Sitting of 20 March 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Electoral Fraud
    Mr. David Stewart: When the new measures to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland will come into force. [142003]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): It is intended that all the measures proposed in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will be in force in time for the scheduled Assembly elections on 1 May 2003. This represents a major step forward in tackling electoral abuse.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend share my view that the elimination of electoral fraud should be a key priority for the Government? Will he also condemn the abuses perpetrated through the multi-registration and proxy vote procedures? Is he confident that the planned changes, which include the national insurance check for absent voters, will not deter legitimate electors?
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Bill sends a clear signal to people intent on committing electoral fraud, which is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. I thank him too for his question about national insurance numbers, as it gives me an opportunity to announce for the first time in this House that, from this year's annual canvass, applicants to the Northern Ireland electoral register and for an absent vote will be required to provide a signature, a date of birth and a national insurance number. However, to assist applicants, registration will be facilitated by a canvasser on an individual basis, and it will be preceded by a significant publicity campaign.
    288
    The House should bear in mind also the fact that, until mid-March 2003, anyone who is not on the register on 1 December will still be able to get on to it on a rolling basis. I am satisfied that, in all circumstances, the proper balance has been struck.
    Lady Hermon: Given that the electoral office will clearly have enhanced powers to combat electoral fraud, will the Minister give an undertaking that it and other offices, such as the office of the police ombudsman, will come within the remit of the new chief inspector of criminal justice?
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I cannot give her the assurance that she seeks today, but I can tell her that I am consulting 18 agencies—among them the chief electoral officer and the police ombudsman—with regard to their inclusion in the remit of the criminal justice inspectorate.
    Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that the registration of a person's death will lead to that person's name being crossed off the electoral register at once?
    Mr. Browne: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance immediately, but I shall write to him on the matter.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about terrorist weapon decommissioning. [42004]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): We welcomed the announcement on 23 October 2001 that the Provisional IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. We now want to see further decommissioning by the IRA, and decommissioning by all other terrorist groups.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She is aware, as am I, of the long-held belief that people who retain illegal arms do so to protect their place in the illegal drugs trade in Northern Ireland. That belief is strengthened by the activities of IRA members in Colombia in support of FARC, the terrorist and drug trafficking organisation. She will know that the issue has been raised in Congress very recently by US State Department officials. As part of the process of urging the decommissioning of illegal arms, will my hon. Friend ensure that pressure is also brought to bear on republican and loyalist terrorist to end their ownership of arms and their part in the illegal trade in drugs?
    Jane Kennedy: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed that very matter with the American Government when he visited the US last week. There has been a credible start to decommissioning, but last October's event needs to become a process without further delay. We also want decommissioning to be undertaken by loyalists and by dissident groups that

    289
    remain outside the peace process. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries both must realise that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward.
    Mr. Michael Mates: Have there been any further acts of decommissioning since that first event?
    Jane Kennedy: We have received no information from the decommissioning commission that any further event has taken place, but the old arguments for holding on to illegal arms are obsolete. We have lived up to our commitments, as set out in the Belfast agreement and at Weston Park. It is time for all paramilitary organisations to honour their commitments to decommission.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the total decommissioning of paramilitary and terrorist weaponry and the disestablishment of paramilitary and terrorist structures are prerequisites to creating an environment in which our new institutions can thrive and prosper? Does she share my concern at the murder in my constituency a few days ago of Matthew Burns, for which local media reports claim that the Provisional IRA was responsible? Given that organisation's alleged truce, what action does she propose to take, and what inquiries will she make?
    Jane Kennedy: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is a need for society to move away from violence and the culture of violence. The ceasefires that we have in Northern Ireland are not perfect, but neither is democracy in Northern Ireland. I condemn unreservedly the cold-blooded murder of Matthew Burns in Castlewellan on 21 February, but the investigation of the incident is continuing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment until it is complete. Obviously, my colleagues and I wish to join those who have expressed sympathy, because we have yet another bereaved family in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Can the Minister recall the promises made at the time of the referendum in Northern Ireland, linking the ending of all terrorist violence and the decommissioning of all terrorist weaponry with concessions, such as IRA-Sinn Fein in government and the early release of terrorist prisoners? Does the Minister accept that, in Northern Ireland, people regard with horror the notion that the Government are considering an amnesty for terrorists on the run in the absence of any further decommissioning? Will she give an assurance to the House that no such amnesty will be forthcoming?
    Jane Kennedy: I note the hon. Gentleman's position and he has expressed his concerns before. He may wish to listen to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give to the next question. The decommissioning that took place in October last year was a significant event and a real shift in the republican mindset. But that event needs to become a process, which needs to be extended to other paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons.
    Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are groups in Northern
    290
    Ireland-both loyalist and republican—that have failed to decommission their weapons, that helps to breed fear and mistrust at the grass roots of the organisations, particularly in urban areas, which find it more difficult to allow the democratic process that we have set in motion through the Good Friday agreement to take root and flourish?
    Jane Kennedy: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. It is not within the Government's power to promise a successful end to decommissioning, or to any other aspect of the Belfast agreement. However, we have come a long way. Much has been achieved, and our work will continue.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the growing disappointment in Northern Ireland, as we approach the fourth anniversary of the agreement, that we have not had further progress on decommissioning. What steps are the Government going to take to apply pressure on loyalist and republican paramilitary' organisations to complete the decommissioning process? Is she aware that if the Government do not act, we will?
    Jane Kennedy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that we continue to work tirelessly towards achieving all the objectives set out in the agreement. That is our intention and our work is focused on that.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the Belfast agreement is the best basis for moving forward, and we all want complete decommissioning by both sides. However, after four years of unilateral and unlinked concessions in one direction, will the Government finally learn, after releasing all the prisoners without demanding any decommissioning at all and after crafting a special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs in this House and giving them the red carpet treatment in Downing Street, that making such concessions is not the right way forward, that appeasement does not lead to peace, and that there is a difference between the two?
    Jane Kennedy: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All aspects of the Belfast agreement must be implemented in full. None is conditional upon another. Everybody who has signed and is committed to that agreement needs to carry out their responsibilities under the agreement. Those paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons need to learn that the only way forward is the true implementation of the agreement and the abandonment of weapons for good.
    Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Lady realise that the fundamental lack of linkage is at the root of the problem of the Government's tactics and the reason why we have not made more progress? Does she accept that if her Government go forward with an unconditional amnesty for terrorists on the run, not only will there be revulsion, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said, throughout both law-abiding communities in Northern Ireland, but the Government will reinforce the sense in Sinn Fein-IRA that they can get all the concessions they want while sitting on their hands and on their arms?
    Jane Kennedy: We have seen massive advances in Northern Ireland, albeit often painful and even

    291
    acrimonious at the time. In any context, that progress has been extraordinary. Enormous programmes of reform have been achieved—the Assembly, policing, criminal justice reforms and human rights—but the situation is not perfect. Hard decisions have still to come. We recognise the pain that victims and relatives feel, but as in many areas, we need to draw a line under the past and turn towards construction. Let no one belittle the significance of last autumn's decommissioning act. It was historic. It was a clear symbol of a major shift in attitudes towards constitutionalism, and the process must continue on all sides. Loyalists, too, need to play their part in bringing about a better future.

    Terrorists
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on his policy towards terrorists who have (a) escaped and (b) not been apprehended. [42005]
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What plans has he to introduce legislation regarding suspected terrorists who are on the run. [42006]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ( Dr. John Reid): We recognised at Weston Park that the issue of those on the run needed to be dealt with. We will deal with it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, how we deal with it is open to discussion.
    Mr. Turner: That was a very equivocal response to a very important question. At a time when the Government are spending £100 million on the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, will not the relatives of the 11 innocent victims of that other bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, remembrance day 1987, be appalled to hear that the Government are even contemplating an amnesty for terrorists such as Charlie Canfield? Cannot the Government get their act together and send a straight message to the terrorists that there will be no amnesty for those on the run or those who have escaped?
    Dr. Reid: Of course, the thoughts of all hon. Members are with the victims of all the troubles. We have made more progress in the past four years resolving the difficulties than we ever did in the previous 40 years. That is partly because we have recognised the amount of pain and the fact that pain is indivisible. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of those on the run. It is a difficult question, and for many a distasteful one. I have no illusions about that.
    Mr. Eric Forth: It is not difficult.
    Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not, but 1 understand just how difficult it is. I also understand that it is distasteful for many people. Many of the things that we have had to countenance in the peace process, such as the release of prisoners, have been both difficult and distasteful. I would not want in any way to diminish that consideration. However, we have managed to achieve such success in the peace process because we have been courageous enough to face up to issues that are difficult and distasteful. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight
    292
    (Mr. Turner) to look at the wider context and consider the benefits that the peace process has brought, and to look elsewhere, not least the middle east, to see what happens when political processes fall.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: One may have sympathy with the Secretary of State's position, but will he acknowledge that last year some 700 people in Northern Ireland did not enjoy their human rights, as they were expelled from their homes, and 39 of them were expelled from Northern Ireland as well? While the political spokesmen keep talking about community justice, is it not near time we said clearly that there will be no further advance until we see advances in realism from those who are leaders of terror?
    Dr. Reid: It is not often that I can say that I unambiguously and unequivocally agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I can on this occasion. There is absolutely no justification for kangaroo courts, punishment beatings, exiles and people taking the law into their own hands, particularly when there is now a police service in Northern Ireland that I think is due the support and participation of all members in all communities. I say, again without equivocation, that it is time for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is time for people to put a bitter, bitter past behind them, and resolving the issue of exiles is another important part of that process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will keep up pressure on those responsible to end the despicable expulsion of people in Northern Ireland from their homes and their homeland.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is more concern in Protestant and Catholic working-class communities about the possibility of on-the-runs being given an amnesty than on any other issue in Northern Ireland politics, including decommissioning? How would he answer those who say that it is one thing to bring about the early release of prisoners but quite another to excuse people, so that there is no black mark against them and no action is taken. That is what bothers many working-class people in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I recognise fully the deep concerns that are felt on both sides of the community. I read with interest the recent report from BASE 2 on those who have been exiled. It does not afflict only one community. I think that about 60 per cent. of the huge number who were threatened or had to move from their homes last year were from the loyalist community and about 40 per cent. were from the republican community. There is no justification for that. I say this to those who want to see progress in Northern Ireland: we have been told for decades by people in Northern Ireland and the spokesmen of the various communities that they wish to get away from what they were accused of having—arbitrary justice, kangaroo courts, punishment meted out without due justification. All those issues are exemplified in the case of the exiles. We will do everything possible to make sure that those expulsions cease and that we find a way of reconciliation so that those who are expelled from their homes can return to them.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that any resolution of the

    293
    on-the-run issue must include some process of detainment and release under licence to ensure parity with the early release scheme?
    Dr. Reid: As I have told the House previously, we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved. Recent discussions have included issues raised by my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House regarding the security forces, exiles, matters of truth and victims. Those factors bear heavily upon us in our consideration of this matter, and that is how it should be. However, I repeat that there have been numerous occasions during this process when we have had to confront the most difficult and sometimes distasteful issues that we would prefer never to have to address. We recognise, however, that those issues are part of the bigger picture of achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland and a future for the generations of Northern Ireland that is better than—and more advanced than—anything that previous generations have managed to live under, and we will confront them.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State has said that to some degree he accepts the resentment and anger in Northern Ireland about the action that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating. Can he outline to the House what pressure Sinn Fein-IRA brought to bear on the Government to make them contemplate on-the-run terrorists being given an amnesty in the face of such opposition, not only in this House, but right across the communities in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: The issue has been raised, not as a result of any particular pressure, but following on from and flowing from the logic of the Belfast agreement. It was an anomaly that we accepted had to be addressed; we are in the process of addressing it. I have told the hon. Gentleman that how we will do so has not been decided. I can say that with complete honesty and sincerity and I hope that he accepts that. The fact that we are spending so much time considering the issue is a sign of its importance and of our understanding of the concerns about it on both sides of the House. When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.
    Lembit Öpik: First, why was there no cross-party negotiation in Northern Ireland before that initiative was announced? Secondly, while we generally support the Government's Northern Ireland policy, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he tries to force the policy through without due consideration for the feelings of victims, friends and families and the application of justice, as they see it, the Liberal Democrats, and I am sure other parties too—perhaps even members of the Labour party—will oppose it in this Chamber and the other?
    Dr. Reid: I should explain that this question arose out of discussions that took place at the inception of the Belfast agreement. It is an anomaly that has to be addressed as a logical outflow of some of the agreements reached then, including the difficult and for many people painful agreement on the release of paramilitary prisoners. I am the first to accept the depth of feeling on the issue. I hope that the fact that we have allowed people to know
    294
    that it is under consideration has been useful. It certainly has been useful from the point of view that people have been less than reticent about making their views known on the subject. Obviously, that cannot but affect how we consider these matters.
    I repeat that problems that have gone on for decades—indeed, in some cases centuries—on the island of Ireland cannot be resolved without dealing with some very difficult issues. I urge the hon. Gentleman and everyone else in the House, when they weigh in the balance the question of on-the-runs, to remember the context, which is a far better Northern Ireland as a result of such painful decisions than we have ever had in the history of that Province.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: In solving the difficulty that the Secretary of State and the Government have created for themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee—with a yes or a no—that he will not use the royal prerogative to bypass Parliament?
    Dr. Reid: I have told the hon. Gentleman that all these matters are under discussion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the tragic and painful history of Northern Ireland could be summed up in yes and no answers, we would have solved it decades ago. It cannot be; nor can we reconcile the parties to a conflict that has lasted decades without being prepared to consider issues that are difficult and cause a great deal of pain. I have no problem listening to hon. Gentlemen and Ladies explain to us the difficulties, distaste and pain with which the issue of on-the-runs is addressed within the community in Northern Ireland, but I would tell them this, particularly in regard to the manner in which the issue is often raised by those on the Opposition Front Benches: we have made more progress in four years in Northern Ireland than we ever did in the many decades before that. We have done so because we have had the courage to confront issues that are controversial and painful. We are doing this in a solemn and detailed fashion on the question of on-the-runs—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to call Question 5.

    Organised Crime
    Caroline Flint: What assistance is being provided by the United States to assist in combating organised crime and gangsterism in Northern Ireland. [42007]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The US has consistently supported us in our policing efforts, most recently by FBI training. Separately, in a step to assist our fight against organised crime, last Tuesday I appointed a US expert, Professor Ronald Goldstock, to provide an international perspective on the problem. He was the director of the New York organised crime taskforce for 13 years.
    Caroline Flint: It is a sad reality that organised crime has fed the troubles, violence and intimidation in Northern Ireland for many years, blighting families and especially children. I welcome the appointment of Professor Goldstock, who is a respected man of high calibre.

    295
    However, will my right hon Friend explain in a little more detail how the professor will help the Government to make progress in the fight against organised crime?
    Dr. Reid: Ron Goldstock brings a wealth of experience to assist us in our efforts in the fight against organised crime. We are already trying to resource the police in very difficult circumstances, and the organised crime taskforce has made a considerable start under my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for security. Ron Goldstock will be charged with analysing the impact of organised crime on society and, particularly, with recommending ways of building cross-community support for the fight against organised crime, especially, although not exclusively, among those who would masquerade as the defenders of either community. I am sure that he will make a major contribution to our efforts.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Spicer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia to discuss the very welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why are there more strikes when we have a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: That is an ill-judged question. The number of days lost through strikes are fewer under this Government than they were under the previous Conservative Government. I am afraid that that was a foolish question to ask.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend join me and the thousands of constituents who have written to their Members of Parliament to back the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign to stop parents or carers killing their children? It is a shock to the House to learn that every week one or two children are killed by their parent or carer—the person who is meant to love and care for them, and keep them safe. Will he undertake to carry out all the necessary measures and legislative changes that are backed by all the children's charities?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly support those moves. We support entirely the NSPCC's worthwhile Full Stop campaign, which will have the support of the vast majority of hon. Members and parents throughout the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Since the Prime Minister came to power, more
    296
    than 50,000 care home beds have closed. Does the Prime Minister think that that has anything to do with his policies?
    The Prime Minister: No. Incidentally, in relation to that 50,000, the net figure is 19,000 places and the reason for that number is clear—many of those care homes are in private hands and have been sold off. However, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the money that we have put in, some £1.4 billion will be spent on initiatives to help the elderly in care homes and in their own homes in the next few years. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed that additional £1.4 billion when we announced it in the last Parliament.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As usual, the Prime Minister seems to shuffle off blame. Care homes are closing simply because the Government have weighed them down with expensive rules and regulations. For example, why should nursing managers with 20 years' experience have to abandon their patients to take qualifications just to keep their jobs? Why should married couples who have been living together for decades have to split up because the rules say that their home needs more single rooms? On 18 May 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) warned the Government that their policies would result in
    "a huge loss of overall capacity in the system."—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 494.]
    Is that not exactly what has happened?
    The Prime Minister: First, the regulations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the care standards regulations. I hope that the Conservative party supports high standards for our care homes, and I would have thought that it would do so. Actually, the principal reason why many of these homes have closed is that the owners believe, for understandable reasons, that the level of fees given by the Government are not high enough. We understand that, particularly when they are often sitting on extremely valuable property which they could sell for a great deal of money. However, the only way that we will get the necessary fees paid to those care homes is to put more money into the system. I repeat that the Government have committed £1.4 billion over the next few years both to help care services in local authorities and to give people better chances of being looked after in their own homes. We are putting that money into the system to rectify the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Perhaps when he gets to his feet he will explain how he will manage to improve the situation of people in care homes when he is opposed to the investment in them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: What the Prime Minister absolutely fails to point out is that, far from putting money in, the expensive cost of regulations takes money out of the system. The director of the Independent Healthcare Association said:
    "The entire NHS plan will go into the sand unless care homes are stabilised."
    The Prime Minister has been destabilising them for five years. As a result, we now have an NHS that is in almost permanent crisis. People cannot get their operations because there are no beds available. There are no beds

    297
    available because those occupying them cannot get beds in care homes, and those in care homes live in fear of being evicted because their care home may be closed. That is not health care; it is Kafka-care. The reality is that the people who will suffer are the most vulnerable in society.
    The Prime Minister: First, on the point about operations in the national health service, let us not forget that the vast majority of people—more than 70 per cent.—get their operations within three months. This year, the Government have increased the number of beds in the national health service for the first tune in years. The right hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but let no one forget that, in the years before we came to office, waiting lists in the health service went up by 400,000. They have fallen by 100,000 under this Government.
    In respect of care homes, as a result of the additional money, we are able to look after more people in their own homes—that is what they want—and we are able to increase the level of fees given to those care homes. If the right hon. Gentleman opposes the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000—which allow, for example, some of the people working in those homes to get paid holidays for the first time in their lives—let him get up and say so now.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Jim Sheridan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's British workers are among the most productive in Europe? Does he not further agree that it is not over-ambitious for those same workers to expect and enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by their counterparts throughout Europe?
    The Prime Minister: That is exactly right. That is why, when the Government came to office, we signed the social chapter and we introduced the minimum wage. We have introduced the first proper rights of trade union representation and we have introduced the right to paid holidays for the first time for literally hundreds of thousands of people who never used to get the chance of a holiday. In those circumstances, I say to my hon. Friend that it is important that we manage to combine both enterprise and fairness in our economy. Each of the measures that we introduced, including the social chapter, were bitterly opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In expressing continuing support for the further British troop deployment to Afghanistan announced this week, may I ask the Prime Minister to clarify one aspect of that? The British are already involved in peacekeeping and there will be British forces in the mountains in a combat role. Why are we combining both roles when the Americans do not wish to do either?
    The Prime Minister: There have been British forces engaged in fighting in Afghanistan for a very long time. Those troops, together with those in the international security assistance force, amount to about 6,000 British
    298
    troops in total who are involved in the Afghan operation. To put that into context, that is about one tenth of the number deployed in the Gulf war.
    It is important to remember that several hundred of the 1,700 troops that we announced earlier this week would be deployed are already in Afghanistan. Many more are near the theatre of operation and, of course, thousands of Americans troops have been there for a very long time, and will remain there. Some of the way in which this has been reported is not in accordance with the facts.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister and the House will acknowledge that the Chief of the Defence Staff publicly cautioned against dual roles and against peacekeeping and combat forces being in the same place at the same time. Why has the Prime Minister come to the opposite conclusion?
    The Prime Minister: I have not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chief of the Defence Staff fully supports the deployment of our forces. They are not being deployed in the same areas—the security force is in Kabul and is performing a fundamental role in restoring security to Afghanistan.
    As I have pointed out throughout, there was always going to be a period in which we would have to mop up the last remnants of Taliban and al-Qaeda resistance. There are groups of people in the mountains whom the American forces have already been fighting, and Canadian forces have been fighting alongside the Americans. Indeed, at the moment about eight different countries are fighting in Afghanistan alongside the United States of America. British forces have also been there for a significant period. It is important that we get the job done. I do not believe that there is any mismatch between the security force operating in Kabul and the forces that will, as I said, deal with the last remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That is a necessary part of prosecuting the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of one of his recent predecessors, who declared the European Union "unreformable". Does he agree that, although it might seem that way if one stands on the sidelines and carps at it, it appears quite different if one is involved in the process?
    The Prime Minister: Our membership of the European Union has been wholly to the benefit of this country. It is to the benefit of British jobs and the British economy, and it is right for British influence in the world that we remain part of the European Union. I am only sorry that so many people in the Conservative party today want to take this country back to the margins of influence in Europe, because that is not a patriotic thing to do. It is not in our national self-interest; it is actually a betrayal of that self-interest.
    Mr. Mark Simmonda: In Skegness, in my constituency, hundreds of jobs and thousands of tourists will be adversely affected by the ill-judged recommendations in the Government-sponsored Budd report on gaming. After four months of

