do not think that we should separate the peerage from the membership of this House, but I do think that it ought to be possible to be a Member of this House without having to be a Peer or a Lord.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's identification of the defects of the current system, but he will not be surprised if I do not agree with many of his solutions.
The noble Lord referred to the last government. They made two significant changes to the honours system affecting the Armed Forces. First, they stopped awarding the British Empire Medal, the BEM, because in future all awards were to be that of the Member of the Order of the British Empire, the MBE. It was seen as an equality measure, but I believe that it created a problem for the Armed Forces. Previously, other ranks were awarded the BEM and officers the MBE. The problem is that now soldiers have to compete with officers for an award. The fact of the matter is that there will be a ration or quota for each endeavour. Therefore no matter how good or how exceptional an NCO or warrant officer might be, he will not be able to affect the outcome of an endeavour in the way that an officer can.
Commanders expend a great deal of effort in writing up recommendations for an honour or award, but there is no incentive to write them up if there is very little chance of success. Of course, this exacerbates the problem of soldiers competing with officers. Will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider reintroducing the BEM—and many more of them—perhaps with investiture by a senior member of the Royal Family rather than by Her Majesty?
If we follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and have no more ranking of awards, we shall have problems with other awards similar to those I have described in regard to the MBE and BEM.
108
The second change made by the previous government was to discontinue the award of the Military Medal. In future all recipients would be awarded the Military Cross. I fully supported that because I could see no difference in acts of gallantry between officers and soldiers.
Noble Lords should not underestimate the motivational value of a gallantry award. I well recall private conversations in the Officers' Mess before deploying on a operation. The officers were very mature, but there is no doubt that if the opportunity arose they would "go for it". That is not surprising as all officers and NCOs are programmed and selected on that basis. Fortunately, on that operation few opportunities arose anywhere—it was a stable operation—but it could have gone wrong at any time. Furthermore, being in a logistic unit further reduced the opportunities.
The British Armed Forces are very parsimonious about awards. The members of the Armed Forces understand that and are extremely disparaging of some US servicemen who have a chest full of medals and have yet to carry out one military operation. It is also well understood that an award to one serviceman reflects well upon the whole unit.
The Army Medals Office administers army medals and decorations. The other two services will have similar organisations. I remind the House of my interest but I have no difficulty myself. The staff are dedicated and provide a reliable service. However, I detect a perception that it is a bit slow to process applications. In view of the continuing high level of operations, will the noble and learned Lord check to ensure that the Army Medals Office is adequately resourced?
Lord Lieutenants' certificates of meritorious service are awarded to members of the volunteer reserves and to some civilian organisations. As an officer commanding, every year I received a letter from the secretary of TAVRA, the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association. I had to nominate three soldiers for consideration by a committee. Two would be accepted for an award and one would be rejected. This had been going on for several years before I arrived and, as a result, I found that I had no really deserving soldier left. But the TAVRA letter stated that finding no suitable candidates would be "sheer idleness". If I received a letter like that from my commanding officer accusing me of sheer idleness, I would go to him and ask him whether he still required my services.
It got to the position where I was going through the company's nominal roll to select the least undesirable option. I had an excellent company but few of the soldiers were outstanding. It is particularly galling and distasteful to have to write up one of the nominations to ensure that he was not selected. I did not want a mistake to be made; I wanted the two best soldiers to receive the award. Unfortunately, the soldiers could easily see that most recipients were not really outstanding. Consequently the utility of the award was lost.

109
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can mitigate the problem, but it would be helpful if he encouraged the chain of command to state categorically that units should never have to make nominations for any award.
In conclusion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the system could be improved. I am certain that we should explore the matter further
8.44 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating this extremely important debate.
It goes without saying that every country has some way of distinguishing and honouring those citizens who deserve well of it either by virtue of their professional achievements or their social and political service. The system of honours reflects and reinforces a country's sense of national identity and, therefore, cannot be judged independently of what we think ourselves to be.
Our honours system has changed over the years because our conception of who we are as a country has changed over the years. Going back to 1398, when the Order of the Garter was established, we have had around 14 important changes in the honours system, one of the latest being the Order of the British Empire, which has been with us since 1917. The Order of the Indian Empire was discontinued in 1947.
I mention this simply to indicate that our system of honours has changed over the years. Because it has changed over the years we need to look at it carefully from time to time to see whether it is keeping pace with new circumstances. It is in that spirit that I wish to make half a dozen what I consider to be important suggestions.