    299
    delay and dithering, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to disown, and dissociate himself from those proposals?
    The Prime Minister: We commissioned the independent report for very good reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is studying it and she will make an announcement in due course. Before making up his mind and alarming his constituents unduly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the consultation.
    Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend will know that many people are concerned about levels of crime, particularly street crime. People tell me that they cannot understand why the courts do not deal adequately with persistent offenders. Can he reassure them and the House that the Government are determined to take action to ensure that persistent offenders are dealt with effectively and swiftly by the courts?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Of course, overall, crime—which doubled under the previous Conservative Government—has fallen under this Government. However, a serious problem exists with street crime, and one of the things that we are looking at is how to increase the number of secure accommodation places, precisely to ensure that those who are likely to commit further offences are not allowed back on the streets on bail.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I wonder whether the Prime Minister might take the time to study the recent report of the Northamptonshire-South community health council, which reveals that the total number of nursing home beds in the south of that county declined by almost 25 per cent. in the 30 months from January 1999. Will he note that the report of which that forms part is on delayed discharges from hospital, and is he the only person in the country who can see no connection between those two facts?
    The Prime Minister: No, of course there is a connection. We allocated some £300 million of additional money before Christmas precisely in order to reduce delayed discharges. As a result, they have come down significantly. Indeed, according to my meeting yesterday with people in the health service, I think that more than 1,000 beds have been freed up through that additional money.
    I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who takes a slightly more reasonable view of such matters than some of his hon. Friends, that one reason why we have to make that extra investment into the national health service is precisely in order to deal with the problem that he draws attention to. However, the way to get in that extra investment is to support the policies of this Government, rather than to oppose that investment, as his Front-Bench colleagues do.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to my constituent, Daniella Perry, an eight-year-old girl who was savagely attacked by a dog in a community centre in Fleetwood? In that particular case, the dog has been protected, but the young girl has not,
    300
    because the attack took place on private property—even though that private property is a community centre run by the local council and open to the public.
    The Prime Minister: First, I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent and her family. Secondly, I know that the Minister of the relevant Department is in touch with my hon. Friend about that case and will be happy to meet her to discuss it. Obviously, beyond that particular case, it is a serious matter that may have implications for the general state of the law.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In 1997, the Prime Minister said:
    "we will never consent to any arrangement that goes against the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 388.]
    Given that 80 per cent. of the population turned out on Monday to oppose his plans for joint sovereignty, does he now stand by every word of that statement?
    The Prime Minister: I do stand by it and of course we have not put proposals to people in Gibraltar yet. When we do put those proposals—[Interruption.] Well, that is the process that we have agreed. We have agreed that there should be a process under which we discuss with the Spanish Government certain proposals. When those proposals are agreed, they will be put to people in Gibraltar. Of course, people in Gibraltar will have the final say, as I have always indicated.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister says "yet", but his Government briefing yesterday was that a deal with Spain on joint sovereignty had already been agreed, that it will be presented within months and that whatever—I repeat, whatever—the result of a referendum, the deal will remain on the table and the Government will withdraw political and economic support from Gibraltar unless it agrees to that deal. To be absolutely clear about the issue, will the Prime Minister now answer two questions? First, if the people of Gibraltar refuse to accept the deal in a referendum, will those plans be torn up and taken away? Secondly, will Gibraltar suffer any economic or political reprisals and will it continue to be supported by the British Government regardless, through the EU?
    The Prime Minister: Of course there will be no reprisals or penalties applied to the people of Gibraltar if they reject the plans. If they reject the plans, the plans are rejected by them. There is no question of the plans being able to proceed without their consent. That has been made clear throughout. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that this is a process that began under the last Conservative Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. This total opportunism by the Conservative party has to be exposed. The process began under the previous Conservative Government and it began for a very good reason: the present arrangements between Spain and Gibraltar suit nobody. They do not suit the people of Spain or Gibraltar or Britain. Therefore, under the Brussels process, which began under the previous Government, proposals will be put to the people of

    301
    Gibraltar, but-as I have said throughout-there can and will be no change to the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] No, he did not. I asked specifically whether those plans would be withdrawn, torn up, taken away or whatever he wants. In other words, those plans would not lie around to bully the people of Gibraltar. Is it not the same for everybody? We have a pattern with this Government, whether it is a 90-year-old worried about their health care or Gibraltarians who want to stay British. First, the Government try to smear them. If that fails, the Government try to threaten them. If that fails, finally the Government abandon them. When will the Prime Minister accept that the people of Gibraltar do not want this deal? Is it not a reality that whatever he says, and all the spin, we can no longer trust his word?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman in the last two answers I have given, if the people of Gibraltar do not accept the plans then they cannot be proceeded with.
    Colin Burgon: Moving from a rock to sport, last Friday I had the honour of officially opening the sports facilities at the Wetherby sports association in my constituency. Those magnificent facilities are being delivered, first, thanks to a £500,000 lottery grant via Sport England, and secondly, thanks to the dedication of voluntary workers such as the chairman, Seamus Picker, and his team of volunteers. Bearing in mind the role that sport plays in this country in developing a healthy and socially cohesive nation, will my right hon. Friend outline to the House what plans the Government have for supporting sport at the grass-roots level in the many years ahead that we shall be in power?
    The Prime Minister: First, I pay tribute to those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been working so hard on sport, which is dear to the hearts of many people throughout the country. There are more than 100,000 local amateur sports clubs up and down the country. We are working with them at the moment to see how they can apply for charitable status, because that is a big issue for them, but in addition there is an announcement that some £200 million of lottery money will be spread throughout the country, which will encourage these sports clubs.
    It is important that we give this encouragement to sport not only for its own sake but because, as many people now recognise, it is one of the best anti-crime policies that we could have. It is also as good a health and education policy as virtually any other. It deserves to be supported and we will support it.
    Mr. Gregory Barker: Can the Prime Minister tell me why, after nearly six years of a Labour Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Five."]—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Barker: Five, then, Why, after five years of a Labour Government, in my constituency, are women with breast cancer—[Interruption.] They may find it a
    302
    laughing matter, but to me it is deadly serious. Why are women with breast cancer waiting an unprecedented 20 weeks to begin life-saving radiotherapy treatment?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the facts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as, I have to say from experience, often when these points are put to me by Conservative Members on their constituency facts, they do not turn out to be exactly as they were represented to me. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman about breast cancer, as a result of the measures that have been introduced by the Government, we are referring people to a consultant within two weeks, and now 95 per cent. of people get referred within two weeks. That compares with just over 60 per cent. when we came to office. There is a particular problem with radiography at the moment, not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout the country—partly because, of course, there are many more referrals as a result of the two-week limit. But as a result of additional investment and the amount of equipment that we are putting in, cancer waits on the whole are down, not up.
    I think that if I quote the Health Select Committee report on cancer research published this morning correctly, although the Committee said that there was still a great more to do, it specifically found that there had been significant progress on cancer in the past couple of years.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the very welcome decision of the Commonwealth to suspend Zimbabwe fully justified an approach that sought to bring on board the rest of the Commonwealth rather than a unilateral approach by this country. Given the reports today of the charge for treason being pursued against Morgan Tsvangirai, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what further steps he would like the Commonwealth to take to try to give the people of Zimbabwe the Government of their choice?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Commonwealth will of course consider what further steps to take. The decision to prosecute Mr. Tsvangirai is an indication of why the decision to suspend Zimbabwe is so justified.
    I pay tribute to the courage and leadership not just of Prime Minister Howard, but of President Mbeki and President Obasanjo. This has been a difficult issue for them in the current situation, particularly for South Africa because there is worry about instability in Zimbabwe, but I think that it was the right decision and that it sends a very clear message that not just the Commonwealth, but Africa is in favour of democracy and that Africa will not compromise with the issues of democracy. I believe that it has given a significant boost to the prospects of getting a partnership deal at the G8 in June that will allow, in exchange for Africa sorting out some of its problems of governance, a long-overdue increase in aid from the developed world.
    Mr. Michael Mates: As I am sure that the Prime Minister is not aware of a dispute that is going on between two Departments, will he look into the fact that, despite the strongest recommendations from the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Culture, Media

    303
    and Sport is refusing to give the Queen's jubilee medal to holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross? Will he look into that to ensure that the bravest of the brave are not deprived of that honour, which they so richly deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I will look into it, although I give the hon. Gentleman no promises.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to increase capacity in the NHS we need to increase the number of consultants who work for it full time? My constituents are impressed with the skill and professionalism of consultants, but concerned about the lucrative private practices that many of them have. Will he speed up the reform of the consultants contract so that doctors who are trained by the NHS work exclusively for the NHS and get the rewards that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, an intensive programme of negotiations on the new consultants contract is under way, and both the British Medical Association and the Government are negotiating in good faith on its terms. I can say to him at this stage that many consultants work immensely hard for the NHS all over the country, and they are highly dedicated and committed people. I am sure that we will find a resolution to those negotiations that allows consultants to work for the NHS while ensuring that they have the freedoms that they need.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Given the Prime Minister's commitment to tackling youth crime and speeding up youth justice, can he tell my constituents why the Government propose to close Kingston magistrates court, which has the busiest youth court in south-west London? As he may not have heard about that proposal before today, can he give me his personal assurance that he will look into it and intervene to prevent the closure of an efficient and well regarded courthouse?
    The Prime Minister: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall certainly look into it, but I have to say to him that closures take place for all sorts of different administrative, as well as cost, reasons. In respect of youth offending overall, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the extra money that we have put into the system, we have halved the time that it takes to get persistent youth offenders to court.
    As regards Kingston magistrates court, I shall have to look into it as I do not know the facts.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I welcome the philosophically substantial speech that my right hon. Friend gave last week at the London school of economics, especially its contrast between the social individualism
    304
    that he advocates and the selfish individualism that has so often characterised proceedings in this House. However, does he agree that some of his current policies are somewhat inconsistent with those principles, notably his policy on the House of Lords, and will he send them back to the drawing board?
    The Prime Minister: I hesitate to revisit the scene of an earlier triumph.
    To answer my hon. Friend's question, we believe that it is important to combine fairness and enterprise throughout, and that is what we as a Government are doing. In respect of the House of Lords, a consultation process is under way and we are listening to the responses to it. There are many different voices. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is pointing to Labour Members to suggest that there may be differences on our Benches. I must say to him that I read very carefully the speeches that were made in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and few Conservative Members supported his proposals. We all have a little homework to do on this. We must find a way forward that allows the House of Lords to remain an effective revising Chamber, but I personally should not like to see it competing with the House of Commons.
    Mr. Peter Luff: On the crisis in the care homes sector, does the Prime Minister think that it is a bit rich to describe as investment the throwing of taxpayers' money at a problem that his Government have themselves created? Last Friday, I visited a care home in my constituency that is having to spend £30,000 to improve a perfectly adequate heating system just to meet the arbitrary standards that the Prime Minister praised a few minutes ago. Will he please revisit that policy before the care homes sector descends into complete crisis?
    The Prime Minister: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the care home standards regulations and rules, which were the product of detailed consultation. Indeed, I remember that hon. Members from all parties supported many aspects of them at the time. It is important that those homes have proper care standards. I cannot comment on the specific heating system in the home to which he referred. However, he says that the extra money that we are investing in social services is simply wasted. With the greatest respect, that is nonsense.
    Care homes' biggest problem is that they do not believe that the fee levels are high enough, when they are often sitting on highly valuable real estate. In those circumstances, we have increased the amount of money that is put into social services, and people's ability to remain in their own homes and be looked after there. We believe that that is properly called investment. The hon. Gentleman has to decry it because he and the Conservative party opposed it.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have looked into the point of order that the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) raised last Monday about the names published in support of early-day motion 949.
It appears that some of the Members listed as supporting the motion had been told by the sponsor that their support would be assumed unless they indicated otherwise. Some of those Members have informed me that they were not aware that their names were being added to the motion.
This is an important matter. Members should be aware that adding a name to any motion, like tabling a parliamentary question, is a formal proceeding in Parliament. Members may give the Table Office instructions on behalf of another Member, but it is incumbent on any Member who does that to ensure that he has the explicit consent of the Member concerned.
I acknowledge that it is not the first time that this has happened. My view is that simply saying that names will be added to a motion unless a Member indicates otherwise is not sufficient and risks embarrassing Members whose names are used in that way. I look to the House to ensure that it does not happen again.

Castlereagh Break-in
3.32 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the break-in at Castlereagh police station.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): On Sunday evening, several people broke into a special branch office at Castlereagh in Northern Ireland, assaulted the duty officer and stole several documents.
There has inevitably been much public speculation about who was responsible for the incident and the exact nature of the documents that were taken. The House will understand that, in the context of a live criminal investigation, it is not helpful to put into the public domain information that would otherwise be known only by the perpetrators or the investigators. Suffice it to say that all lines of inquiry remain open. As to the nature of the documentation, the Chief Constable has established a high-level team to assess any impact that its theft could cause.
At this sensitive moment when the damage is still being assessed and a variety of remedial measures are being taken, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot be more forthcoming. However, I can reassure the House that the Government, like the Chief Constable, are absolutely committed to taking all necessary steps to mitigate any damage from this serious incident.
The Chief Constable has appointed Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Wright to take charge of the criminal investigation. He has also referred the matter to the ombudsman. In addition, I have established a review to proceed in parallel with the criminal investigation that will report to me. It will be conducted by Sir John Chilcot, a former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who has extensive experience of policing and security issues. He will be assisted by Mr. Colin Smith, a former inspector of constabulary and chief constable of Thames Valley, who will act as an assessor.
I am placing Sir John's terms of reference in the Library of the House for the information of Members. The purpose of the review is to establish how the incident could have happened, to assess the extent of any damage caused to national security, to audit the measures taken in response to the incident and to identify any wider lessons on national security.
Any breach of national security is a matter of grave concern. The work undertaken by the special branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland bears directly on the safety of lives both in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom more generally. I am determined therefore that we will establish the facts surrounding this serious incident as quickly as possible, and ensure that all necessary remedial action is being taken.
Mr. Davies: The House will be grateful for that statement. No one will he in any doubt as to the seriousness of the incident for the morale and credibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and particularly for the viability of special branch operations. Police agents will obviously be very reluctant to maintain contact with their handlers while they fear that they might have

307
been compromised. New sources are likely to be fearful of coming forward, and agents who think that they may have been exposed will face the agonising dilemma of whether to flee the Province, thereby perhaps increasing suspicion about them, or stay there, risking their lives.
It is always possible, by mismanaging a crisis of this kind, to make it even worse. Does the Secretary of State agree that such an incident needs to be managed in a decisive but controlled and co-ordinated way? Otherwise, uncertainty, demoralisation and public disquiet will all be aggravated. Is it not the case that in this instance the Government's handling has not been controlled or coherent?
The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be three inquiries. Of course the police must conduct a normal criminal investigation, but it is far from clear why it is necessary to have two further inquiries, one conducted by the police ombudsman and another under the direction of Sir John Chilcot. Is it not the case that the police ombudsman has the powers to conduct inquiries only where police officers are concerned, so if her inquiry runs up against individuals who are not police officers, she will be outside her remit? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly undesirable in such a case that there should be two separate inquiries? Clearly, we want one inquiry with a single responsibility to get to all the facts, and in which no one can say that certain matters are the responsibility of someone else. This action is not co-ordinated or controlled, and it needs a good deal more justification than the Secretary of State gave it.
There has been a spate of rumours and speculation, as the Secretary of State says. Can he give the House an unqualified assurance that those rumours do not derive from press briefings given by himself, the Chief Constable or anyone responsible to him? Can he also give the House an assurance that if there have been leaks, he will undertake to investigate them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in retrospect it is unfortunate that he did not take the initiative and come to the House himself immediately after the incident, as he could have done on Monday, or ask one of his deputies to do so in his place? That would have enabled him to pre-empt the rumour mill and give an authoritative account of the position. Instead, he preferred to brief the press yesterday and had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box today by the official Opposition. Is not that an unfortunate way to treat the House? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Chilcot review, which we shall certainly support in any way we can, reports, he will take the initiative and come to the House to make a statement on that?
Dr. Reid: First, I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not regard this issue as serious. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to say that I regard any breach of national security as serious in its immediate and wider implications, and I would not want to diminish in any way the seriousness with which I regard this incident.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, any breach of national security immediately raises problems of operational effectiveness and the prospect of putting anyone who is involved in danger. That is why we are assessing what may have been taken and why I want Sir John Chilcot to have regard, among other matters, to
308
damage assessment of specific and more general operational capability and of the threat posed to individuals.
The hon. Gentleman demanded, as a general proposition, that I act in a decisive and controlled way before attacking everything that I have done as decisive and controlled. I did act decisively yesterday, and there are various reasons why I thought it absolutely necessary to do what I did. Had the situation been such that the only or best option was to come to the House first, then I would have done so, but under the circumstances I was wise to discuss the matter with not only my security Minister but the Chief Constable and others in Northern Ireland before acting as quickly and decisively as possible.
In fairness, the hon. Gentleman might have informed the House that my security Minister and I had a conversation with him, as well as others. That is not to say that it is not preferable to come to the House. As a general proposition, I agree with that and will try to do it whenever it is in my power to do so. I hope that he understands, however, that with fast-moving events, when decisiveness and control are so important, it is necessary to take decisive and controlled action, as he said.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be three inquiries. I do not know what he bases that on. He agrees that there should be a police inquiry, which is absolutely necessary. I take it that he agrees that I should have taken decisive action to initiate a wider review. It is not yet apparent that there will definitely be a third inquiry by the ombudsman, but the Chief Constable acted correctly and appropriately by referring the matter to him when he decided that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers of inquiry had been met. To put it succinctly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the threshold for the ombudsman's powers to inquire are met when there may have been, or has been, a disciplinary or criminal offence by a member of the police. That threshold was met and the Chief Constable acted properly. It is now up to the ombudsman to consider the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's other points, no one to my knowledge with my authority or in my organisation has given details to the press of the incident as far as I am aware. Indeed, I will be amazed if that is the case because so much of what has appeared in the press has been inaccurate either in the detail or on the process. Although I should like nothing better than to rebut some of the inaccuracies, he will understand that on something as important and sensitive as this incident, that would put me down an avenue in which it would be difficult not to discuss the matter in detail. I hope that he and the House will be tolerant if I cannot give as much detail as I might like.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is it not extraordinary, after all that has happened in Ireland, that there still appear to be parts of the secret state who think that they can act with impunity? My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a long history of such inquiries in Ireland encountering a wall of silence and fizzling out after the lapse of time. Can I have his assurance that that will not be allowed to happen in this case?
Dr. Reid: On the first point, I would be very wary of basing all sorts of propositions on a premise that a particular group, or a particular part of a particular group,