First, the British Empire ended a few decades ago and the five honours associated with it need a new vocabulary or a new nomenclature. This is particularly important because we are still finding it difficult to come to terms with our post-imperial identity. A change in name would greatly assist the process of self-understanding. I have no immediate alternatives to MBE, OBE or CBE, but it is not beyond our imagination to think of some. The "Empire" could be replaced with the "Commonwealth", or we could think in terms of nomenclatures such as "Admirable Citizen", AC; "Distinguished Citizen", DC; or even "Most Distinguished Citizen", MDC.
Secondly, although over the years our honours system has become more broad-based and representative of our cultural and social diversity, it still remains a little too narrow. Some groups of people, such as civil servants, MPs, political activists and those in London and the South East, tend to receive a larger share of honours than others. Those who receive less than the proposed share of honours include people such as nurses, school teachers, journalists, social workers and those engaged in the voluntary services. Ethnic minorities for years were poorly represented. Although this has changed during the past few years, on a very quick calculation I reckon
110
that at present the ethnic minorities, which constitute 7 per cent of the population, have received no more than 1.2 per cent of the total honours. Even these largely under-represented groups tend to be clustered at the bottom of the hierarchy. This is a problem of representation at different levels of the hierarchy and among different groups of society and needs to be looked at carefully.
My third suggestion is of a different kind. The honours lists that are published twice a year are rarely subject to parliamentary debate. I am not suggesting that they should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny—that would create its own problems—but they should be the subject of debate of the kind that we are having today. The point of the debate would be to look at the basic categories of people who have received honours and at the principles which guided who receives what. In the course of that debate we could lay down the guiding principles for the future allocation of honours.
Fourthly, although we do honour foreign nationals—increasingly so in recent years—we do not seem to have a coherent policy on the subject. To the best of my knowledge, we have no system of honouring those people in other countries who help to promote British interests or who have contributed to building a better understanding between their countries and ours. The French have such a system and we should give the matter some attention. For a country like ours, with global political, commercial and cultural interests, a way of honouring foreign nationals who have contributed in their own countries to the promotion of our national interest has a great deal to be said for it.
Fifthly, we currently have nearly a dozen different categories of honours; and the distinctions between them are not entirely clear. It would be useful to rationalise the system. One way to do that would be to set up a Royal Commission.
Finally, unlike honours in almost all other countries, some of our honours carry titles. As my noble friend Lord Dubs pointed out, they create and ostentatiously assert a culture of social inequality. To be called "Sir So-and-so" or "Lord So-and-so" tends to encourage an attitude of superiority on one side and one of deference on the other. These seductive and even addictive titles nurture a culture that has not served us very well in the past and may need to he combated in years to come if we want to be a fully democratic society.
8.51 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I. too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing the debate. It has provided some interesting insights into the honours system. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the decoration that he is to receive in recognition of his great contribution to the Territorial Army. He offered an interesting insight when he said that it all depended on "how you wrote people up". I envisaged situations in which many of us might put pen to paper to offer an enthusiastic, but somewhat

111
flawed, proposal which might lead to that person not receiving the award that he or she was hoping to receive.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, about the importance of dropping references to the British Empire. That seems to me an astonishingly anachronistic award. However, I worry slightly about including an adjective in an award—for example, "distinguished" citizen. In the United States, where I sometimes teach, there is now the special category of "distinguished professor". A professor does not have to prove that he is distinguished; he is simply called "distinguished". I can imagine the possibility of an innovation in this House. We might have the "noble and sociable Lord", the "noble and fun-loving Lord", or the "noble and truly serious Lord". The possibilities are extremely exciting and would doubtless add greatly to the enjoyment of our debates.
I want to express my sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I believe that we are now looking at something of an "alphabet soup" of awards—infinitely complicated. In the days when people devoted vast attention to patronage, it was no doubt interesting to be GCMG rather than KCMG, or whatever it might be. I feel that we have gone past that period of time and that we ought to remove what might be described as the Gilbert and Sullivan aspects of our honours system.
My party would like to see a straightforward system. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that we need some way of recognising outstanding public service or personal actions. But that could probably be in two broad areas—for example, a form of order of merit which might be much more generally extended for outstanding public service, and a form of George Cross which might be much more greatly extended for forms of individual courage and outstanding contribution.
It is only right to pay considerable credit to the former Prime Minister, John Major. He introduced a clear and sensible approach to the honours system when he said that it should recognise "self-sacrifice and generosity". That is an astonishing pair of nouns. But the more you think about it, the more you recognise that that is indeed a basis on which someone might be honoured by society.
I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that we need to widen the system. All of us know people who labour in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I can think of at least two or three people who worked in extremely poor communities in Liverpool year after year. They still have no honour of any kind. Yet the work they did in holding those communities together far outstrips what might be described as a reputable public office which, after 30 years, leads finally to a knighthood because that always comes with the rations. That is not a very good basis on which to award honours. My plea is that we should recognise
112
not only voluntary service but also service to local communities as a strong basis on which to award honours.
It is said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so I shall spend just a few minutes being a fool. It is difficult to avoid the tricky issue of the relationship between honours and political donations. I shall not be partisan or personal, but I want to make a few remarks about the issue.
In the past, we had a situation that was deeply troubling. No one on these Benches can forget that one of our great forefathers was the great Prime Minister, Lloyd-George. One of his most attractive characteristics was not an excessive respect for financial probity. Indeed, he financed the early stages of my party—before it became upright but poor, as it is today—by selling honours fairly generally. Incidentally, although he is often presented as unique in that respect, most of us who know our history recognise that the practice was more widely followed than just by one particular Prime Minister or one particular party.
We have moved away from the crude auctioneering of honours—but not entirely. Perhaps I may quote Robert Blackburn, who wrote a book entitled The Electoral System in Britain, which was published in 1999. He stated:
"Critics of the operation of the modern-day honours system do not suggest that open arrangements are made for the sale of honours, but it is widely accepted that substantial political donations buy goodwill and substantially enhance the likelihood of being considered for an honour, and the overall prospects of receiving one".
Mr Blackburn made it plain that he was not referring only to political honours. That may be the important point. He was referring to other, high honours—in regard to which, if someone has been a loyal and generous donor to a political party, can tip the balance towards receiving an honour rather than not receiving one. It is important that we have proper system of scrutiny.
I have a worry about scrutiny. The Political Honours Scrutiny Committee—a body of undoubted reputation which we all hold in high respect—consisting of three Privy Counsellors, was invited as a result of the fifth report of the Neill committee to examine not only political honours but also honours where a political donation might be influential; in other words, where it might just tip the balance between the honour being awarded and a decision not to award it. The committee's remit has been extended to cover the difficult area of those who are given an honour, not for political reasons, but for other reasons, but who nevertheless were active in politics and who may have been active supporters financially of a particular political party.
Here we come head-on to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The difficulty, as I understand it, for the scrutiny committee is to try to obtain the information that it needs to do a proper job of scrutiny. As we all know, the information about

113
political donations rests with the Electoral Commission and not with any other committee. That may well be as it should be.
However, we must consider whether a system in which it is still the case that the Chief Whip is the person who has ultimate authority in terms of someone's record and probity is a satisfactory system at the beginning of the 21st century. I very much doubt that it is. I have the greatest respect for Chief Whips—indeed, if I did not say so, my Chief Whip, on reading Hansard tomorrow, would take me sharply to task. Nevertheless, Chief Whips, although nearly omniscient, are not totally omniscient. It is doubtful whether a Chief Whip, however busy, can know all that there is to know about the reputation and probity of, let us say, 500 or even 300 individuals. None of us can do that—and Chief Whips cannot do it either.
My question to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is: will he tell us something about the extent to which the databases of the Electoral Commission and the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee can be brought together? I recognise that there are real problems because of the Data Protection Act and also because of legal difficulties. It is important that we have full information without invading people's privacy, so that people know that they will be looked at in these terms.
Secondly, will the noble and learned Lord tell us something about the transition period in which, as I understand it from the White Paper, the database of the Electoral Commission would be built up. It could he as long as three to five years; and given that, the White Paper was published in 1999, we must be getting reasonably close to the point at which the transitional provision period will be over. Perhaps the Leader of the House can say something about that.
As with all late evening debates in the House of Lords, we have learnt all sorts of fascinating things. I reiterate that, like other Members of the House, I feel that there is a strong case for an honours system, which is a useful way of recognising outstanding merit. However, there appears to be a fairly broad consensus that that should be merit not simply by seniority and the passing of time but because one has gone beyond the proper expectations of the work that one does in one's office. Honours should not be linked to class structures any more, although I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about military decorations. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say something about that.