309
was involved. The answer is that we just do not know, at this stage, the motive, the organisation or the individuals who may have been involved.
The second point is that, as my hon. Friend says, there has been a long history of inquiries of this nature; there has not been a long history of my being Secretary of State, and I can assure him that if it is within my power—whoever the individuals are and whatever their motive—and if there is any way of discovering that and dealing with it, it will be done. The inquiry has been established not as an attempt to divert attention or in any way to cover up the grievousness and importance of what happened, but precisely to try to elicit the information necessary to get to the truth. That is hugely important in terms of operations and for those people, including many brave people, who have acted according to their consciences in the past and who may or may not be in danger as a result of any breach of security. It is also hugely important for the peace process that we get to the bottom of what went on.
Lembit Opik: I thank the Secretary of State for prior notice of his statement. I also thank the security Minister for our informal conversation earlier this week, which satisfied me that the Government are, in fact, taking the issue very seriously.
First, although having three investigations—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made some points about this—may not make it less likely that any investigation gets to the answer and the truth, would it not be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman formalised the interaction between those investigations to ensure that potentially useful cross-references are dealt with in a codified and organised fashion?
Secondly, given the obvious possibility of internal assistance with this breach—although we must not draw any conclusion until we have the facts—what steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure that those involved cannot cover up some of the evidence that could highlight what happened? Thirdly, what steps has he taken as a matter of urgency to protect the welfare of individuals who may be seriously compromised by the theft of the information?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. On formal co-ordination of any inquiries, I have already said that, in addition to the criminal investigation, it was appropriate for me to act decisively and to call an inquiry. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), with a little lightness, if I may say so, added a further inquiry—a leak inquiry—during his contribution, but the two inquiries are absolutely essential. However, of course, we want the maximum access to information for the review, as it will be named, carried out by Sir John Chilcot, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) will understand that the operational independence of the police in their investigation is a matter of some importance as well, so it is difficult to formalise because that investigation cannot, of course, come under political control. Nevertheless, I take his point about generally ensuring that one inquiry does not run across or prohibit the other. That is very important.
310
The hon. Gentleman asks about measures taken to try to minimise the possibility of any cover-up or destruction and so on. I can assure him that, so far as I am aware—obviously, I do not control the operation of the investigation—a tremendous amount of work was done to seal off the area to try to ensure forensic evidence and so on was preserved. Every effort is being made to try to investigate all possible lines of inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the welfare of the individuals concerned, which is very important in any breach of security. I am aware that, where it is believed that there might be a threat, steps are being taken to inform those who might be the subject of any danger as a result of this or any other breach of security. That would be a natural thing to happen.
Mr. George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the two issues that seem to be at stake are first, who did it, and secondly, how it was done? The arrangements that he has described seem eminently well suited to answering those two questions. Does he agree that it is at the least ill judged, and may turn out—I hope not—as events unfold, to be irresponsible, for the Opposition to seek to exploit this serious matter?
Dr. Reid: On my hon. Friend's second point, yes it would be irresponsible for anyone to try to exploit this matter, particularly since, as he said, at this stage the two questions of who did it and how it was done remain unanswered. I would add a third question: why was it done? That is not clear either at this stage so in terms of motive, culprit and method, we are still at an early stage. I confess to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not have a clear view on any of them at this stage. No one appears to have claimed credit—if I may use the word—for the incident.
The questions that my hon. Friend mentioned on method and the culprits are important. The question of why is also important. However, whatever the answers to those questions, I would not seek to diminish the fact that any breach of national security is always of importance, and this one is no exception.
Mr. David Trimble: We view what happened in Castlereagh with the gravest concern. It is extremely serious and we are very worried about possible ramifications not just for national security but for the integrity of policing operations in Northern Ireland.
I am also concerned about the potential multiplicity of inquiries. I can see a distinction between the police investigation and the review being undertaken by Sir John Chilcot and Mr. Colin Smith, but I am worried about the potential overlap between the police investigation and any action by the ombudsman. That concern is deepened by the weaknesses in the investigative capacity of the ombudsman's office, as revealed by the recent ombudsman reports. Can we have a clear assurance that the police investigation will be primary and that there will be no interference with that investigation until it has run its course and, we hope, identified the people who were responsible?
I endorse what the Secretary of State said about being cautious about responsibilities on the issue. There is a tendency to be far too quick to run to conspiracy theories.

311
I very much regret that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for whom in many other respects I have a regard, seemed to feed that tendency of jumping to conclusions, and indeed on this matter jumped to the wrong conclusions.
There is no doubt that those who were responsible in some way or other obtained detailed information about the police office at Castlereagh to obtain entry. That seems to be clear. We do not know yet how that information was acquired, and we must be careful not to pre-judge the matter. However, I cannot avoid saying that it appears to be linked to the very significant demoralisation among present and particularly former members of the police. The Secretary of State should reflect on that because that demoralisation, which is inseparable from the policies that he has pursued, has to a significant extent led to the problem before us. Indeed, that has been exacerbated by some current decisions, particularly with regard to uniforms.
On the question that the Secretary of State raised at the end about why the break-in occurred, can he put the public mind to rest in one respect and eliminate one possible reason why it was done, by making it clear that the Government will support entirely the present arrangements for special branch, and will ensure that the capacity of the police with regard to special branch operations is increased, that their effectiveness is increased and that there is no question of using these events as a pretext for further run-down in that respect?
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the gravest concern about the incident, and he is right to be so concerned. I would expect him to be, like ourselves, thus concerned.
The question whether there was inside knowledge is to some extent speculative, but that would appear to be the case prima facie. However, that does not lead us in any particular direction because, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, there might be a range of people who had inside knowledge. I do not want to speculate on whether they might be disgruntled or demoralised former police officers. There is a range of other people who might have inside knowledge as well. I know that all these matters will be investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider effects. There are always wider effects for the operation of national security, for the integrity of the process, the operations and, as he said, the policing effort in Northern Ireland and for the safety of individuals.
With reference to special branch, we have outlined our plans in the implementation plan, but they are subject to discussion. The Chief Constable will make a recommendation and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we now have a Policing Board which deals with these issues. The board will no doubt want to consider all the ramifications of any change to special branch in the future, and I would not want to pre-empt its deliberations or decisions on the matter. I do not mean that the Policing Board will be considering that as a specific item arising out of the incident, but it considers all aspects of policing and will no doubt wish to speak to me. I see no reason why, in the first instance, the matter should lead us to any conclusions in any direction about special branch or any other element. I would not want to imply any premise about who was involved. None of us knows.
312
As regards the ombudsman, I think that the Chief Constable was right in law to refer the matter to the ombudsman. A referral is appropriate on the basis of his judgment that prima facie it cannot be ruled out that a police officer may have committed an offence or behaved in a way that would justify disciplinary proceedings. As the Chief Constable said, however, there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that an offence has been committed by a police officer, but he nevertheless considered it in the public interest to refer the matter to the ombudsman.
The ombudsman cannot properly investigate the matter in the sense that was suggested, running across the criminal investigation, as she cannot investigate Army or intelligence agencies. Clearly, it will be important for the police and the ombudsman to develop a close working relationship in any investigations. I stress that the matter has been referred to the ombudsman—that is as far as it has gone—and no investigation has started.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business today. I want to call all hon. Members who are standing. The House can assist me if hon. Members ask short questions and, of course, the Minister can help also.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I welcomed the statement from the Secretary of State and the three inquiries, which will have three different objectives. Will he make it clear that Castlereagh police station is not an ordinary police station, but a sophisticated intelligence bureau and interrogation centre? Entry into it would require substantial detailed knowledge. Will he ensure that matters of national security will not in any way frustrate the investigations by Sir John Chilcot or the ombudsman? The popular belief is that many previous investigations in Northern Ireland have been frustrated by special branch. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that a full report—in the context of national security, but not frustrated by it—will be compiled?
Dr. Reid: I can confirm that Castlereagh police station is not one that people would expect to be entered as easily as appears to have been the case, although I must inform the hon. Member that it is no longer the holding and interrogation centre that it used to be. I assure him that Sir John Chilcot and Colin Smith will report to me. They will have full access to all the information necessary for them to complete the damage assessment and the security audit, and to judge some of the wider implications of the incident.
I believe that both of those gentlemen are eminently qualified for the task I have given them, Sir John Chilcot, of course, knows Northern Ireland well, and he has experience of policing and of intelligence work. Colin Smith is a former chief constable of the Thames Valley force, and is a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate of police. Both men are therefore appropriately qualified, and have been at the cutting edge. When it comes to investigation, people will accept that Colin Smith has been robust in any investigation that he has pursued.

313
No one can guarantee anything in Northern Ireland, and I cannot guarantee that we will get to the truth. However, I can guarantee that I and the two gentlemen whom I have named intend to do our utmost to find out what happened.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Many of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland for many years are, to say the least, mystified and appalled that Castlereagh could be broken into in the way that has been described. We therefore applaud the Secretary of State's decision to set up an independent inquiry under two such eminent men, both of whom have very good reputations in the Province.
However, could not the Secretary of State go a little further than the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) proposed and suggest to the ombudsman that it would not be helpful of her to get in the way of the other two inquiries, for fear of muddying the water?
Dr. Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. However, I do not think it is always helpful for me to suggest things to chief constables, ombudsmen or to anyone whose office carries a degree of independence. Although no decision has been taken to investigate the matter, as there is no evidence yet that anyone in the police service has committed an offence or a crime that would warrant disciplinary action, it was perfectly appropriate for the ombudsman to be informed, and for the matter to be referred to her. In addition, regardless of the outcome, a good working relationship between the ombudsman and the police service is essential.
Two key things must happen—the criminal investigation must find out who is responsible, and the wider implications must be determined. That is why I have established the review.
Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some people fear that this incident could dent confidence in the peace process. He has taken decisive action in establishing the independent inquiry under Sir John Chilcot, but does he agree that it is very important that the inquiry report directly to him? Given the pain and discomfort suffered by some of the people who have had to lead similar inquiries in the past, will he assure me that the direct line that will exist between the inquiry and himself will give the process clarity? Does he have any idea when the inquiry's report might be published, given the national security limitations involved? Will he bear it in mind that the general population of the island must be reassured so that the great work accomplished by everyone involved in the peace process can be maintained?
Dr. Reid: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments very much. He is a distinguished former Northern Ireland Minister, so his comments carry great weight. I can answer his question in the affirmative. Sir John—and Colin Smith, through Sir John—will have a direct line to me and access to me. I have met Sir John, who has already made arrangements to do just that. That is important, not
314
only in terms of trying to get to the truth of the matter but in terms of there being wider public confidence that we are trying to get to the truth of the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that that is what we are about to do. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is saying. Perhaps he is having trouble with my accent because it is from a different part of the world and a different social background. However, I will attempt to speak somewhat slower in future.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Although I welcome and support the overwhelming part of what the Secretary of State said, may I ask him to consider one point? By admitting that some people may be under threat as a result of the theft, he is inadvertently fuelling the media speculation that we all deplore. May I urge him to ensure that the assessment of the sensitivity and importance of the stolen papers is processed with the greatest possible speed and that decisive action is taken as a consequence to ensure that this media speculation comes to an end?
Dr. Reid: I can please both the hon. Gentleman and you, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the answer to his questions is yes.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: Clearly, this event has caused palpable shock and concern right across Northern Ireland: it is a deeply worrying event. Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell the House that a security review not just of Castlereagh but of other key security installations has taken place and that immediate steps will be taken to tighten security at such installations in Northern Ireland? Will he give an assurance that, consistent with the need to get to the bottom of the matter and to seek out the truth, the inquiry that he has set up will act and announce its conclusions publicly as soon as possible, so that all the speculation and rumour can be put to rest as quickly as possible?
Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Although I got back only yesterday morning, I believe that steps were taken immediately to ensure that security was improved, or at least tested, elsewhere. I will speak to the Chief Constable about this issue once we have finished this private notice question. Obviously, this matter will be included as part of any damage assessment and security audit, which is part of the task that I have given to Sir John Chilcot. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Sir John is seized of the need to do this as promptly as possible, but it is not easy to get answers in Northern Ireland, even given a considerable length of time. Of course, we want to get answers.
Finally, I would like to be able to be in a position to give as much information arising out of any inquiry as possible. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that just as I am somewhat constrained today because of the wider aspects and implications of going into detail on matters of national security, that could apply to some of the information or conclusions that are drawn by Sir John in his review. I know that he will understand that.

Child Support Agency
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on the implementation of the child support reforms. As the House will know, the Government are reforming the system of child support and the Child Support Agency itself to ensure that more children see the benefit of regular maintenance.
We consulted widely in 1998 and I announced our proposals in July 1999. I undertook to keep the House informed on progress towards the implementation of these important reforms. I have made it clear on many occasions that we would not implement the reforms until I was confident that the new system would work effectively.
On 1 July 1999, I reminded the House that the present system had collapsed under its own weight in 1993 because the reforms were introduced too quickly and with too little thought. That approach has been endorsed by Members on both sides of the House and by the then departmental Select Committee. Its report of November 1999 recommended
"that the new child support scheme should not be implemented until the new computer system is fully operational".
I said then—and it remains the position—that we would not repeat the mistakes made in 1993 when the Child Support Agency was introduced. The timetable then was rushed: the organisation was not ready and some key aspects of the information technology system were not finally delivered until two months after the start date. So the IT, critical to the system, was simply not there. We know the consequences—the system descended into chaos within weeks.
Let me tell the House what progress has been made since 1999 to reform the existing system. First, we have put in place the necessary legislation. The primary legislation received Royal Assent in July 2000 and the regulations are in place, with some minor provisions currently before the House.
Secondly, the Child Support Agency has been substantially reorganised to give a far better customer focus. As hon. Members will know, this has already made a difference. Levels of compliance have increased and complaints have fallen considerably.
The third issue, which is fundamental to the delivery of these reforms, is getting the IT right. We face a major task in building a new IT system that can handle upwards of 13 million payments each year. It also needs to link up with other IT systems in the Department, which are based on 1980s technology.
The new child support computer system being built by EDS is near completion. Testing has been under way for some weeks, in advance of the planned start date at the end of April. Those tests are continuing, but they are not yet complete.
I want to see the new system in place as soon as possible. We know that any new IT system will inevitably have teething problems on introduction, but we will proceed only when I am satisfied that it is working to the standards that we expect.
In my view, until the testing process is complete, I will not have the assurance that I need to authorise the start of the new system. I have therefore decided for that reason
316
to defer the planned start date. The new system will be implemented only when the supporting IT is operating effectively.
I have a clear responsibility to Members of this House and the staff who have to operate the new system. Above all, I have a clear duty to parents and children to make sure that the system works effectively.
The delay is frustrating and regrettable. There was a choice: I could have taken a chance, but that would have meant taking a chance on support for children, and for parents. In my judgment, it is better to take the time needed to get it right, rather than repeat the mistakes of 1993.
The new system will continue to be thoroughly tested. I will keep the House updated on progress. I undertake to give the House sufficient notice of the date the new system will start and to confirm how we intend to bring on new and existing cases.
The House will want to know the cost implications of the delay. Inevitably, there are some, but the contract with EDS specified that the Department will not pay for the computer system until it meets the standard required, and that remains the position.
We know about the problems of the past. They arose in part because the rules were too complicated, but also because the decision was taken in the early days to press ahead when there was real doubt about whether all the necessary systems were in place. I will not let that happen again.
This was a difficult decision. I know that many Members—and parents—are anxious to see the changes introduced as soon as possible, but I judged that the risk of proceeding before testing was complete was unacceptable. I therefore took the view that it was right to tell the House the current position as soon as possible, and I will continue to report to the House on progress towards implementation of these much needed reforms.
Mr. David Willetts: It is usual to welcome a statement from a Minister, especially from this Secretary of State who has made only one oral statement to the House in the past 15 months. At least today's statement has a certain rarity value.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statement announces no new policy? Instead, it announces further IT problems at the CSA which are, sadly, not new. They are, indeed, regrettable. They are serious for the families who will be left in limbo. We need more information on the new timetable for the implementation of the changes, on which his statement was completely silent. We hope that a debate can take place when we can scrutinise those matters in Government time.
The changes were originally to be introduced in October 2001. Then the Secretary of State announced in a written answer that the scheme would be introduced by April 2002, saying
"by which time successful introduction can be achieved without unacceptable risks."—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 466W.]
I presume that he regrets saying that now.
Having announced a delay in that written answer, the right hon. Gentleman now rushes to the House to make an oral statement on further delays. It would be far more significant and newsworthy if he had come to the House

317
to announce an IT project that had been successfully delivered on time and on budget. That would be a statement that we would all enjoy hearing.
Why have we suddenly had a statement on IT in the CSA after 15 months of almost complete silence? Why not make a statement on the Government's redefinition of their poverty target for children so that they can appear to meet it? Why not make a statement on the crisis in funded pensions, on which the Secretary of State refused to comment?
The explanation for this statement is that the right hon. Gentleman knows that later this afternoon the House will have a desperately important debate on the commitment of our troops in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues ought to be present for that debate, but the longer the gap between Prime Minister's questions and the debate, the easier it will be for them to stay away. That is what this statement is all about.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the statement, not tell us what it is all about.
Mr. Willetts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to record that the House gave a clear expression of its will yesterday under Standing Order No. 24. I do not wish to stand between the will of the House and the important debate that awaits us soon.
Mr. Darling: I am really very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that stance. He knows a lot about this subject and the House often listens with respect to what he has to say. His response today was a little petulant.
First, I would have liked to make the statement yesterday, but I was told that I could not do so because it was an Opposition Supply day. I was left with no alternative but to make it today. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said on many occasions that Ministers ought to come to the House and be answerable to the House. Here I am.
The Child Support Agency is a matter of real interest to just about every hon. Member. I took the view that rather than use a written answer or a press briefing, or putting the story in the newspapers, it would be better to come to the House and say that, because of the difficulties I described, it would be necessary to defer the implementation of changes that many hon. Members as well as, of course—and, in many ways, more importantly—many of our constituents want to be implemented as quickly as possible.
Yes, there have been IT problems in the past. There were problems when the CSA was introduced in 1993. The IT did not arrive until two months after the then scheme was introduced. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt also thinking about NIRS—a contract that was signed in 1995, had to be renegotiated in 1996, and was a year late by the time the system was switched on, by which time the old system had been decommissioned, causing all sorts of problems with national insurance records. Perhaps he is also thinking about the benefits payment card. The contract for that was signed in 1996. It had to be renegotiated in February 1997 and, by the time we took
318
over, it was running three years late and the costs had almost doubled. Yes, it was it a mess. Yes, it had to be looked at.
I have another example, and this time the Conservative Government deserve some credit. The jobseeker's allowance was supposed to be introduced in April 1996. The Government of the day were advised by consultants that introduction would not be possible then because of all sorts of difficulties. To their credit, they decided to let it slip for about six months and then it was implemented satisfactorily.
We know that there are problems with large IT systems. As I have described, our problem at the moment is that the vital testing necessary to be sure that the new computer system to back the CSA changes works has not yet been completed. I have taken the view that until that testing is complete I am not prepared to authorise its commissioning. I take full responsibility and I think that I am right to come to the House to explain the position. Members can hold me to account for the decision that I have taken. I am sorry that, out of sheer opportunism, the hon. Gentleman has taken a completely different position.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I offer the strongest support for the Secretary of States's attitude? Is he aware that the staff of the Child Support Agency have some of the most difficult and certainly the most harassing jobs in the civil service? Anything that adds to this harassment—and, often, ill temper and bitterness—would be a disaster. He has taken absolutely the right attitude of caution. It would be much better to wait until these teething problems are sorted out. Given the expertise that is now concentrated in the system, is there any chance of it being available to other countries that might regard it as an export proposition? Britain is a leading figure in this field.
Mr. Darling: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Given the present position, I would be hesitant about going into the export market just yet. Perhaps one day the system will be resold in different parts of the world. Of course, it is owned by EDS, which supplies it.
In response to my hon. Friend, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Child Support Agency has to deal with 400,000 new applications every year, which works out at about 1,000 new applications every day. Therefore, had there been any problems with the IT system—I believe that there is sufficient risk that there might have been—it would not be long before thousands of cases built up in a backlog. That is why I am taking a cautious approach, and I make no apology for that whatever. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Father of the House appreciates that Ministers should come to the House to explain these positions so that we can be held to account for our decisions.
Mr. Steve Webb: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State; he is absolutely right not to introduce the system if it is not ready. However, that sidesteps the issue of who is responsible for its not being ready. Does he recall that two years ago I warned his Department in oral questions in the House that if it did not get a grip on this process and monitor it tightly this is just the sort of thing that would happen? He has already failed to mention in his statement the six-month slippage from October to

319
the coming April, and he still cannot say when the system will be introduced. He said that it is near completion. If so, why cannot he say whether it is months or years away?
The key point is that this is not the first computer botch in the Secretary of State's Department. He mentioned NIRS2, and I understand that the pension credit system is not all it might be. The CSA computer system is now behind schedule. Does someone in his Department monitor these projects or does he take responsibility? If not, weeks before a project is due to be up and running, someone comes along to say, "We've only been testing a few weeks. Sorry, guv'nor, it doesn't work." Is it not time that he took responsibility for projects in his Department and made sure that they were ready on time? Instead, he comes to us just a few weeks before the project is due to be ready, wrings his hands and says, "We'll let you know but we can't tell you when."
Mr. Darling: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have said on many occasions that I take full responsibility for everything that happens in my Department. That is my job as Secretary of State. It is my responsibility to make sure that we deliver an effective working system.
It might help the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to know that I and my officials became concerned at the turn of the year that the testing was not proceeding as fast as we thought it should. We approached EDS, which is supplying the equipment, and it increased the resources devoted to testing the system. I was anxious to introduce the system, if at all possible, in the second part of April as originally planned. I thought that it was worth testing the system and making sure that it was completely installed to deliver. However, I came to the view towards the end of last week that, on the information I had, it would be irresponsible to authorise the commissioning of the system. Therefore, the Department is aware of the slippage that has taken place on testing, and we have taken that up with EDS.
As the hon. Gentleman should know—perhaps he does not—we intend to run the pension credit system on the Department's existing computer systems for the first two years, because we think it better to do that than to build a system.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he asserted that he had warned us about this problem two years ago, but his policy then was to transfer the CSA back to the courts at a cost of about £1 billion. However, I will give him credit. I read in The Guardian today—this may come as a surprise to some of his Liberal colleagues—that his policy has changed and that he now wants to transfer everything to the Inland Revenue. I would have thought that anyone in the Inland Revenue would think long and hard about saying, "Yes, let's have the CSA imposed on top of the tax system." I say this in the nicest possible way to the professor, but he should think beyond the next press release before he begins making policy on this issue.
Mr. Terry Rooney: Many of us went through the turbulent years from 1993 onwards when we faced five years of chaos, two-year delays in assessments and thousands of children not receiving the payments to which they were entitled. The Conservatives had to set up a special MPs' hotline with 50 staff to deal just with the complaints coming from the House. May I
320
congratulate my right hon. Friend on an intelligent and sensitive decision that means that the 2.5 million children and the 2 million parents who are in the CSA system will have a decent system and not a cock-up like we had in the past?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is worth bearing it in mind that, when the new system is introduced, it will benefit many people. The formula for calculating the maintenance due will be far simpler. Rather than the hundreds of pieces of information now required to make a calculation, only three or four will be needed. That means that we can get the maintenance paid within a matter of days. At the moment, nearly a third of new applications take more than six months to process. The new system will make a big difference and it is also fairer to people who have second families, a point that many hon. Members have pressed for some time. I am disappointed that we are not able to introduce the system at the end of April as I had intended, but the risks are such that it is better to take time to ensure that we complete the testing satisfactorily before we introduce the new system.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is commendable that the Secretary of State saw fit to make this statement to the House. I concur with the view that, faced with the options before him, he had no alternative. If he had done anything else, he would clearly have been in breach of an undertaking that the Under-Secretary in the other place gave to a Select Committee that the new system would not be introduced until the IT was robust. To that extent, I agree with the Secretary of State's decision.
I wish to press the Secretary of State on the testing that is necessary. Is he facing hardware, software or systems problems? It seems to me that it will take weeks to get the problems ironed out and, if he is to be fair to everyone, he will have to give at least three months' notice of a new date for implementation. My working assumption is that it will be at least six months from April before the new system is introduced. Surely the sooner we can end the period of uncertainty, the better for all concerned.
Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point about the importance of completing the testing and fixing a date for implementation. It is important to remember that new cases will be dealt with first. That was always our intention. We will deal with existing cases after that. It is important to get the system right and then fix a date rather than do things the other way around.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his remarks. On his second point, I point out that several features need to be tested. There are problems inherent in any attempt to rebuild a Department's IT systems, and I have told the House on many occasions that that is what we are having to do because of years of lack of investment. The new system will have to operate alongside the Department's existing systems and the technology built in 2001–02 is different from the technology that was designed in the 1970s. The current CSA computer was built in the 1970s. It is an off-the-shelf model that was bought from someone in Florida; it has never been entirely satisfactory.
Miss Anne Begg: I have been struggling with British Airways' new booking system in

321
which a nice voice says, "Thank you for your patience, but we have a new system that will speed up your booking." However, four weeks later, booking takes longer than it did before. I therefore appreciate why my right hon. Friend could not proceed with the introduction of the CSA system until it was up and running. There is nothing worse than a system that is not fail-safe and that has not been fully tested.
However, some of my constituents who expected to be on the new system by 1 April may be dismayed to discover that their contributions will be calculated under the old system. Can the Secretary of State assure us that—once we begin processing existing claimants—those who will perhaps miss out between 1 April and whenever the new system is fully up and running will be the first to go on to it, provided that it works as intended?
Mr. Darling: Like a number of Members, I am familiar with the notice that greets passengers at the British Airways check-in desk, explaining the wonders of its new computer system. That system is not quite fixed, and I have some sympathy with British Airways in that regard at least.
On my hon. Friend's substantive point, as I said in my statement, once I am satisfied that the system is working, I intend to inform the House as to how we will take on new cases. The key to success, however, is to try to keep the system as simple as possible. Indeed, it was the complexity of the existing system that crippled it. I intend that we will bring on new cases once the system starts up, and when they are settled in we will bring on the existing ones. It would not be wise to undertake a backdating exercise, because that would inevitably lead to the stockpiling of cases and a lot of confusion. It would be better to proceed according to the original plans that many people signed up to, and I know that my hon. Friend participated in the Select Committee that considered the issue on several occasions.
The more complex we make the system, the worse it becomes. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said yesterday that he wanted a simple system but with more complications. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to give that proposal a very wide berth, and I am sure that she will.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement because it is important that we be kept informed. The Secretary of State said that there might be some increase in costs, but that the bill for the system will not be paid until it is delivered. Is the change to the new system attributable to a particular attitude of mind in the Department, to a particular view on how information should be delivered, or was there a problem with suppliers who did not measure up to demands?
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will confirm in a further statement how new and existing cases will be brought on. I have already been approached by people who are on the list and waiting for back-payments. They have been told that they will not be dealt with until the new system is up and running. Surely that is wrong, given that the relevant details are known. I would imagine that they could be fed into the computer system fairly
322
quickly. Why should payments to people who have already wasted a lot of time, and spent a lot of money looking after their children, be held back?
Mr. Darling: On the last point, the new system is not yet operational. It has not been fully tested, so it would not be safe to feed information into it. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Department has written to people—as it was duty bound to do—telling them about the plan to introduce the new system at the end of April. We will write to them again, as it is clear that we cannot in fact bring them on to the new system at the end of April. As I have said, the situation is deeply regrettable and I am very sorry for those people who will suffer some degree of inconvenience. However, it would have been far worse to plough on in a manner that presented unjustifiable risks.
On the information technology system itself, as I said in my statement, the contract is so structured that we will not pay for it until we accept it as operational. That may seem obvious, but not all contracts have been structured in that way. I made it clear that, given the history of IT projects—to which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred—we should not pay for the computer system until it works. The difficulty is that testing has yet to be completed. It is clearly in our interests—and in the interests of EDS, which will not get paid until the system works as I described—that testing be completed as quickly as possible. As soon as I am satisfied that we can proceed, I undertake to return to the House—despite opposition from the Conservative Front Bench—and explain the position. I have to say that this is the first time in 15 years as a Member of this House that I have encountered an Opposition who do not want to hold Ministers to account.
Mr. Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact of the delay is to some extent mitigated by the additional resources provided and the administrative changes implemented by the Government for the existing system? Can he assure us that CSA staff will be encouraged to continue to improve that service, even under the existing system? Does he agree that because that system was introduced in haste by the previous Government, it has left hundreds of thousands of families to repent in anguish and that the main victims of that have been the children? Will he strengthen his resolve not to introduce the new system, which I think is much better, in haste, as he has been encouraged to do by the cynicism and sneering from the Opposition?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the CSA has been significantly reformed in the past three years. That was necessary for the new system, but was desirable anyway. The chief executive, Doug Smith, has made huge changes in management and in structures. It is a tribute to the staff—as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned earlier—that so much hard work has been put into making substantial changes, including more face-to-face interviews and more time being taken to explain how calculations are made. As a result, compliance rates have increased. Most of our staff wanted to get ahead with the new system, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the worst thing to do would have been to press ahead with the system, especially when the information I had

323
suggested that Members of Parliament would have had cause for complaint had I done so. As I said to the hon. Member for Northavon, I accept full responsibility for the matter and the decision was, right.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State realise that his claim of accepting responsibility for the matter might ring more true if he had spent more time talking about what is happening in 2002 and his efforts to introduce the new system, rather than spending most of his statement talking about the events of 1993? Given that he has deferred the introduction of the new system, I put it to him that—as a member of a Government for whom management by targets is the order of the day—he should set a new target, even if it is not a definite commitment, to bring the new system into operation on a given date, so that he can be held to account as the responsible Minister for his performance against that target. The Secretary of State has twice been asked to set a further target date for implementation of the new system and has signally failed to do so. Why will he not give a target date?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will remember from his previous job as an adviser to the previous Government that Governments get into awful difficulties if they fix targets, sometimes plucked out of the air, and may have cause to regret doing so afterwards. It is important to ensure that the testing process is completed. Once that is done, I intend to fix a date for starting on new cases. As I have said, I will come to the House to spell out how we propose to take on those new cases. I am very sorry if my mentioning 1993 brings back bad memories for the hon. Gentleman, although I full) understand why that might he the case.
Mrs. Joan Humble: May I applaud my right hon. Friend for his determination to ensure that the new system for the CSA will succeed? We all agree with that aim. May I also reinforce the concerns of existing clients about the announcement that the introduction will be deferred? Many of my constituents who are absent parents are suffering real financial hardship. They come to see me regularly and look forward to the implementation of the new system, but are already concerned that they have no clear idea of when they will be brought on to it. When my right hon. Friend returns to the House with a timetable for implementation, as soon as he is reassured about the efficacy of the new computers, will he consider especially the needs of existing clients, many of whom are in serious difficulties?
Mr. Darling: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. I am aware that it is felt that the present system does not take sufficient account of
324
the circumstances of many people, especially those who now have second families. Obviously it is too soon for me to say at this stage what the precise impact will be on existing cases in terms of the time taken.
I simply repeat the following point, which I think my hon. Friend accepts. In 1993, there was cross-party support for the CSA and my recollection is that the then Opposition agreed with the then Government on introducing the thing quickly, but that proved utterly disastrous. As I have told the House on several occasions, the situation is regrettable, but it is better that we spend time getting the arrangements right, because in the long term that is the better way of helping both new and existing cases.
We should remember that the agency now deals with about 1.4 million children—we project that in four years' time it will be 1.7 million. It is very sad that that is the case, but it gives the House an idea of the number of individuals involved. We should remember that we are talking about individuals about whose well-being we need to be concerned.
Rob Marris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to make the announcement and to withdraw the system before it came in at half-cock and did not work. I also congratulate him on making his statement to the House first, rather than to the press, as has sometimes been done. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be wrong to implement a new system for the CSA until the IT is sorted out. After all, the Government are addressing years of underinvestment in his Department.
However, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there are no other untoward delays in IT implementation elsewhere in his Department, whether in benefits or in pensions, or particularly in the Employment Service, where I believe that EDS is the lead contractor, as it is with the CSA?
Mr. Darling: In the Employment Service, as I believe my hon. Friend knows because he is a member of the departmental Select Committee, the jobpoints, which are now all successfully in place, are one example of quite a big IT project. That project was started under the Conservative Government—I say that to show that I, at least, am bipartisan—and has now been delivered successfully. There are other examples.
The Department for Work and Pensions has some of the biggest computer systems in the western world. The systems deal with 7 billion transactions every year. It is inevitable, therefore, that anything that the Department does will take time. It takes an awful lot of investment. But one thing on which I strongly agree with my hon. Friend is the need for that investment—every penny of which, to conclude on a very partisan note, has been opposed by the Conservative party.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)
4.43 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes.
By the end of this week, five people will have died unnecessarily on the waiting list for an organ transplant, and more than 200 lives will be needlessly lost this year because of a shortage of organ donors. The gap between the number of organs available and the number of people needing a transplant is widening. Since the House last debated presumed consent at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) in April 2000. the waiting list for organ transplants has risen by several hundred. Seven thousand people are now on the transplant waiting list and the queue is growing by the day. The sad truth is that one in 10 of those people waiting for a heart or lung transplant and 7 per cent. of those people waiting for a liver transplant will die, and many others will have lost their life before they even get on the waiting list.
I should like to quote from a letter from a Mr. Michael Newbold, who says that his wife
"was in hospital with what was later diagnosed as a serious, rare and incurable heart condition … after more than 100 hospital admissions she was told her only hope of continued life was to have a heart transplant. She has now been on the list for 15 months, and no suitable organ has yet become available.
We know that fitness and good health is no guarantee that we will not eventually need a replacement for at least one of our organs. It could happen to any of us.
Of course, we are aware and saddened that transplant can only normally come as the result of the death of a fellow human being, but surely it is a good thing if another person benefits from that tragedy?"
That is just one of thousands of cases, which demonstrates the urgent need for something to be done about the desperate need for more organ donors. The Bill would introduce an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, system, so that everyone would be a potential donor unless they registered their objections otherwise. A central computerised register of objectors would be established and would have to be consulted by doctors before transplant could go ahead. The system would have several additional safeguards. The deceased's close relatives would still be consulted in every single case and would have the ultimate veto over donation. The change would not apply to children under the age of 16, where explicit consent would still be sought in all cases.
In 1971, when even opting in was seen as controversial by some, contracting and opting out was raised in the House by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Thirty years on from his ten-minute Bill, the major medical advances in transplantation have made the Human Tissue Act 1961 even more outdated. The attempt that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made last year to amend the Act through his Transplantation of Human Organs Bill is to be applauded.
326
We all have constituents whose lives have been touched by transplants. They are the miracle of modern medicine because, in death, they can bring the gift of life to others. Once considered to be perilous operations, they are now routine. Indeed, King's College hospital will have performed more than 2,000 liver transplants by the end of this month.
Public opinion has moved on, but although studies have repeatedly shown that up to three-quarters of the population would be willing to donate their organs after death, only 15 per cent. have signed up to the NHS organ donor register. In fact, with one of the lowest organ donor rates, we lag behind Europe. More than a dozen countries on the continent use some form of opt-out system and have far higher donation rates than in this country.
The system used in Belgium—rather than, for instance, that used in France—provides a good model for the United Kingdom. Belgium established a register of non-donors in 1987. Citizens can express their objection to organ or tissue donation at the town hall. By the end of 1995, nearly 2 per cent. of the native Belgian population had registered their objections to donation. It is mandatory that the register be checked before any organs are removed, and in practice relatives are still consulted. Countries that have a system of presumed consent also tend to have higher donation rates than those without.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out to the House in July 1998, there is well-documented and convincing evidence that when Belgium changed from contracting in to contracting out there was an increase in organ supply. In Antwerp, they kept the opt-in system, but had a big public education campaign. In Leuven, however, they adopted the new law. Over a three-year period the rate of donation in Antwerp stayed the same, whereas in Leuven it rose from 15 to 40 donors per year.
My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has set the challenging target of doubling the number of individuals on the organ donor register to 16 million by 2010. That is a laudable aim, and I welcome any proposals to increase donation and bring life to others. In my region, The Birmingham Post has run a successful campaign, regularly printing donor cards and promoting the organ donor register to its readers in the west midlands. Ultimately, however, if we are significantly to increase the rate of organ donation we also need a change in the law and a positive change of emphasis towards organ donation, which this Bill on presumed consent would achieve.
Medical experts have suggested that a system of presumed consent would increase the rate of organ donation by at least 20 per cent. in this country, thus going a long way towards tackling the problems I outlined at the beginning.
I am grateful for the support of so many Members on both sides of the House—not least for their hacking for early-day motion 527. I am also pleased that 40 Members have joined the NHS organ donor register in the last few weeks. We, as Members of Parliament, should be leading the way and encouraging as many of our constituents as possible to sign the register.
The Bill is also backed by the British Medical Association, many individual doctors, surgeons and patients' groups, and many of my constituents. While

327
opinion in the country is mixed, a clear majority now favour "soft" presumed consent, and they look to the House to lead rather than follow.
It is time for a public debate on presumed consent. It is time to prevent any further widening of the gap between the number of organs available and the number needed for transplant. It is time to drag our organ donor laws into the 21st century. This Bill is about saving lives, and with the support of the House we can begin to address the chronic shortage of organs for transplant.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Watson, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mark Tami, Dr. Richard Taylor and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)
  ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS)
  Mr. Tom Watson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed [Bill 1141.

Afghanistan
4.52 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Tuesday 19 March under Standing Order No. 24.
Our calling of this debate on the war in Afghanistan should not be allowed to cast any doubt on our continuing support for the Government in the war against terrorism. We applauded the Prime Minister's instant and unequivocal support for the United States after 11 September. More recently, his very clear statements about the need to deal with Iraq demonstrate that he remains shoulder to shoulder with the United States. The Prime Minister will continue to have our support while he continues to do the right thing.
In the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday, the Government announced a very significant escalation of our commitment to combat operations in Afghanistan. Let there be no doubt that we support the principle of that decision; but it was wrong for the Government to make such an announcement without anticipating the need for a proper debate on the subject. I asked the Government for a debate and they could have avoided the need for me to invoke Standing Order No. 24, but Ministers ignored our polite requests.
Yesterday was an important day for Parliament. Mr. Speaker made it clear that that situation was unacceptable to the House of Commons, and his decision to accept our request for a debate clearly had support in all parts of the House. Please will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pass those remarks and our thanks to him?
Mr. Mark Hendrick: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's judgment could be called into question? There was an Opposition-day debate yesterday, which was used to discuss the Chinook helicopter crash. This matter could have been raised yesterday, instead of using this procedure to raise it here today.
Mr. Jenkin: First, I do not think that this is going to be an occasion to make party political comments. [Interruption.] I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that I was making a point on behalf of the House of Commons, not my party. Secondly, I think that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) will find that quite a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are grateful that this debate is taking place.
45 Commando are trained in high-altitude mountain warfare, and it is in mountain warfare that they are now to engage. They are trained for close-quarters combat, for flexible, autonomous and lightly armed operations beyond the front line, with the minimum of logistical support. The United States made the request because, undoubtedly, they are some of the finest troops that anyone will find on this earth. They are ideally fitted to the task, which is to defeat our enemies—those who threaten our people in our country and the peoples of our friends and allies. That is why we have our armed forces: to protect our people.
The men of 45 Commando Royal Marines understand the dangers, but they will relish the challenges ahead, provided they have a clear mission, under a clear chain of communication and command, access to tactical lift and close air support when required, and the best equipment.