Finally, there is the serious issue of ensuring that, while nobody should discourage honourable and openly stated political donations, the honours system is proof against political donations as a way into that system. We would all be less than honest if we did not recognise that over the past century the two have sometimes been much too closely interlinked. I look forward to the answers from the noble and learned Lord and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for raising these many issues.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I suppose that I should start by declaring an interest, as I have the honour to be a member of the Privy Council and a knight, as well as a Member of your Lordships' House—although whether the membership of this House was awarded as an honour or as an appointment is not for me to speculate. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating this interesting short debate.
The current British honours system retains a value for our national life out of all proportion to its costs. Honours matter to people and are appreciated by all who receive them, including foreigners such as the mayor of New York, who recently received an honour, as well as British citizens, right the way down to school crossing wardens. I wish to see the system maintained—or perhaps "conserved" would be a better word, because I do not mean that it should never change.
One of the advantages of the system is its flexibility and the different ways in which it has been used over the years. Small but significant changes happen comparatively frequently. To a certain extent they happen all the time because each honours list is a hit different from its predecessor. However, it should change only slowly and almost imperceptibly to maintain its necessary mystique and traditions, although some of the honours are not as old as they seem.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to try to introduce too much logic into the system seems to me to be a mistake. What logic is there in naming the highest order in the land after a garter? Where is the logic in naming an order after the bath? Nevertheless, those things count and have acquired prestige over many centuries. The Order of the British Empire is quite modern by comparison. In general, honours are not a suitable candidate for modernisation as it is sometimes understood these days. In any case, it usually means that things look dated more quickly.
The honours system is sometimes discussed as if it were somehow inextricably bound up with this country being a monarchy. In fact, just as we would presumably have a president or some other person as head of state if we had no monarch, I am sure that we would also have a new honours system but without the history of our present system. Such a system would have all the present system's disadvantages but no advantages. Virtually all the republics in Europe and throughout the world have state honours systems—they are just not as respected as ours. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may not appreciate titles, but they are appreciated abroad and they help our diplomatic and other efforts overseas.
Many honours in this country and elsewhere are not awarded by the Crown. These days, the Crown is not the only fount of honour. For example, universities have elaborate honours systems, including honorary degrees, emeritus professorships and various other special titles, such as visitor. Some, notably emeritus

115
professorships, confer a form of title on the individual concerned. Sometimes they are for academic achievement, sometimes they are for distinction in other fields and sometimes, I am told, they are for donating money to the university, particularly to allow the foundation of a new school or facility.
The Church of England also awards honorary degrees in divinity and in music. Some dioceses appoint honorary lay canons from lay people who have served the Church in that area. The Roman Catholic Church creates knights, sometimes primarily for their heredity and sometimes as a recognition of their services to the Church. Local authorities create honorary aldermen and give the freedom of their city or borough to distinguished citizens or other people who have served the borough.
One could go on with other examples. Many societies, charities and clubs recognise service or achievement by making people patrons, vice-presidents or honorary members. There is an enormous variety of honours that have nothing to do with the Crown.
For that reason, I do not object to the fact that direct service to the state—or to the Crown, as we express it in this country—through the Civil Service or the Armed Forces or in other ways is heavily represented in the Crown honours lists twice a year. It seems to me right that the state should recognise those who serve it well in high posts—and sometimes in lowly posts—as well as those who serve the community in other ways. From a practical point of view, it is certainly motivational and encourages people to serve the state and to strive for the highest offices in these highly competitive times, even though they are not generally as well paid as comparable jobs elsewhere. As for ironing out some of the gradations in honours, I understand the argument for it. However, by having a hierarchy of ranks one can repeat the motivation at different stages of the individual's career in the public service.
I realise that if the contestants on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" were asked to arrange the KBE, the CBE, the OBE and the MBE in order of seniority most of them would fail, as would most of those on the Clapham omnibus or in the public bar of most pubs. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, in the course of his improvements to the honours system my right honourable friend John Major amalgamated the MBE and the BEM and in doing so made the most significant single change. Although it may not sound much, the crucial difference is that, whereas the BEM was presented by the Lord Lieutenant, the head of a Civil Service department or a senior person in the Armed Forces, the MBE is presented at Buckingham Palace at a full investiture.
I had personal experience of that when my ministerial driver was honoured. She had driven me for some years while I was in various government posts, and driven other ministers for much longer, until she was a very senior driver in the service—as well as being an excellent one, with a first-class knowledge of London. She was honoured after John Major's
116
changes were made. Therefore, instead of the BEM she received the MBE. When she went to the Palace I drove her and I waited in the Palace quadrangle during the investiture.