329
The House is entitled to ask Ministers about the reasons for their decision and for assurances. In the spirit of genuine inquiry, I invite the Secretary of State to use this occasion to build confidence in this deployment and in the Government's decision.
First, can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when the Government first received indication of the request? I believe that it may have some bearing on the short notice of his statement.
Secondly, on the mission, the objective must be to assist United States armed forces to search out and defeat the remaining elements of largely non-Afghan al-Qaeda terrorists. Once that job is done, 45 Commando should come home. Can we be sure that that is indeed their mission? Can the Secretary of State clarify exactly who is still resisting in the mountains of Shah-i-Kot? Do we have enough intelligence to assess their number, their capabilities and their determination, and to develop a clear understanding of how they operate? What lessons have we learned from Tora Bora and Operation Anaconda? How will we improve the effectiveness of co-operation with indigenous Afghan forces, and what measures will be taken to prevent al-Qaeda from simply running away, as they have in the past?
The CIA informed the Senate armed services committee yesterday that coalition forces will face increased danger of attack from small pockets of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, who remain hidden in the mountains in what was described as "classic insurgency format". They will use very small groups of fighters to attack and perhaps to pin down much larger coalition formations. Can the Secretary of State explain how we will avoid being bogged down in such fighting, so that we can press ahead to the main objective and a swift conclusion?
I would be grateful if the Secretary of State explained what he meant when he said on BBC Radio 4 yesterday:
"It is an open-ended commitment to the extent that we have a job to do to deal with the remaining elements of al-Qaeda and Taliban."
He cannot seriously be saying, and I do not for a moment think that he is, that he has no idea how long the operation will take. However, the House should be aware that the Canadians are already extending their six-month commitment to these operations.
There is also the question of force rotation. How long is it intended that 45 Commando remain in combat before being relieved? With each commando of 3 Commando Brigade being short of one company—that is, short of 100 men each out of some 900—that will create manning challenges across the whole corps. Can the Secretary of State say something about how that will be addressed?
Thirdly, the chain of command should be clear. I understand that 45 Commando and 3 Commando brigade headquarters, which will be set up at Bagram airport, will be fully integrated into the US operational command of Operation Enduring Freedom. That is under the field command of the US General, Major-General Hagenbeck, who commands the US 10th Mountain Division. Why have we been asked to provide a brigade headquarters at all, as it is unnecessary for the deployment of this one battle group? Are we keeping an option open to deploy
330
further British troops to expand the UK commitment to Enduring Freedom, or will Brigadier Lane take command of some of the US elements already in the field?
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On that point, if a brigade headquarters is effectively sitting on top of commando headquarters, it will be a top-heavy structure that will get in the way of the operational deployment of the commando itself.
Mr. Jenkin: I hear my hon. Friend's concern and hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
My understanding is that the United States would not have made its request unless it was confident that we already shared a joint concept of operations and that Brigadier Lane already had a relationship and operational understanding with those with whom he will be working. The Royal Marines should be more than happy to work alongside 10th Mountain Division's second battalion or US 101st Airborne Division. Standard NATO operating procedures will underpin their effective co-operation.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many troops of all nationalities this formation will put in the front line of operations? The UK will have some 900 troops, plus some unspecified minor elements in the front line. The United States has only 2,000 troops in this theatre, as against our 1,700. How many US troops will be held forward for front-line operations? Might the British force comprise as much as 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. of the front-line fighting capability?
Fourthly, Lord Inge, former Chief of the Defence Staff, raised an important issue in the other place on Monday—the lack of British dedicated air power, known as close air support. The Americans already have carrier-based F-14s and F-18s and land-based F-15s and A-10 ground attack aircraft alongside the Apache attack helicopters and heavy bombers based in Diego Garcia. Have we considered offering to deploy our own dedicated close air support? The Italians are flying off a carrier in theatre and the French have deployed Mirage 2000D jets based in Kyrgyzstan and Super Etandards from the carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Indian ocean.
Sadly, too many British ground-attack Jaguars are either committed to other operations or laid up waiting for new engines, other spares or pilots. If we have nothing else to deploy, has the Secretary of State been given the necessary assurances by the United States about the availability of close air support for British forces as and when required?
Will our Royal Marines on the ground be able to communicate directly with US aircraft, which is vital for quick response and to minimise the risk of friendly-fire self-inflicted casualties? Frankly, only dedicated air support to a particular operation will do.
That leads to the wider question of communications. What systems will 45 Commando be using? Will they be secure, and will they be fully interoperable at all tactical levels with the Americans and any other nation's forces in theatre?
I am sure that the House can have every confidence that a suitable welfare package will be in place for communication with families back home and that they will have the best medical support available. If we are to rely on US field hospital support, will British medical personnel be available to deal with casualties?

331
I shall now move on to the other British military operation in Afghanistan that is part of the war against terrorism—the international security assistance force, or ISAF, under UK command in Kabul. That, too, was originally intended to be a swift and decisive deployment, but has proved more protracted than the Government originally anticipated. There needs to be a clear understanding that ISAF is completely separate from combat operations elsewhere. We are concerned about mission creep, the open-ended commitment to our leadership of ISAF and the size of our contribution to it.
The Conservative party is not always content with the way in which the Government choose to use British armed forces. We do not always agree with the way that our limited and over-extended armed forces are spread across the globe on so many lower-level peacekeeping tasks that are more suited to a gendarmerie than a fighting army. I recall the words of a soldier of 2 Para, who was reported in the press as saying that Kabul is great experience but
"not what we are trained for".
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Will the hon. Gentleman give one example of a mission from which we should withdraw?
Mr. Jenkin: If I may say so, that is a tiresome and cheap point. I do not begin to assume that it is easy to withdraw from such operations. It might be fairer to ask which original deployments we would not have made. [Interruption.] No, that is right. We have made our views on that clear. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that short deployments are justified from time to time, but all too often under him, and his predecessor, those have become open-ended commitments, putting further pressure on our already stretched armed forces. We should not devalue the gold standard of our armed forces in this way.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge rose—
Mr. Jenkin: I will press on because many people want to speak.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a tiresome question? Does the Conservative party have any qualms about supporting what is both a military action and a peacekeeping role? Can one do the same thing in the same country at the same time?
Mr. Jenkin: That is a question that I have raised from the Dispatch Box before and I note that it has also been raised by the leader of one of the minority parties. I do not believe that the Government have ever given a satisfactory answer. [HoN. MEMBERS: "You answer the question."] Well, the answer is that if everything goes well and there are no unforeseen eventualities, there might not be any difficulties. However, as soon as something unexpected occurs, such difficulties might be created. It is unsound military doctrine to have two completely separate types of operation in the same theatre under split chains of command with split objectives. It invites another uncertainty into the picture, and we remain concerned about that.
What exactly is the goal that we are trying to achieve in Kabul, and when do we think that it will be achieved? How did we ever believe that it could be achieved under
332
a United Nations mandate of just six months? Why did the Government give such fulsome assurances that we would get away with only three months' commitment from our troops? What has been the outcome of discussions about the future leadership of ISAF? The Government led us to believe that Turkey had made a firm offer to take over. The Secretary of State said:
"We have received an offer from Turkey, which would be willing to take over at the end of the three-month period".—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 5.]
On Monday, we expected that to be confirmed by the Turkish Prime Minister. An announcement has yet to be made.
I also asked on Monday about the financial contribution that Britain is being asked to make to support Turkey's leadership. I understand that Turkey is now demanding $300 million for a six-month operation, which is likely to be funded by the United States and the United Kingdom alone. The Turkish Defence Minister is in London today. Will the Secretary of State give us an update on the situation? What provision has been made, if any, for the eventuality that Turkey declines to take over ISAF? I dare say that the Turkish commanders are asking the same questions about the long-term prospects of ISAF.
I regret to inform the House that many of the fears that we expressed when the Government announced ISAF are becoming a reality. It looks as though our troop commitment will become longer; it will be impossible substantially to reduce the numbers that we have committed and no other nation is willing or able yet to make a commitment to take over ISAF's leadership. Now Mr. Brahimi of the United Nations has called for an extension of ISAF's mandate, which can only compound the difficulties facing the Government. Of course, there remains the underlying issue of two operations taking place in the same theatre, which the Father of the House raised a moment ago.
I want to keep my remarks as short as possible. This debate was vital for the House of Commons to be able to do its job of scrutinising the Government's decision, but it is also an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to send a message of support to all those in the British armed forces who have been called upon to fight for our security, our values and our beliefs. I regret that the Foreign Secretary—or indeed the Prime Minister—is not in his place, but I am sure that the House will join me in wishing our forces in the field the very best of luck and every success in the weeks and months ahead.
5.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The House already knows a great deal about the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan—I went through much of the detail during my statement on Monday. I do not intend to repeat that detail, but I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to answer the various questions that have been asked and to clear up a number of misconceptions.
Let me begin by making three points to set the context for the rest of what I will say. It is essential that, in discussing the detail of the deployments, we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. First, we are right to act in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks in the United States last September were only possible because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had been able to draw on the support and

333
shelter offered by the Taliban regime. If we had not responded, there was no doubt that bin Laden and his accomplices would have carried out further attacks—perhaps, by now, even in the United Kingdom.
We were right, therefore, to act in self defence under article 51 of the UN charter. We were right to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, and we were right to act to break the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism and to try to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community to ensure that those links could never be established again.
Secondly, the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. As I said on Monday, Afghanistan is now a very different country. The decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has been vindicated. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have been dealt a heavy blow. The Taliban regime, whose support was so important for al-Qaeda, is no more. The decision to deploy the international security assistance force to Kabul to help the Afghan Interim Authority to maintain security in the capital has also been vindicated.
Afghanistan is beginning to return to something like normality. Given its recent history, perhaps that is hard to believe, but I saw that change for myself when I visited Kabul some weeks ago. There were market stalls full of food, people out on the street and normal life was slowly returning.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has just said, surely the seriousness of the deployment shows that the conflict in Afghanistan is very far from over, despite what the Prime Minister said a number of weeks ago. Does that not underline the danger of the foolish talk of extending spheres of conflict to other countries before the situation in Afghanistan is fully stabilised? Is it correct, as press reports suggest, that the German and Russian Governments believe that any offensive military action on Iraq would require a new and specific UN Security Council resolution? What is the Government's attitude to that position?
Mr. Hoon: I had the privilege of meeting the Russian Foreign Minister this morning and the subject of Iraq was not raised or discussed. The hon. Gentleman and journalists seem to be raising the prospect of military action, although the Government have, in fact, repeatedly said that the question of Iraq has not even been decided and, certainly, that the prospect of any military action has not been resolved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all hon. Members that this Adjournment debate is about Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Mr. Hoon rose—
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: I will give way on the subject of Afghanistan.
Mr. Hogg: As one who supports the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan, but one who also wants to
334
reinforce parliamentary authority, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it would he right for the Government to come to the House and ask for an express vote authorising that deployment? Will he be so good as to say why he is not seeking the express authority of the House?
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has much longer experience of this House than I. He has supported Governments who have deployed forces and has never raised that question previously. He has sought to do so only when a Labour Government have taken responsibility for such decisions. He therefore needs to ask himself why he makes that point today when he never made it to a Government whom he supported over a long period. With his experience of the House, he knows that there is no automatic need for a vote. Why, then, should we take seriously such a question today?
Mr. Edward Gamier: What forces does the Secretary of State have available to reinforce those whom he is rightly deploying in Afghanistan? What forces does he have available to reinforce those in other theatres while we are deploying in Afghanistan? I repeat that I fully support the moves that he and his Government are making at the moment.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. I assure him and, indeed, the House that we have a sufficient number of forces to take on any military actions that might be necessary in the short term, notwithstanding the deployment of 45 Commando—not least because it has been held in readiness for precisely this kind of operation for some time.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I also entirely support this deployment, but will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the answer that he gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier)? Given the specific and inevitably dangerous and time-limited nature of the deployment, what forces has he further stood up to replace the 45 Commando battle group in the event of the commitment being required to continue?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in the Ministry of Defence, there is a process whereby forces who are deployed are replaced. That is part of the normal process of plotting the commitment of Britain's armed forces over a long period. He also knows—he might need to assist some of his Front Benchers on this question—that the issue is the nature of any further operations that arise. As he well knows, if there were an immediate threat to the territory of the United Kingdom, for example, then a great number of deployments would have to be effected and a great number of forces returned to the UK to deal with that threat. I assume that he is not talking about that kind of operation. Therefore, the normal arrangements for the rotation of our forces would proceed as planned.
Mr. Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to make a little more progress.

335
Another context in which I make my remarks is that of British forces playing a vital role in the success of the situation in Afghanistan. I shall not run through in detail once again the contribution that British forces have made, but it has been very considerable. British forces have a reputation right around the world for their skill and professionalism. Time and again, they have made a massive contribution to bringing stability to the world's trouble spots. Afghanistan is the latest example of that. We take immense pride in all that our forces do and in the credit that they bring to the United Kingdom. Let me take this opportunity to note our appreciation for the widespread support in the House for the work that British forces have done in Afghanistan and for the work that they will continue to do. That support means a great deal to our forces and in particular to their families.
Mr. Savidge: Specifically on the subject of this deployment, does my right hon. Friend recognise that, although many of us would support it, we should still feel, for many reasons such as overstretch or the risk of distracting ourselves from the main campaign against terror relating to the events of 11 September, even more wary of getting involved in war in Iraq?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that this Adjournment debate is about Afghanistan.
Mr. Hoon: I turn now to the more detailed issues and questions that have been raised. I shall deal first with the international security assistance force. As the House is aware, the United Kingdom agreed to take on the leadership of this force from its inception for a limited period. We took on this role for a number of reasons. It was a job that had to he done, and done well, if the Bonn agreement was to have the best possible chance of success.
The United Kingdom was particularly well placed to do that. Our armed forces had the right capabilities and experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments. We knew that we could provide effective command structures and enablers to get a force in and up and running in the time scale required. We were right to take on that responsibility.
The fact that we have been leading the security force is reflected in the number of British troops that have been deployed to Kabul—up to 1,800 personnel, along with another 300 or so to repair Kabul international airport. Of course, the actual size of our contribution fluctuates from day to day. The sort of capabilities that we need change over time, and we are also limited, to a certain extent, by the capacity of the local airstrips.
We made it clear that we would hand over our leadership of ISAF after three months. We always planned to transfer the responsibility by the end of April. As I said in the House in January, and again two days ago, Turkey has indicated an interest in taking over as lead nation of ISAF. We are in detailed discussions about that with Turkey. Good progress was made when a joint UK/US team of officials and military officers visited Ankara last week. We are making more progress in further military technical discussions with Turkey this week.
That such negotiations take time should surprise no one. What is at issue is the transfer of the leadership of a large and complicated multinational force that has a
336
demanding task to fulfil. Of course, Turkey wants to get it right, to make sure that it has the right structures, and, where necessary, the right support, to ensure that ISAF is as successful up to June as it has been so far.
Turkey will need continuing contributions of troops from other nations. Certainly the United Kingdom will continue to have troops in ISAF after we have handed over the lead. We have promised Turkey that that will be the case. Other nations have done so as well. That does not change our determination to draw down the number of British troops deployed as part of ISAF at that point. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, we are looking to make a significant reduction in the number of British troops, but not to withdraw them completely.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: On 19 December I asked the Prime Minister if he could tell us the maximum amount of time that our troops would remain in Afghanistan. In the course of his answer, he said:
"I know that there has been some speculation that we would be sending thousands upon thousands of troops—we are not—or that they would be there for a very long time—they will not be."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 287.]
Has that changed?
Mr. Hoon: No, that has not changed. The position is precisely as the Prime Minister set out and as I have set out. We are seeking to engage in a process of rebuilding Afghanistan—ISAF is an important part of that process—while at the same time ensuring that Afghanistan is secure against any continuing threat from al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and that the wider international community is similarly secure.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Given the fact that when Russia had its troops in Afghanistan, it got a bloody nose and got bogged down, particularly in the mountains, what is the difference now between the two conflicts?
Mr. Hoon: That is one of the things that I did discuss this morning with the Russian Foreign Minister. [Interruption.] I am amazed that the Opposition find that remarkable. Surely it is vital that we should discuss the situation in Afghanistan. Opposition Members, having instigated the debate, should recognise that.
On my hon. Friend's question, the difference is the way in which the Soviet Union tried to deal with Afghanistan—largely by occupying ground, which obviously made it vulnerable to attack, whereas the whole purpose of the operation that we are discussing today is to ensure that in swift search-and-strike operations, we remove any threat, not specifically to our own forces, although that is part of it, but more generally to the stability of Afghanistan. That is a very different concept and approach.
Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State says that we will not have thousands and thousands of troops in Afghanistan. Can he tell the House how many troops we have in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly be able to do that in a second, as I go through the detail. It is more sensible that I should do so in the context of what I am saying to the House.

337
As for the wider future of ISAF, the House will know that United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 permits the force to remain in Kabul for six months—that is, until 20 June. As I said on Monday, the resolution may well be renewed, extending the duration of its deployment within its existing area of responsibility. Certainly, it is clear that such a force will have a continuing role to play in bringing security to Kabul and its immediate surroundings.
Let me make it clear that speculation that ISAF will become a NATO force, a European Union force, or anything other than a "coalition of the willing" is just that—speculation.
Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the pride felt by the families of service men going out to Afghanistan. He will also know that those families are used to dealing with facts that are often difficult, and that their pride is mixed with anxiety. However, speculation about the future can cause particular difficulties, especially for families with young children. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Members of this House, and commentators, to be measured and restrained when raising issues, and considerate of the families involved?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I entirely endorse what she says. One reason why so much trouble is taken to brief forces personnel and their families about the precise nature of operations is to avoid the sort of speculation that so often causes the worries that my hon. Friend quite properly describes.
Mr. David Laws: The Secretary of State will be aware that families will be very interested in the duration of the latest deployment. He will be aware that, after he made his statement on Monday, senior Ministry sources briefed newspapers that the latest deployment could be expected to last about three months. However, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the latest deployment represented an open-ended commitment. Will he tell the House which version is correct?
Mr. Hoon: Like the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Gentleman is taking my comments out of context. When I was asked whether the deployment was open ended, I responded by saying that it was, but that the number of forces that would be deployed had to be limited by the length of time that any individual could be asked to spend in a very difficult situation such as obtained in Afghanistan.
The deployment will last as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threat. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), and the official Opposition, appear to want me to give a precise figure for the length of the deployment. That simply does not make sense. The deployment will be for as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threats. If it becomes necessary to replace the Royal Marines in-theatre, that decision will have to be taken according to circumstances on the ground. Anyone who considers the matter for any time will appreciate the common sense of that approach.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the Secretary of State: the deployment must be open
338
ended, as we have to win the battle. I fully support the deployment of 45 Commando to Afghanistan, and the wonderful work being done in Kabul, but will the right hon. Gentleman assure me and the House that our military will not be deprived of any of the resources or equipment necessary to undertake the task successfully?
Mr. Hoon: That is uppermost in my mind, and in the minds of the senior military personnel responsible for the deployment. As I shall explain in due course, we are sending the Royal Marines in part because of their considerable skill at operations of this nature. They are trained for precisely the circumstances that obtain in Afghanistan. I certainly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and I shall ensure that his recommendation is carried through.
Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mr. Hoon: I really do need to make a little more progress. I hope that hon. Members will be patient. I have yet to deal with the deployment of 45 Commando. If questions are raised when I do, I shall be able to deal with them in context.
There has also been speculation about a possible expansion of ISAF' s area of responsibility. This is set out clearly in UN Security Council resolution 1386 and in the military technical agreement between ISAF and the Afghan Interim Administration. The security situation outside Kabul is very different from the situation in the city. What is clear is that, ultimately, security in Afghanistan is a matter for the Afghans themselves. We will continue to look at how we can help them in this, especially through the process of security sector reform.
Before I move on to talk about the deployment of 45 Commando, let me repeat that the United Kingdom is committed to the continued success of ISAF. Transferring our role as lead nation will not change that. ISAF has done great work, not just by patrolling the streets of Kabul, important though that is. Helping to train the first battalion of the new Afghan national guard—helping, for that matter, the new police force with such basic needs as pens and notepads—helps to ensure the future stability of Afghanistan.
Mr. Gamier: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me for a second time. I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I know that the MOD will wish that its resources are fully behind those who are to be deployed in Afghanistan and the majority of the House is behind the MOD in that. I wanted to be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Ministers were equally behind the MOD, because without the Chancellor's support, much of what the Secretary of State is doing, perfectly properly, will be hampered.
Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully supports the deployments that have been made and will ensure that all the financial costs of these deployments are returned to the MOD budget in a way that has been consistent across a number of Administrations. There is no difficulty

339
about ensuring that process, which is agreed between Departments and has been agreed regularly between the MOD and the Treasury.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: With this new deployment of fighting troops in another part of Afghanistan, are not the ISAF troops in Kabul in much greater danger? If they are attacked by one of the remnants of al-Qaeda, as they are called—we do not know how big these remnants are—will they stand by and say, "Sorry chaps, we do not fight. We are here to keep the peace"? Will not the war then spread back to Kabul?
Mr. Hoon: I will try to be as fair as I can to the hon. Lady, but the short answer to her question is that if she had been listening to anything said since 11 September, she would know that there have been fighting troops in Afghanistan since the first deployments. That has not affected the security of the ISAF during that long period of time.
Jeremy Corbyn: What is the Secretary of State's analysis of the situation in Afghanistan beyond Kabul? How far does the writ of the Afghan Government run? How many of the various warring factions of the Northern Alliance are still at war with each other? Is there a Government in control of the whole country? Are we not in danger of involving ourselves in a long-term and serious civil war?
Mr. Hoon: That is a good question and one that clearly needs addressing. The issue has concerned Chairman Karzai, who raised it here during his visit. I recognise that it remains of concern to the Administration there. But—this is a very important "but'—the people that I met when I was there, who represented a number of different ethnic groups from different parts of Afghanistan, were all equally determined to take this opportunity of rebuilding that country. They wanted to take the opportunity of the international community's support to ensure that the kind of civil war that has so disfigured Afghanistan in the past will not be allowed to return.
That is not to say that there are not tensions, or that there have not been, from time to time, clashes. But, overall, the country has remained remarkably committed to the process of reconstruction; more committed, perhaps, than at any other time in its recent past. That is a testimony to the determination of the Afghan people to take this chance to ensure that their country can return to the international community.
David Winnick: Is it not the case that if we had not intervened in the first place, the only Government in existence in Afghanistan would have been the Taliban? I wonder whether some of the critics would like that to happen again. If I have any criticism of the allies, it is that they have been somewhat over-optimistic about the elimination of terrorism. But is not the essence of this matter that if the terrorists are not eradicated—I assume that the whole purpose of the exercise is to do precisely that—the allies will be revisiting this business in Afghanistan within a short period of time? It will come back as a nightmare.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend's second point, which I made at the outset, is absolutely right. On his first point,
340
I suspect that that is a matter for historians. When the history of this period comes to be written, what I think will be remarkable is not the Northern Alliance's reoccupation of a territory in the north of Afghanistan, but the astonishingly rapid collapse of the Taliban in those areas where many commentators said that they were strongest because they drew their strongest support—in the south. The Taliban collapsed in the south in a matter of weeks, indicating that ordinary Afghans simply had no time for their extremism.
Mr. Jenkin: We have given the Government unequivocal support in that battle on that question. My question arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the numbers of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces that are still resisting in the mountains in the east of Afghanistan? Does he have an assessment?
Mr. Hoon: There is an assessment. The number is initially in the hundreds; clearly it could be in the thousands. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about the nature of the deployment that we have announced, he will realise that the purpose of putting forces on the ground is, in the first place, to search out the remaining elements. Without putting forces on the ground, it will otherwise be an extraordinarily difficult military task to identify numbers. In those circumstances, we will need to take decisions as and when that information becomes available. We will ensure at that stage, according to the operations that are being conducted, that we have the right kind and number of forces to he able to deal with that threat.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: I should like to make some progress if right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me.
The deployment of 45 Commando to Afghanistan is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives. It does not undermine, or even threaten to undermine, our support for ISAF. Since the military campaign began, we have made clear our determination to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. That is why British forces have been involved in operations on the ground in Afghanistan for some months now.
We have also made it clear that rooting out the remaining elements of al-Qaeda will take time. That was a constant theme of our statements in the early days of the military deployment. Even in the early period after 11 September, defence analysts rightly pointed out that search and strike operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban elements were likely to continue into the spring. Certainly, al-Qaeda ceased to exist as a coherent force some months ago, and the Taliban regime has long since been removed from power.
However, as the recent USA-led Operation Anaconda has demonstrated, sizeable elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban remain in Afghanistan, hidden away in the remoter areas of the country. We have to deal with those threats. The threat of attack from these groups and individuals remains high. If we do not deal with them, they will threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far. They would certainly work to retain Afghanistan

341
as a base for training and organising terrorism. Left to regroup, there is no doubt that al-Qaeda and its supporters would continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including the United Kingdom. That is why we are deploying 45 Commando to join United States troops in continuing operations against these al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants. It is simply continuing the work that we started last October.
The decision to deploy 45 Commando makes sense. They are able to deploy quickly, having been held at high readiness on HMS Ocean in the Arabian sea and in their bases here in the United Kingdom. They are also trained to be able to manoeuvre quickly across difficult terrain. The Royal Marines are expert in mountain and cold-weather warfare—they have trained in this role since the 1970s. All Royal Marines undertake mountain training every year—45 Commando last did so only last December. Elements of 3 Commando brigade exercise in Norway each year. They are equipped to fight in arctic conditions.
The Commando group is also able to sustain itself. It must be able to call on the support of heavy weapons. The Commando group is equipped with machine guns and mortars. It also has a battery of 105 mm guns—a formidable piece of highly mobile artillery.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I of course support the deployment announced by the Secretary of State. Will he tell us whether it is correct that other Governments are continuing to support al-Qaeda? There is a suggestion in the press today that Iraq might still be supporting al-Qaeda.
Mr. Hoon: I have certainly seen the press speculation. I have said—this remains the best information on the subject—that there are no obvious links between Iraq and the events of I I September. However, we are well aware of Iraq's general support for terrorism and its condoning various terrorist acts, which clearly is a great cause for concern. I cannot comment further on the press reports. I certainly have nothing to add to what they say.
Mr. Michael Weir: On 45 Commando, which is based in my constituency, I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about its usefulness for this operation and I agree, but given his earlier answer about the unknown number of al-Qaeda fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan, the fact that the terrain is difficult and treacherous and that those fighters can fight fanatically, as was shown in Operation Anaconda, this could be a long operation. Has he had any discussions with other nations that have specialist troops in that area about those troops rotating with 45 Commando or other British troops to ensure that the operation can finally be finished?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a proper point, but perhaps I need to explain in a little more detail the sort of operations that 45 Commando will be conducting and, indeed, the sort that were conducted by the Americans and others during Operation Anaconda. We are not talking about a pitched battle, or about tens of thousands of al-Qaeda lining up to fight the Royal Marines. We are talking about a series of small pockets of resistance.
342
Frankly, part of the difficulty is that it is almost impossible to say precisely how many of those small pockets there might be in the remoter parts of Afghanistan, or the numbers involved. Each operation against each of those discrete pockets—there is little doubt that we have been able to deal with communication between elements of al-Qaeda—will be separate. As we progress through the country—that is very much the programme that General Franks has outlined—we will be able to take each stage at a time.
I think that the hon. Gentleman implied that this is an all-or-nothing commitment—we either commit ourselves to deal with all the elements of al-Qaeda that we discover or we do not. The answer to his question is that this is a continuing series of smaller scale operations, working through the country to eliminate those pockets of resistance as we find them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: I will give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The operations in the east of the country clearly lie close to the border with Pakistan and there has been much comment about the porous nature of that border and the ability of al-Qaeda terrorists to move back and forth across it. What steps will be taken to deal with the problem of al-Qaeda terrorists taking refuge in Pakistan in the tribal areas and then returning to Afghanistan? Unless that is dealt with, there must be a danger that there will be a continuous pool of fighters who can cross the border and cause problems.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—it was raised on Monday in the questions following my statement. In truth, as I set out then, it will be an extraordinarily difficult military exercise to seal that border. I was asked whether that was contemplated and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not; it is simply not possible, given the terrain and the circumstances. Obviously, part of the military planning is to have a means of organising the forces involved to deal with those who might try to escape from the initial pocket of resistance that is attacked. That was part of the battle plan for Operation Anaconda—a part that worked extremely successfully.
Mr. Robathan: I support this deployment. The Secretary of State mentioned the equipment for 45 Commando and its arctic training. That equipment is vital while the snows are in place in the hills of Afghanistan, but within a month those snows will be melting and heat will be the problem. He is talking about small groups of troops deployed across the country. They will need to change from arctic to tropical or desert kit. Has that been worked out?
Mr. Hoon: 1 do not think that there is much desert at 10,000 ft in Afghanistan, but I will certainly ensure that those troops have the appropriate kit should the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described arise.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: My right hon. Friend described in some detail the sort of operations that

343
45 Commando would be involved in—highly mobile and highly focused. Would he characterise those operations as in any way similar to the search-and-destroy missions that took place at an early stage in the Vietnam conflict?
Mr. Hoon: Not in the least. The terrain is very different, as are the circumstances and there is a very different history. My hon. Friend has sought hard to make that comparison and I am sorry to disappoint him with my answer.
Hugh Robertson: One element that was missing from the order of battle that the Secretary of State took us through was any light armoured component to the commando force. Such a component was used very successfully in the Falkland Islands and in a number of other operations since, and would seem to be ideal for the present operation. For example, what about the use of mobile gun platforms? Has any thought been given to that matter? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman give it some thought?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that some thought has been given to it, but I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. I am not convinced, given the terrain in which the troops will be operating that I have seen and the rapidly moving nature of the operations that I anticipate, that light armour will be of much assistance. Certainly, that was not the case for Operation Anaconda. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should study more carefully the contour map of Afghanistan before making that suggestion.
Hugh Bayley: The campaign objectives are to prevent al-Qaeda forces from carrying out further terrorist attacks, which is why almost all hon. Members on both sides of the House support the deployment. What will happen to prisoners who are taken? Will they remain in Afghanistan and will they be treated under British or American law?
Mr. Hoon: Prisoners will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as they have been in the past. Most are still held in Afghanistan. I anticipate that those prisoners who can contribute to further understanding of the events of 11 September will be handed over for questioning to the United States.
Before I took those interventions, I was pointing out that 45 Commando has a long history of operating and training alongside US forces, including in northern Iraq and Kosovo. The Royal Marines possess highly skilled forward air controllers, who train regularly with US forces. So, 45 Commando is ideally placed to join troops from the US and a number of other nations in further operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The House will recall that troops from several nations took part in Operation Anaconda. That is why we have decided to deploy that particular force. Our decision is not—absolutely not—as some have suggested anything to do with British public opinion being more ready to accept the possibility of casualties than US public opinion. That suggestion deserves the contempt that it has already received.
Mr. Jenkin: I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. Can he inform the House of
344
when the Government received the request from the United States for this deployment? Obviously, his decision is a response to that request. I understand that he was indisposed over the weekend and therefore had some difficulty responding personally to some of the issues.
Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that question in due course as it makes more sense to deal with it in the chronology that I have prepared.
Some people have tried to read things into the fact that we have chosen to deploy the group now. The decision was taken following a formal request from the United States at the very end of last week and in close consultation with them. It has not been taken because the Americans or the other coalition forces are exhausted or need to be rescued, or have somehow failed—they did not. They fought in Operation Anaconda and they won against a heavily armed enemy, dug into prepared defensive positions in the rocks and caves. We should applaud their success, not try to decry it as some have done.
Therefore, the specific answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is Friday. Obviously, that decision followed, as such decisions always follow, a long period of contact, consultation and discussion—not only about the particular requirements that an ally has, but the sorts of forces that we have available and that can be deployed in appropriate time and in the appropriate circumstances.
The Opposition defence spokesman also suggested the other day that we were deploying this force without dedicated air support—something that he repeated just now. As we have made clear time and again, the Commandos will operate alongside the United States. They will be able to call on an extraordinary array of air power. The expert military advice that I have received is that there is no need to augment coalition air power with our own strike aircraft in support of this particular deployment. The House should be aware that British forces have very recent and very relevant experience of co-operating with the United States and drawing on its close air support during ground operations in Afghanistan. As the commanding officer of 45 Commando made clear on the radio this morning, we routinely train with US forces and use common procedures. He is quite content with the arrangements for fire support, as am I. That is not to say that the Royal Air Force has no role here. It does, most obviously through the Chinook helicopters that we are deploying, but also through the range of reconnaissance, air transport and air-to-air refuelling that has supported the coalition so successfully since last October. I am sure that these assets will continue to play an important role in future operations, including those that 45 Commando may undertake.
Some have suggested that this deployment will contribute to the supposed overstretch of the armed forces. Certainly, our three services are extremely busy. That is also true of the Royal Marines. This time last year, no one could have predicted that more than 6,000 British service personnel would be engaged in operations in Afghanistan. However, there is no doubt that it is right that they are there. We keep these commitments under review and always assess them against routine programmed activities, and, where necessary, make adjustments to ensure the necessary balance between operations and other tasks.

345
It is worth remembering that the Royal Marines were first put at high readiness for operations in Afghanistan in late October last year, and 45 Commando have been at high readiness—some on board HMS Ocean and others at home in Arbroath—since mid-November. We have therefore been ready for an operation of this sort for some months. There is no overstretch.
There have also been questions and concerns about the command and control arrangements in place for 45 Commando Group. It is entirely separate from the international security assistance force and will have separate command and control arrangements. ISAF comes under national command, although US Centcom has responsibility for ensuring that there is no conflict between ISAF activities arid those that continue as part of Operation Enduring Freedom; 45 Commando Group come directly under Centcom's command. Brigadier Roger Lane and the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade will therefore be embedded in the American-led coalition headquarters at Bagram. That means that the ISAF commander, Major General McColl, will not have authority over 45 Commando Group. In turn, Brigadier Lane will not have command over ISAF. They command distinct forces with distinct jobs to do in discrete parts of Afghanistan. Other nations which have contributed troops to ISAF are in exactly the same situation. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that Denmark, France, Germany, and Norway have all sent ground forces to participate in Operation Anaconda, while other elements of their armed forces remain in Kabul under General McColl.
Our decision to deploy 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan was not taken lightly. However, it is the right decision. The remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban elements must be dealt with. We shall continue to pursue them until the job is done. We must complete the task in full. The events of 11 September have shown us what could happen if we do not.
That is why I am not prepared to put a precise date on when we will bring these troops back home. Clearly, the decision will be taken in the light of the circumstances on the ground and in the light of the tasks that these troops may undertake. Our exit strategy is that we will leave when the task is completed. I welcome the fact that there is so much support in the House for this deployment and widespread appreciation of why it is so necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
5.54 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is unavoidably absent. I shall allow myself the indulgence of the following thought. Whatever our views on hunting—I accept that there are very strong views on both sides of the House—it is a relief that this week we have found time, however it was achieved, for a debate on the deployment of so many of our armed
346
forces. Had we not, I suspect that people looking at the House of Commons from outside would have wondered precisely where our priorities lay.
I believe that the Government are entitled to the support of the House for this deployment. More particularly, our service men are entitled to that support. They are being asked to undertake hazardous operations in conditions that are unimaginably inhospitable—a long way from the air-conditioned comfort of this Chamber. Just as the Government are entitled to our support, the House, too, is entitled to clear military and political explanations from the Government for this deployment.
The truth is that the decision to make this fresh deployment is tactical, not strategic. The strategic decision has already been taken. It was taken in the immediate aftermath of 11 September, when, by common consent, the House agreed that military force should be used in Afghanistan to achieve four stated objectives. The first was to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. The second was to disrupt and destroy as far as possible al-Qaeda's network of terrorism. The third was to drive the Taliban Government out of Kabul. The fourth was to allow the people of Afghanistan to have the chance to choose their own Government. At this date, only the third of those objectives has been achieved.
If the deployment or the decision to make it had been announced before Christmas, I doubt whether there would have been any concern other than from those who honourably and sincerely oppose the use of force in principle in Afghanistan. What is different today is, first, the speed of response to the request from the United States, which, as the Secretary of State has just told us, came formally on Friday last week. It was so recent that the Government could not offer the usual consultation on Privy Council terms with other parties in the House. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, a perception had grown up here and elsewhere that we had enjoyed early and comprehensive military success, and, consequently, all that was left to do was some form of mopping up—a description of military action that is as factually inaccurate as it is militarily inept.
Those who joined the chorus of "I told you so" may now wish to reflect at leisure on the American expression, "It isn't over until it's over." Perhaps unconsciously, that principle lay behind the observations of which I understand the Secretary of State has given further explanation today, and on which he has been reported as saying that this may be an open ended commitment. In that regard, I agree with an intervention by, I think, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The truth is that, in the war against terrorism, the commitment is always open ended. That is particularly the case, if, as we now know, the terrorist uses the principles of what is described as asymmetric warfare—never risking full-blooded confrontation. The truth is that in a campaign against terrorism, it may be virtually impossible to answer the question, "How do you know when you've won?" If one looks for a classical allusion, the mythology of the dragon's teeth comes easily to mind.
It is axiomatic that military force should not be used unless clear political objectives can be achieved. In modern military thinking, however, it is increasingly accepted that just as intervention must be justified against clear criteria, such intervention must also be accompanied by an equally clear exit strategy. There must be a point at which one concludes that one's objectives have been