Should the amalgamation process go further? I think that change will be a matter of degree and that the process will make little difference in practice. I therefore do not think that it should have a high priority.
It was left to almost the end of our debate for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—the successor in office to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-George, in some respects; well, not quite, but very nearly—to raise the issue of political honours, particularly when donations might be involved. We all want reassurance that the preventive mechanisms, including the law itself, work in these cases. However, speaking as a Chief Whip, may I say that we do not rely only on our own judgment in these matters. We have sources of information that are helpful in answering the questions from the Honours Scrutiny Committee. We do have to nominate someone within the political party hierarchy to answer the difficult questions when they are asked. Perhaps there is a better person than the Chief Whip to do that but I am not sure who that person is.
In general, I think that the honours system should evolve and adapt gradually. It was altered and opened up considerably, and quite rightly, by my right honourable friend John Major. However, it is a worthwhile and valuable system. It also depends on its history and tradition. For that reason, to change it drastically would be to damage it seriously. We should value our traditions and their continuity. They are what make our country different and special.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is on occasions such as this that I miss with deep nostalgia the high noon day of the imperial dynasty of Japan in all its pomp and the Ming dynasty in China with all its certainties. I had thought that perhaps appearing before me this evening there might have been a philosophic chasm with those to the right and those to the left, but all are in the middle. No one seems to think that there is anything really wrong that could not be improved, and that is a very useful platform from which I may develop my brief thoughts.
This is a very distinguished House, of course. It would not be commonly known to all—some might be ignorant of this—but we have with us this evening, although not speaking, a holder of the Order of the Lion of Finland and also a holder of the Grand Cross (Second Class) of the Federal Republic of Germany. I am simply reminding the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others of my friends—not present this evening, but constantly in my thoughts—who hold the Order of the Rose (Silver) Bulgaria 1991 and the Grand Official Order of the Southern Cross (Brazil) 1997. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is a holder of the Commander Cross of the Order of the Merit of the Republic of Poland; the noble Baroness,

117
Lady Hooper, is a member of the Order of Francisco de Miranda (Venezuela); and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is a member of the Order of the White Lion—definitely first class—of the Czech Republic. So, in some ways, I think that your Lordships have approached this deeply serious matter with a degree of superficiality which I hope that my researchers have corrected.
There is lots to be said for country lawyers—Robespierre was one—although no one has adopted the creed of the Sea-green Incorruptible, who probably would have had nothing to do with honours of any sort. I noticed that, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte introduced in France some rather plebeian honours. But he soon recognised the error of his ways because he made himself emperor quite soon thereafter.
In the old, sad days of the Conservative Party, one of the honours that whips offered, in strong competition, was the order of the double cross; but so many people might have been eligible for it that even the chief whips got tired. I remember when President Nixon's nominee for the Supreme Court was robustly thrown out by the Judiciary Committee on the basis that the nominee was "utterly mediocre and talentless", to which the indefatigable Nixon said, "Utterly mediocre and talentless people should be recognised and rewarded just the same as everyone else".
In the comparative calm of your Lordships' House, perhaps the most distinguished recent statesman was Mr Gladstone. He was born Gladstone and died Mr Gladstone; and in some ways perhaps had the last laugh on us all. Even the great Cromwell accepted the designation of Lord Protector although I believe that he declined the crown. The question is this. Is the desire for an honours system simply the maggot in the apple? Is it because humankind is irretrievably flawed and failed, too weak and enfeebled to live without an honours system; or is it that, by and large, we think that it does a certain amount of good and no real harm? I suspect from what noble Lords have said that the latter ringing endorsement is the one that your Lordships feel appropriate.
Last weekend, I was reading Andrew Roberts' biography of the Marquess of Salisbury. As noble Lords know I have a deeply sad life and I turned to read that book. Salisbury spent so much time on the issue realising, as he is quoted in the book as saying, that most of the supplicants for honours did not want them for themselves; they wanted them to irritate and annoy their friends and colleagues who were not going to have them. That seems a perfectly deeply Christian approach to these matters.
I used to wonder, and worry sometimes, about how we would manage reform of your Lordships' House. Compared with reform of the honours system, the reform of your Lordships' House would be but the work of a moment. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants the BEM brought back. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, in no circumstances wants the BEM brought back. Many noble Lords prefer a degree of stratification. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, wants no stratification
118
except reversed stratification so that the captain of industry might have the OBE and the driver might have the knighthood—or in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the damehood.