347
achieved, or—more difficult, and often more important and acute—a point at which one concludes that one's objectives cannot be achieved and that withdrawal is the necessary response. We have not yet heard—nor, I suspect, could the Secretary of State provide—clear exit criteria of that kind. However, a point must surely arise in the conduct of the operations that he has described in which the need for such criteria will be paramount. Although the House takes him on trust—I shall return to that point—we are entitled to say that we expect him to be sufficiently rigorous in his supervision of these operations to be alive to the need for clear exit criteria of the kind that I have described.
We must also recognise that we are sending highly specialised troops into circumstances that are admitted to be of very considerable danger. The Secretary of State was rightly sombre in his statement to the House on Monday when he described the nature of the risk. We are sending troops against the background of an uncertain immediate history, which—notwithstanding what he has just said—may be capable of explanation only by accepting that the United States troops previously engaged have, in truth, bitten off more than they could chew both physically and tactically. That seems to underline the risk to which we are inevitably exposing those whom we now wish to deploy.
All of us who support military action—and I mean all of us and not just the Government—have an overwhelming moral obligation not to exploit the competence, bravery and professionalism of our troops. I therefore, wish to make a point in parenthesis. Reservations have been and will be expressed by others in the debate. However, if we were American senators or members of the House of the Representatives and the circumstances were reversed, there could be no doubt that we would all raise the same issues on behalf of those whom we represented as matters of principle.
There is nothing disloyal in wanting to put to the test a Government who face the awesome responsibility of making such deployments or in forcing that Government to come to the Chamber of the House of Commons to justify their actions. Indeed, it is my recollection that precisely the same principles applied during the Gulf war, Kosovo and in other similar engagements.
This deployment is perforce a very public one. The Secretary of State was quick to dismiss any reservations that Members might have about two different deployments. However, I suggest that, although we might be clear about the separation between ISAF and 45 Commando and the roles for which they are being deployed, the distinction may be less obvious to those with malign intent. Indeed, they may positively ignore it. In an age of asymmetric warfare, we are dealing with a terrorist organisation whose sophistication is warranted each time we come across the places where it keeps a cache of manuals or equipment, so I postulate whether it is impossible that someone will say, "Well, we won't take on the British uniforms of 45 Commando in the mountains. We may find it rather easier to target the British uniforms of the Royal Anglians in Kabul." There is some justification for the view that there may be an increased risk to the forces in Kabul.
I had the good fortune to visit Kabul a few weeks ago at the invitation of the Foreign Secretary. On these occasions, it is conventional to talk with pride of the achievements of British forces. Sometimes we do that as
348
a matter of ritual rather than of substance, but I genuinely felt a swelling of pride at the quality and competence of those who were wearing the Union Jack. That competence has been built up in operations such as ISAF, but is based to a large extent on our pretty horrific experiences over 30 years in Northern Ireland. Such operations form as important a part of the range of abilities of British armed forces as does the most high-intensity war fighting.
There are risks in concentrating on operations such ISAF, because our capacity for high-intensity war fighting may be irremediably eroded. I think that that has been the experience of the Canadians, but I have no doubt that we possess a capacity as a result of our experiences in Northern Ireland that is vital in many circumstances. We should never attempt to describe that capacity in such a way as to cause people to think that it is something second rate.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that the border has been freely crossed by elements of al-Qaeda who have gone for rest and recreation in Pakistan. They have regrouped and, with fresh men and material, returned to Afghanistan. I suspect that that pattern may be repeated for a considerable time and, if it is, the length of the commitment to which the Secretary of State referred will be greater. Those of us who support this deployment should not do so without recognising what the consequences might be.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the Secretary of State replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I thought that he missed the point. The issue is what Pakistani forces will do within the borders of Pakistan to ensure that a safe haven for al-Qaeda is not created there. It is impossible to make the border impenetrable.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right. What might in other circumstances might be described as host-nation support by elements of the Pakistani armed forces could make al-Qaeda's opportunities for reinforcement all the greater. I acknowledge that point and if it happens—it is not unreasonable to assume that it might—it will have consequences for the nature and length of the commitment into which we may enter.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I wish to make progress. I know that many other Members wish to speak. Although I am not subject to the 10-minute rule, I do not want to abuse my position.
There is no greater political or moral responsibility for any Government than to commit forces to combat in which their lives are at risk. By endorsing the decision—as most of us in the Chamber do—we take unto ourselves a share of that responsibility. However, on this deployment as on so many decisions that the Government have taken since 11 September, it is necessary for the House and the country to take the Government on trust. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and he said nothing this afternoon which in any way could prejudice the security or the operational effectiveness of the troops

349
that we are about to deploy. I understand that. It would have been improper for him to have given away information that might have led to such consequences. However, in turn, that merely reinforces the fact that we have to take him and the whole Government on trust.
A failure in this area could lead to seismic political consequences. Circumstances now are nothing like those in the first and second world wars, but students of history will remember that Asquith was replaced, as Chamberlain was 35 years later, because the House of Commons lacked confidence in the conduct of the war.
I believe that the Government are entitled to our support, and so too are our forces. We have a duty both to Government and to the forces. However, the Government have a duty as well. They have a duty to the House of Commons and to the country to make sure that they get it right.
6.10 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Events in Afghanistan may initially have appeared to vindicate proponents of air power. It seemed that one could win a war from 20,000 or 30,000 ft, but the events of the past few weeks have suggested that there is still a role for ground forces, and that wars cannot be won through the use of one branch of the armed forces alone.
Those who thought that the conflict was winding down to a quiet termination were truly naive or stupid beyond words. Even in December, before the conflict had reached its current state, the Defence Committee said:
"Whatever the outcome of the present action in Afghanistan or the fate of Osama Bin Laden and a1 Qaeda, we cannot expect to neutralize the new threats easily or quickly … This is not to say that the battle against global terrorism cannot be won; it can be and it must be. But it will not be won quickly, and it is likely that whatever success is achieved against al Qaeda itself, a number of groups associated with it or sympathetic to its causes will continue to pose a threat."
Perhaps it was thought that the first stage of the battle in Afghanistan had been won, but it has not. I am afraid that those who think that we can get back to normal in one month, two months, six months or a year will be disappointed.
I recently read a wonderful book, entitled "War Without End", which is dedicated to the subject of terrorism. We live in an era in which the war against terrorism will be an almost perennial feature of our existence. Regrettably, we will have to operate in many theatres, although hopefully not all.
Mr. Gamier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: I am sorry, but I have only eight minutes left.
I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, but I am not sure that it is wise to talk publicly about an exit strategy only a few months after establishing an entry strategy. To do so would give potential adversaries an advantage in calculating how to deal with the threat.
I give the Government my near-unequivocal support, and I am not going to list a host of provisos. The Government's actions during this crisis have been quite
350
correct, and most people in the House and outside it endorse what they are doing. I certainly agree with current deployments, but the additional forces will have a rather different task.
The Opposition's support is very welcome, and any differences that emerged were largely marginal. However, those of us who support deployment in the war against terrorism will continue to be accused of warmongering and imperialism—I was accused on the radio of being slightly racist—and of being stupid for not realising what others have realised. Of course, Islamicists will not be too pleased either.
I do not denigrate those who argue differently from the majority of Members, but in my view what the Government have done and are doing is absolutely correct in every sense—morally, politically and in terms of international law. Some will find the deployment of the Royal Marines rather surprising. Perhaps it was a surprise, but they have been operating in the Indian ocean for the past six months. They are not there simply to get a bit of a sea breeze. It seemed pretty obvious to me and many others that the Americans would request their presence at some stage—and not just for the peacekeeping operation in Kabul. To put it modestly, they are the among the best armed forces in the world; to put it correctly, they are the best armed forces in the world.
The call did indeed come. Last October, 40 Commando were on stand-by on board HMS Fearless, in the Arabian sea. They were then sent to Bagram. More recently, 45 Commando were on stand-by on board HMS Ocean. So the deployment of the Royal Marines was not a complete surprise. Nor was it a complete surprise that the conflict in Afghanistan did not have the perfect ending that we associate with major American films, in which everything happens as one would wish. I suspect, however, that those who said that the conflict was coming to an end were addressing their domestic audience, and will live to be rather embarrassed by their statements.
The idea that there was any alternative to what the Government are doing is rather fanciful. If the Government had accepted the argument of some Labour Members that we should not have participated in the operation, what message would that have sent to other special forces, our own public, the Americans, the Germans and other countries—including the Canadians, for whom such an operation is spectacular—that are participating alongside the United States? It would have sent the message that the United Kingdom was not prepared to join them because it was fearful of the consequences—that its troops would be exposed to risks and that the war might last a long time. If the Government were unwise enough to follow that line of argument, we could do without a Ministry of Defence, because the future deployment of troops in the national and international interest would he unlikely.
Of course there are risks, as the Secretary of State made clear. One cannot fight a very capable but non-professional al-Qaeda force in a home territory consisting of caves, and at an elevation of 10,000 ft, without the aid of tanks such as Challenger l and 2. Lives may well be lost, perhaps even those of our adversaries. On embarking on such a task, one has to be realistic and not assume that the light casualties of the past 30 or 40 years constitute a virtual right or a scientific law.

351
The point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), which some Members mocked, is a serious one. Dual and contrasting roles will pose problems. The roles of peacekeeper and of fighter may not be totally incompatible, but it could prove exceedingly difficult to persuade people that a demarcation has been drawn between two unique operations.
Yes, there may be mission creep, but I doubt whether the conflict will turn into another Vietnam, as Afghanistan's Interim Administration will have greater legitimacy. It is vitally important that, in conjunction with the Interim Administrations national guard, we put considerable effort into training indigenous forces, as we have done in Sierra Leone. Such forces are best able to fight al-Qaeda—if necessary—for an indefinite period, and they have the greatest legitimacy. It is wrong, however, to assume that our operation will come to a swift end.
The Government did not decline the United States' request. Threats and risks do exist, but those of my hon. Friends who think that we should not have undertaken this task are in essence saying. "Countries such as Russia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan can take a risk, but Britain must be risk-free. The boys can come home unscathed, with no adverse consequences to their, or this House's, reputation."
I should tell those of my colleagues who are devotees of the Labour party and its history that it has been an internationalist party throughout its existence. The idea that socialism ends at the borders of Europe is mistaken. We have commitments to help Governments in other parts of the world, however far from our shores. During Operation Saif Sareea, the Defence Committee met several Royal Marines. We saw them climbing mountains. They frightened us, and I am sure that they will have an adverse effect—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes are up.
6.20 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented, it is an awesome responsibility to commit our forces in this way. This is a situation of grave danger and the Secretary of State has taken a great responsibility upon himself. He has been much in my thoughts during these days. Even more in my thoughts have been the Royal Marines who are being committed and their families.
I very much support the mission to which the Secretary of State has committed those forces. Because of that, it is highly regrettable that at first he sought to give the House no opportunity to have a debate. It is unfortunate that he had to be forced into having a debate, because that leaves him looking shifty and lacking in confidence at the very time when we need him to appear sure-footed and confident. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) dealt with the issue of the discourtesy to the House, but when our soldiers are being put into such extreme danger, it is a grave discourtesy to them to suggest that the sacrifice that they offer the nation is not worth three hours of debate in Government time. It is marvellous to have the opportunity this afternoon for
352
so many Members of Parliament to express their commitment to our forces and their support for the decision that the Government have taken.
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government did not oppose this debate in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Portillo: None the less, the Secretary of State will accept that he did not give the House the opportunity of a debate and it would have been better if he had. However, I commend him on his performance today, when he did appear sure-footed and confident. That is what we all expect from him if he is to lead us through these difficult days.
This is not an American war. It is a war of many allies, in which we have committed ourselves to defeat terrorism. We did not commit ourselves for the short term or say that we would be committed to defeating terrorism for as long as it remained easy; we said that we were committed to that objective until we had achieved it. I remember that our first thought was that the campaign would be very difficult. Subsequently, it appeared to be easier than people had anticipated, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) when he said that those who thought that that was how it would turn out were deluding themselves. The situation that we now face in Afghanistan is the one that we first anticipated: we would face tough resistance, with the terrain against us; it would be a hard struggle; and we would have to be willing to bear casualties.
This is no time to flinch. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to the decision to commit the Royal Marines as a tactical decision in support of a strategic decision that had already been taken. He is right in that, but thank goodness that tactical decision has been taken, because it demonstrates resolve. If we failed to take that decision, the terrorists would not lose much time in regrouping, as the Secretary of State pointed out. If they were to do so, they would pose a major threat to the rest of Afghanistan, neighbouring countries and countries throughout the world. More than that, the fact that they were left intact and undefeated would be a major encouragement to extremists and militants all over the world. Therefore, their defeat remains a critical strategic objective.
I would go further and say that the attacks on New York city and Washington were a test for western society on whether it was willing to defend the values of a free society. The background to the attacks on 11 September was not, as many people have alleged, a decade in which the United States had shown an overbearing and arrogant foreign policy towards the rest of the world. I take the opposite view. The decade that preceded 11 September was one in which people had become unclear about the resolve of the United States and, therefore, the resolve of the allies.
First came the failure to topple Saddam during the Gulf war, for reasons that we all understand, which was taken as a sign of irresolution. Then came the series of moral victories that Saddam was allowed to win, including continuing with his programme of weapons of mass destruction and his decision to expel the United Nations inspectors without any satisfactory response from the allies. Perhaps most extraordinary were the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on USS Cole, which met with a perfunctory response from the US.

353
I regret to say—and many of my hon. Friends will not like me saying this—that even the September 2000 proposals by President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak, with major concessions proposed by Israel under the United States' umbrella, were taken by enemies as a sign of weakness—[Interruption.] They may have been good proposals in themselves, but my point concerns how they were interpreted.
Since 11 September, the US response to terrorism has been extraordinarily clear. The response of the UK Government has also been clear. It has not been completely consistent, but it has been consistent at the major points of decision. Like the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, I find it surprising that elements in the press and on the Labour Back Benches would now wish to give a less clear-cut answer to terrorism. That would put us in a great deal of danger. We are committed to the struggle and it is important that we demonstrate resolve.
Perhaps most important of all in the perception of the terrorists who took advantage of western society on 11 September was the perception that the US would be unwilling to sustain any casualties in combat. In New York city on that day, there were 3,000 casualties. The US has turned over a new leaf in that respect and is now willing to face the prospect of casualties in order to defend its society and its way of life.
Let me now comment directly on this deployment. The forces that the Secretary of State has chosen to send appear to be well constructed, robust and capable of defending themselves. The number and range of capabilities also appear to have been well chosen. We are contributing some capabilities that the US does not have, including, in particular, units that are able to locate mortars more effectively. Mortars represent a formidable weapon in this campaign. Let us also remember that UK staff are fully integrated into the battle staff in Tampa, which is an extraordinarily privileged and important position for this country to enjoy.
During the past few months, I get the feeling that some commentators have learned a few pieces of random terminology about military affairs, including phrases such as "mission creep"' and "exit strategy". Sometimes those phrases are applied without sufficient thought being given to whether they are appropriate. I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that the mission is to defeat terrorism and that when Afghanistan has been secured and the mission completed, that will be the time to leave and that is the exit strategy. In war, there is little else to be said, and I am pleased that so many right hon. and hon. Members have made that point during this debate.
Last night I and several other hon. Members had the privilege of attending a dinner to honour those who had earned Victoria Crosses in the past, in the presence of the widow of Colonel H. Jones and a couple of Victoria Cross winners from the second world war. I am convinced that the people who are now being sent to Afghanistan are capable of showing the same bravery, courage and valour and of making the same sacrifice. The people we are sending are lions and, I am pleased to say, they are not led by donkeys, as it is alleged once happened in our history. These lions are also commanded by lions. All I would say to the Government, as they make this difficult decision and see it properly debated in the House, is that
354
my wish for those fine people whom we are sending to Afghanistan is that they may always receive from their political masters the respect and consideration that they so richly deserve.
6.29 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: Three or four years ago, I spent three or four days in northern Norway with 45 Commando. whom I hold in the highest regard. I saw at first hand their dedication, motivation, skills and professionalism.
This deployment is a major deployment by comparison with anything in recent times. Lives are at risk, as the Secretary of State said in his statement on Monday, and I believe that we owe it to those soldiers to display clear thinking in the House and provide an opportunity for debate on the issues that affect them.
It is always said that in military action two tests must be satisfied. First, there must be a just cause; secondly, there must be a reasonable chance of success. When we discussed these issues six months ago in the House, many colleagues addressed those tests. There is a danger that one begins to forget the tests as the campaign develops. If we are to have credibility as a House, we must subject the campaign to those tests as it develops, because public opinion will be taking note of what happens.
There was clearly support among the British people for intervention although, as opinion polls showed, there were differences of view as to how that intervention could best take place. The danger is that if we are deflected from continually testing on the just cause and on the best way forward and the likelihood of success, we are likely to begin to lose public support. One thing that will very much influence public opinion in this country and in the United States is the extent to which our forces, and the politics that underpin our forces, are perceived in the theatre as forces that are acting for the good of the people there.
My first concern today is that because of the dual role—the peacekeeping role and the offensive role—there is a danger that local support in Afghanistan, and the other Islamic parts of the world that will identify with Afghanistan, may begin to doubt whether a just cause is being pursued.
The subject of American contributions to peacekeeping forces was aired in the House earlier today. I cannot understand why it is acceptable or appropriate for Britain to be involved in a dual role in Afghanistan yet it is not acceptable for the other major player, the United States, to be involved in a dual role. The United States might argue that Denmark and Germany are involved in a minor way in a dual role, but that is a very different situation because people in the streets of Kabul and elsewhere probably will not know that Denmark or the Czech Republic, for instance, are involved but they will know that the Americans and the British are involved. It is somewhat unwise to have that dual role—I do not understand why it is right for the United Kingdom to undertake that dual role, but it is apparently not right for the United States to accept that role.
My second worry is linked to the previous one. We have heard, and I read in the press, about the support that the different contributors to the provisional Government in Afghanistan give to those who are helping them establish the process of law and order in that country.

355
Collectively they undoubtedly support the involvement, although they may have different motives and factional fights are still taking place.
Although I do not have access to the intelligence reports that Ministers have, I am not convinced from the reports that I read that support on the ground in Afghanistan is as strong as the support among the political factions. That problem could be aggravated if people on the ground in Afghanistan see British soldiers in two different capacities. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, some opponents in Afghanistan might fancy a pop at a peacekeeper whereas they would not fancy a pop at a Royal Marine up in the mountains.
I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I shall be brief. My third point relates to the test of whether there is a reasonable chance of success. It is not good enough to apply that test only at the start of a campaign; it must be applied throughout. I agree with the hon. Member who said that we are talking not about strategy but about tactics. We have had our arguments about the strategy, but on tactics, is the next tactic that we are deploying consistent with the original criteria that we laid down as necessary for a degree of success?
There are many unknowns in this issue. I recognise that Ministers have a difficult task, as they may have access to information that it would be unwise to share with the House or the public because it would give knowledge to our enemies. However, there is a real danger that we may get bogged down in something that we cannot control in Afghanistan. That is a very serious worry.
Some might say that we have already had offensive soldiers in Afghanistan, and peacekeepers over the past three or four months, but the number of offensive soldiers has been small. They have not been very visible and have probably not been known to the civilian populations in Afghanistan. However, when one starts introducing 1,700—who, for all we know, may need to be reinforced by many thousands more for logistical or fighting reasons—it becomes obvious to the people in Afghanistan what is happening.
The worry is that if law and order begin to break down, if the local population gradually cease to support those who are trying to keep peace and trying to rid us all of the threat of al-Qaeda, and if people begin to see that that is not happening, we could easily become involved in a civil war in which we are forced to choose, in any particular military situation, between backing one faction in the provisional Government and another. I read in the press that fighting is indeed taking place. If we have many soldiers in that theatre, we might have no choice but to take sides or to become involved in such a situation.
It would be bad enough to get caught in a civil war; it would be tragic to get caught in an imperial war. The danger is that one transforms into the other very quickly. What starts as a battle between factions in Afghanistan could easily end up as fighting between those from outside the country and those within the country, which would be perceived by the local population and by important Islamic-friendly states as a 21st century imperial intervention by a number of countries that were tied together in the coalition.
There is that grey area between an intervention with a specific purpose, a clear mission and a targeted operational structure—something that is understandable,
356
has local support and is recognised internationally—and something much bigger, that is perceived as an outside force, that has lost its way, that does not have local support and that gets bogged down in something that it does not want to become involved in, and cannot see an exit strategy for itself.
Those are the dangers. I am not predicting that that will happen, but I will say that if hon. Members read the clear and detailed history of Vietnam, they will find that there are very many parallels with the way in which the numbers of American forces grew from a few thousand in 1965 or 1966 to 550,000 by 1970. I have no doubt that all were established initially as acting as a force for good. I do not expect Ministers to share all their information with the House, but there is a balance to be struck.
6.40 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: I happened to be in New York on the morning of 11 September, and I remained in the United States—because no one could get out—for the next seven days. I therefore have a clear picture in my mind of the force of American public opinion on that terrible tragedy and their continuing determination to get their revenge.
Revenge is not a word that is often used in this context, but I have a great many American friends and I have been back to the United States since 11 September, and I can tell hon. Members that it animates their policy. They are determined to get revenge, and I have no doubt that they will do so. I fully support the United States in its desire to stamp out international terrorism. However, that is not to say that we should not, in our cool, British way, consider the situation as it develops and make quite certain that each step down the road is carefully chosen.
There is a great danger in using the broad brush. People talk about those who are fighting in Afghanistan—the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the third group, who might be described as tribal gangsters—as though they were all the same sorts of people, but they are entirely different. I know Afghanistan fairly well. Indeed, I have my father's 1919 Afghan medal, my grandfather fought in the second Afghan war and I grew up in a house full of Afghan carpets, daggers, pistols and so on.
The last time I was in Kabul was a few weeks before the Russians invaded. They stayed in Afghanistan for 10 years, put in 300,000 troops and left 30,000 dead behind them. Those are useful statistics to bear in mind when talking about sending 1,700 immensely gallant and highly trained Royal Marines into the snow-clad mountains of eastern Afghanistan. I have walked in those mountains—although not very high up, and certainly not when there was snow around—and it would be impossible to use armoured vehicles on those tracks, which one can hardly get mules up and down. As we all remember, by the time the Russians left Afghanistan the whole country was littered with burned-out Russian tanks. The nature of the challenge should not be underestimated.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned Vietnam. I visited Vietnam three times during the war. The first time I went, there were 300 American advisers in civilian clothing. The last time I went there were 500,000 American troops in uniform. During that visit, General Westmoreland, the great US commander of the day, assured me that the war would be over by Christmas. It is always worth remembering the difficulties that have arisen in the past as a result of intervening in such situations.