Your Lordships will recognise that I approach the issue with a wholly open mind. I have to point out to my noble friend Lord Parekh that the history of awards to members of ethnic minorities has been rather good. Since 2000, the figure has been 5.1, 5.9, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.4 per cent respectively., so I think that we have done better there. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that we have not been as fair and even handed in the recognition of the work that women do but that is common and endemic throughout society and not restricted to the honours system, in my opinion and experience.
Since the rather refreshing approach of Mr Major, the automaticity—what a concept: what word—of honours has virtually gone. I think that the only people who get honours automatically now are High Court judges who receive a knighthood on the occasion of their being sworn in or soon thereafter. But the remainder of the automatic appointments has virtually gone. We need to draw the distinction between honours and appointments. It is an honour to come to this House but it is not the same as an honour which rewards public service in the usual way.
Whether or not one agrees with an honours system, almost half the awards go to those in the voluntary sector. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on that. More than half go to people who are active at grass roots, not all voluntary, but all doing good work—for instance, the lollipop lady, the postman and the parish councillor. When one reads through the list—I do so religiously because coming from where I do it is always interesting to see how many of those called Jones come from Wales; I can assure noble Lords that it is the overwhelming majority—almost half go to those people who have been nominated by, or have support from, members of the public.
If you apply for an award or an honour yourself, you are virtually certain not to get it. I hope that message will be heard throughout the length and breadth of the land as it would result in my postbag being significantly diminished from tomorrow onwards. Apparently, it is said that very few people refuse an honour. The system is kept under constant and appropriate review. I am happy to pay tribute to Mr Major as he did seek an open-minded, much more modern approach. There is much greater emphasis post-Mr Major on education, health and law and order. We are seeing excellent schoolteachers appropriately recognised. We should be reproached that we are surprised that a schoolteacher or a headmaster of a difficult comprehensive school, a beacon school, is eligible for a knighthood or a damehood. We have been unimaginative in the past. The system is much more flexible now than it was even 10 years ago. I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that regard.
Criticism has been made—it was made this evening—that the system is wrapped in too much secrecy. That may be inevitable: otherwise, the names

119
of persons who were put forward but failed would be disclosed. I say seriously that that would be rather hurtful. There is also the problem of those who have the levers of power being lobbied to pull them on a partisan basis. That would result in difficulties. I believe that the system in its outcome tends to be rather good in the vast majority of cases.
It is true that among the—I put this in inverted commas—"senior honours" there are the ranks of the great and the good. However, if one looks at the many thousands—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned this—of awards given every year (if one wishes to have such a system) by and large the system works decently and fairly. I give one example. When I was Attorney-General, it was time for reform of the system whereby "government work"—I put that in inverted commas—was distributed to members of the Bar. That had always been done in a rather secretive way by the Attorney-General's clerk. I thought that that was wrong in principle. My former clerk at the Bar, Alan Kilbey, wholly reformed that system as a public service in his own time, without financial reward and was honoured in the New Year's honours list. That is an appropriate honour for someone who has given distinct public service without the hope of reward of any kind, whether by way of honour or financial recompense.
120
As we all recognise from the debate, there will never be a basis upon which everyone will agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, virtually every country in the world of which I am aware wishes to have an honours system of one kind or another. Is that simply catering to human foible? Is it simply a sop to human vanity? It may be in some ways. Is it, on the other hand, a public recognition that not everyone does things simply for financial advantage? There is an aspect of that also.
All of your Lordships' thoughts, ideas, proposals and suggestions will be transmitted by me. I cannot satisfy all of your Lordships as most of your Lordships internally disagree. I shall finish, as I have almost reached the 12 minutes allotted to me. When I was a child, not long ago, my grandfather—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that the word "Oh" will not appear in Hansard tomorrow. My grandfather was an Asquithian Liberal and my father a Lloyd-George Liberal which led to endless arguments. The one controversy that I still remember is my grandfather spitting out furiously at my father, who was a Lloyd-George Liberal, "What happened to the Lloyd-George political fund"? I do not know the answer to that, but one day we shall find out.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  Immigration: Rights of the Child
  Immigration: Rights of the Child
  Yusefeli Dam
  Yusefeli Dam
  Football
  Football
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
  Agriculture Council, 18 February
  Agriculture Council, 18 February