357
The Afghans have been fighting each other all through history. In reality, there is no such place as Afghanistan. Until the late 19th century, it was simply called the Afghan region. A British civil servant called Sir Mortimer Durand drew a line on the map and said that that was going to be the frontier between the then India and Afghanistan. People use the extraordinary phrase "a porous frontier" to describe the area. They have heard only of the Khyber pass, up which I have driven from Peshawar to Kabul on three occasions, but I am told that there are approximately 200 passes on the 900-mile frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The tribesmen can move backwards and forwards with total freedom, as the Secretary of State admitted.
Although each war is different, I should like to make another historical reference. When a Conservative Government put one battalion into Bosnia, I asked the then Foreign Secretary, "What is the use of sending one battalion when you need four divisions to do the job?" The Serbs capitulated only when four divisions were in Macedonia on the frontier of Kosovo. We should therefore understand that sending in the magnificent Marine Commandos will not end civil war in Afghanistan, which will go on for decades in different forms, as it always has done.
We must consider the importance of the war in the wider world context. Although the attack on the twin towers and the terrible suffering and grief that it caused in America were appalling, if we are to consider the matter objectively we must study our enemy. It was a brilliantly organised terrorist strike. Anyone who has tried to organise a cheese and wine party for a Conservative association will appreciate the difficulty of getting the sandwiches there on time. The attack must have been one of the best organised operations in modern history.
One of the most amazing aspects was that the strike obviously took years of preparation but was never leaked. I have spoken to Congressmen and Senators about the matter, and they have expressed great anger that the American secret service did not see it coming. A congressional committee of inquiry is currently examining that. Only yesterday, the director of the FBI said in answer to the committee that al-Qaeda was reorganising and regrouping in approximately 34 countries.
The problem is not only in the caves in the mountains of Afghanistan. I have never had great faith in what might be described as troglodyte technology. I simply do not believe that the attack on the twin towers was organised in detail from the caves. We know that no Afghans were involved in the actual attack, which was carried out almost entirely by Egyptians and Saudis who had been in the United States for a long time. They had tremendous technological training for the job. We should acknowledge that although a genuine danger of future terrorist attacks exists, not only in the United States but possibly in Britain, the people who will launch them are almost certainly in the US and Britain now, not fighting in the snow of the Afghan mountains.
We need a much more sophisticated approach to the subject than the media, at least, present. I should like to believe that the US has worked that out, that it recognises the fact that 1 billion people in the world are Muslim and
358
that the whole Arab world has been antagonised by our actions. We must tackle the macro-strategic as well as the micro-tactical problem.
I devoutly hope that our Royal Marines can carry out their duties with minimum casualties, but I am not confident that their numbers will be sufficient to do that. We will therefore have to face the choice of greatly increasing their numbers through large-scale reinforcements or withdrawing them and concentrating on the much greater threat from Iraq.
6.50 pm
Alan Simpson: I commend the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). The House may well choose to reflect carefully on the analysis provided by the former and the cautionary wisdom and ministerial experience offered by the latter.
The views I shall express stem from the very first announcement made to the House by the Secretary of State on Monday, in which he said
"The United States has now formally requested that the UK provides forces to join in future military operations against other remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere in Afghanistan."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 38.]
It is important to separate what we know from what we do not know. We know that 1,700 troops are currently committed by the United Kingdom to join forces from the United States. We know that those troops will be de facto under the control of the United States. What we do not know is how long they will be there, and for what purposes.
It worried me that the Secretary of State described the move as chasing the "remnants" of al-Qaeda. What do we mean by "remnants"? Estimates of the number vary from 2,000 to 20,000. On 19 December last year, the Washington Post quoted an FBI analysis according to which the sum of military achievements was, at best, the limiting of al-Qaeda's capacity by about 30 per cent. If that is the case, we are sending our troops to face very sizeable "remnants".
We do not know how long the troops will be there. Will they be there for 10 weeks, 10 months, 10 years? An ominous piece of string is being dangled before us, whose end we cannot see. We do not know what is the military endgame for the deployment of the troops, and we do not know the exit strategy. My fear is that we, as a Parliament, are in danger of making a commitment which, without those clear objectives, would make it easy for us to send troops in and end up counting them out.
We do know that Operation Anaconda was anything but a mopping-up exercise. We also know—thanks to, in particular, the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and discussions between the NATO delegation from the United Kingdom with Russian delegations—that the issue never concerned an initial military success over Afghanistan. The Russians have repeatedly pointed out to our delegation that they took over the country in six weeks. The fact is that 10 years later, minus 30,000 of the troops they had sent in, they were forced to crawl out of a country whose terrain and fighters had defeated them.
It is important for the House to consider our responsibilities with real caution before we send British troops into potentially similar conditions. We need a clear

359
mission statement, and we need to be clear about its limits. We also need to remember that this deployment, the largest deployment of UK fighting troops since the Gulf war deployment in 1991, is to a region where we were told before Christmas the war had ended. Our troops are being sent to a place where, in fact, the fighting has far from ended.
After 11 September many of us had real disagreements about the tactics of pursuing this war, but a number of us did not disagree about whether we should pursue Osama bin Laden or whether we should pursue and seek to dismantle the al-Qaeda network; we disagreed about the tactics and the prospects of success involved in taking such action by conventional military means.
Personally, I still favour the use of specialist troops to bring out, or take out, Osama bin Laden, but at this stage we do not know whether the troops we are sending have any idea whether they are pursuing bin Laden or his shadows. We have no real doubts now about the threat posed by the al-Qaeda network, but I think the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) was right to say that it is not to be found in the caves outside Kabul. The next set of terrorist threats, like the last set, are being planned in comfortable apartments outside the region rather than in caves outside the capital.
We must at some point acknowledge that one of the first casualties of our continuing down a route driven entirely by military presumptions was the death of diplomacy, and of the UN's role in pursuing non-military solutions to what is legitimately described as an asymmetrical threat to the stability of societies. I do not want to retreat from, or understate, the nature or size of that threat, but I question the wisdom and the presumption that there are conventional military solutions, and I specifically question whether those solutions will be found in the Afghan mountains.
Many Members wish to express legitimate fears that we are in danger of fighting the right war, or maybe struggle, in the wrong way. There is an additional danger, mentioned by some Members today, of our encouraging a form of mission creep that may begin in Kabul but end in Baghdad. That would not bring peace to a region or country, but would add massively to the sense of instability, threat and risk felt by all of us.
The House should issue legitimate warnings, and assert the right to ask questions about the implications of this action, its limits and its constraints. The stability of the region, the safety of our troops and the interests of the international community demand a clearer and more coherent mandate for the military action being embarked on, and a stronger likelihood of the success test mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It cannot be right for us to deploy UK fighting forces simply on the basis of a whistle and a wink from the American Administration. That is unlikely to be a winnable strategy, given the much more complex threat that the world currently faces.
6.58 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: Despite having served in the armed forces, I make no great claim to be a military strategist, but I feel qualified to make some observations, having spent considerable time on the Afghan border in the 1980s during the Soviet occupation. I have first-hand knowledge of some of the terrain so graphically brought
360
to life by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell). Perhaps more relevant is the fact that Commando Training Centre Lympstone, the spiritual and in some cases actual home of the Royal Marines, is in my constituency.
As we have heard today, the Royal Marines are already doing more than their fair share in this conflict. The deployment of the remaining elements of 45 Commando and the combat and services support elements is the largest military deployment since the Gulf war. As we know and have heard again today, the lead elements of 45 Commando, its headquarters company and "Whisky" and "Zulu" companies are already in theatre on HMS Ocean.
Personally, I can think of no better force to send to that theatre to back up the more specialist forces already there than the Royal Marines. They are tough; they are highly professional; they have done extensive mountains training; and they are certainly battle fit. However, we should not for one moment delude ourselves into thinking that what they are undertaking will be like an exercise on Woodbury common with live rounds. It will not. It would be unrealistic to imagine that, out of an additional force of some 1,700 men, there will be no casualties. There will be. Nothing short of a miracle can prevent that. Given that, it is crucial that we know exactly what we are asking them to do.
Some Labour Members are concerned that the latest deployment represents mission creep. It may, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said, Labour Members' comments serve only to highlight their ignorance of matters military. In a theatre of war—basically an anti-terrorist war—there is bound to be an element of mission creep due to the ever-changing nature of the conflict. However, that does not mean that the basic objectives need to change.
Paragraph 4 of the Government's aims, as outlined in their original campaign objectives, states:
"The immediate objectives will be achieved by all available means, including both political and military … unless the Taliban regime complies with the US ultimatum, taking direct action against Usama bin Laden, the Al Qa'ida networks and the terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, and where necessary taking political and military action to fragment the present Taliban regime, including through support for Pushtun groups opposed to the regime as well as forces in the Northern Alliance".
Events have obviously moved on since then. The Taliban did not comply, and in my view there has been a singular failure to support the most effective Pashtun forces. Incidentally, it is exactly that failure which has led to the continuing resistance by some of the recalcitrant elements of the Taliban.
The aims, though broadly the same, have changed slightly. It is now a stated aim to find and bring to justice Mullah Omar as well as Osama bin Laden. It is my suspicion that bin Laden has long since departed Afghanistan and is almost certainly elsewhere—in Chechnya or even Algeria. Mullah Omar may or may not still be within the national borders—the 250,000-odd square miles that constitute Afghanistan, but we know that large remaining elements of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are. What if some are not? What if, as is believed, there are elements in neighbouring Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier province or even Kashmir? What will the orders to our troops be then?

361
To my way of thinking, something has already gone slightly wrong with the campaign. I suspect that it is a failure of operational intelligence. I suspect that the number of al-Qaeda fighters killed was overestimated, and the remaining number still alive and willing to fight underestimated.
We know that the Americans have encountered much heavier fighting than they had anticipated during Operation Anaconda. We do not know accurately what casualties they have suffered to date. While I, like other right hon. and hon. Members, applaud the work of the US 10th Mountain Division, it is clear that elements are battle-weary—hence the request for assistance from the Royal Marines.
I believe that it is right that we have responded positively to that request, but given the history of British and even Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, we need to bear in mind an exit strategy. For how long should we be prepared to be there? Clearly, until we have finished the job.
Only yesterday, CIA director George Tenet stated in evidence to the Senate armed services committee:
"you're entering into another phase here, that actually is more difficult because you are probably looking at smaller units who intend to really operate against you in classic insurgency format."
It is obvious that the United States is nervous about being drawn into a protracted guerrilla war in Afghanistan. History shows that it has every right to be but it must not be up to Britain to fill the vacuum in the event of America's attentions being diverted to new theatres.
It is not an easy time for the Secretary of State for Defence or indeed the Government to commit British forces to front-line combat operations. As we have heard again and again in speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, we have the finest, most professional forces in the world. We know that they will do whatever it is they are asked to do. That is their duty, just as it is our duty as politicians to support their endeavours; to make certain that the task set for them by the Government is achievable; that they have all the necessary back-up and equipment they need; that their orders and aims are made crystal clear; and that their families and loved ones left behind are properly taken care of. We know that they will not let us down. We in turn must play our part in supporting them to the fullest.
7.6 pm
Jim Knight: I join other hon. Members from both sides of the House in welcoming the deployment of 45 Commando and their support element in Afghanistan.
There is little pleasure, I am sure, in sending service personnel into highly dangerous combat, but there must also be great pride that British armed forces are found to be the best for the job, and it is right that we should play a full part in finishing off what we started in standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States after 11 September, which has already achieved the ending of the Taliban regime and of a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
It has already been shown that UK armed forces are uniquely skilled in peacekeeping. We have highly skilled troops deployed all over the world, most recently to great
362
effect in Operation Essential Harvest in Macedonia, and now in commanding the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Others are increasing their capability in that growing area of work but I believe that the UK is still uniquely respected in that role. That is a dangerous job, albeit perhaps not a popular or glamorous one, and I pay great tribute to the troops currently deployed in Kabul. I am delighted that the ISAF headquarters is being handed over to the Germans, as was successfully done in Macedonia. I will come back to the handover of the command of ISAF later.
It is surely a great compliment that the United States, the supremely equipped military power in the world, which on the face of it does not need us, has called on us for the very difficult and dangerous remaining mission in Afghanistan. It is not just our peacekeeping capability that deserves great pride.
I again pay tribute to our armed forces. I was fortunate enough to meet members of "Whisky" company in Oman, one of the companies in 45 Commando. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) described them as
"the finest body of men that we are ever likely to deploy overseas."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 47.]
I do not have the colonel's expertise but they seemed very tough, very keen and very professional to me. Incidentally, they were also successfully using the first roll-outs of the Bowman communications system when I saw them in Oman. I know that, waiting in the less than perfect conditions aboard HMS Ocean, they will be eager to do the job they are trained to do as part of the deployment. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) that they are specialist troops ideal for removing the threat that remains in the scattered parts of the country.
The pride that I have in our armed forces is matched by a pride in the work of the Department for International Development in so often leading the world on debt relief, poverty eradication and emergency response, and pride in our foreign policy which projects a balanced and just response to events around the world. Our credible military and humanitarian force is matched by our diplomatic skill, but questions do remain and I welcome this opportunity to raise them.
The capability to which I have paid tribute is remarkable and we achieve great value for money, but we are right up against limits of capacity. Yesterday, with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I visited RAF Coningsby. It has no recruitment problem but retention is very difficult. The situation is starting to improve with the new retention package but there is no doubt that, particularly for support grades such as catering, continuous overseas deployment is damaging family life, and the strain is showing. There is a vicious circle: as another person leaves, it increases the strain on those who remain. I know from my constituency and from feedback I have had from Bovington that those in Coningsby and, indeed, in the RAF are not alone in that regard. I know that in broad terms the Army deployment is now at 1997 levels but I do not think that that is the full story when we look at individual grades and individual services within the armed forces as a whole.
We are close to having to take some difficult decisions, which the deployment brings into full relief. I see only three options. First, to reduce our long-standing commitments: do we still need the current level of

363
deployment in Northern Ireland or the Falklands? Secondly, we could make fewer new commitments and pool some capabilities with our European allies—the former supported by the Opposition, the latter perhaps not. Like the Opposition, I cannot name what to cut, so I effectively discount the option of commitment cuts. Thirdly, we could continue to do more, but with more resources and more recruitment.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary cannot comment on discussions with the Treasury, but I wish him well in securing the necessary extra money to go with the extra chapter of the strategic defence review, the option that I favour. We must continue the Government's upward trend on defence spending.
I have some further questions. Will the Minister comment on a report from Reuters this morning on Vice-President Cheney's visit to Turkey? It states:
"I think we're pretty close,' he said referring to talks with largely Muslim Turkey on leading the security force. 'They've agreed to consider the possibility.'
Issues outstanding include financial support, how forces would be transported, communications and intelligence support.
`I think there's general agreement that what we are talking about here for the ISAF is focused in and around Kabul. We're not talking about expanding it to other regions. The United States will clearly have to find ways to deal with problems that may arise in Mazar-i-Sharif … or Kandahar.'"
How close are we to agreement on Turkey's takeover, given that the list of outstanding issues in that quote from the Vice-President seems pretty major? What discussions have the Government had with the United States about dealing with problems that may arise outside Kabul? Is it likely, as the Vice-President suggested, that the force would be US-led, and under what mandate?
Finally, will the Minister comment on the longer term? We are talking about a substantial level of deployment. Should our foreign policy require further ground operations, is there further capacity to do more in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the middle east? Do we need to scale back commitment elsewhere and increase capability in other sectors, such as special forces?
In conclusion, I have made my support for the deployment in Afghanistan clear. I also support our foreign policy with accompanying commitments for the varied skills of our armed forces. I know that the new chapter of the strategic defence review will deal with many of my questions, but I would be grateful if the Minister responded to some of them today.
7.13 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), whose remarks were informed and measured. He asked several questions and this debate provides the ideal forum for the Minister to respond. I am pleased that Mr. Speaker granted the Standing Ordet No. 24 emergency debate today, allowing the House the opportunity to present to the Government its views on the substantial deployment of troops in Afghanistan in a war situation. It is different from the position in Kabul where the international security assistance force is guaranteeing security, helping to ensure law and order and assisting the interim Government.
I can only pray, as have other contributors to the debate, that the warlords, the Northern Alliance and the Pashtun forces can work together as part of the interim
364
Government and bring permanent stability and peace to Afghanistan, depriving terrorist organisations of refuge in the country. Remaining elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban are now fighting from caves in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan. I hope that the special forces that we are sending in—they are without reservation the best trained and most disciplined in the world—will be successful in routing those elements. I make no bones about the need to remove them, because they are a danger to mankind and to the future stability and prosperity of Afghanistan.
I said in an earlier intervention on the Secretary of State that I entirely endorse the Government's actions, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We are fully behind the deployment of 1,700 additional personnel to Afghanistan to carry out a job for which they are ideally trained and suited.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), I was in America on 11 September. I was not in New York on that date, but 60 hours before the two towers of the World Trade Centre were bombed by hijacked civilian aircraft, my wife—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—myself and our second son who works in New York, just two and a half blocks from what was then the World Trade Centre, were on top of the south tower, so we felt close to the American people in what they experienced on 11 September.
I would not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle in saying that the American people are seeking revenge. What happened on that date was that, for the first time in history, American soil was invaded, so their attention was highly focused on the dangers of international terrorism. The world as a whole, after many decades of tolerating international terrorism, has realised that it is a scourge that needs to be eradicated.
That can be done in many ways, but it is not the purpose of this debate to describe how to ensure that countries do not become a haven for terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. However, we can work in Afghanistan to narrow the scope for world terrorism to operate: it will be reduced, squeezed and reduced again. In the end, the evil that terrorists perpetrate will not be tolerated in any part of the world.
I am one of the few Members on either side of the House who has served in Her Majesty's forces—in my case, not as a regular soldier, but as a national service soldier in the late 1950s. That experience has stayed with me ever since and was a wonderful teacher. Having served in the Army then and, two years ago, having participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme—I recommend it to all hon. Members as a worthwhile opportunity—I have come to understand what motivates those who serve in the armed services.
I sought an assurance from the Secretary of State earlier, when he was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, that the Government would guarantee that all facilities, all resources and all equipment will be provided to our forces who are facing a war situation in Afghanistan. If we expect our soldiers—men and women—to fight and risk their lives, the House should ensure that the Ministry of Defence guarantees them all that they need to carry out that work.

365
I have a tremendous respect for our armed services, who do a wonderful job. I believe that they are the most respected armed services in the world. I am not critical in any way of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, but historically and traditionally, our armed services are trusted and respected and have always proved their worth wherever they have fought in defence of freedom and peace.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) uttered wise remarks when he drew on his experience to give a measured explanation of how he viewed the situation. It is for such a reason that the emergency debate is essential. I only wish that the Government had offered the time themselves. However, I commend the Secretary of State on the full and proper way in which he expressed the Government's position and responded to many interventions. That is what the House is about. I praise our armed services and fully support the Government. I hope that the House sends the message to our armed services that we are entirely with them in the difficult job that they are doing and that we wish them success.
7.20 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I have supported our action in Afghanistan from the beginning and I agree that the new deployment is necessary as part of our legitimate response to the atrocity of 11 September and of our legitimate aim to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
As ever, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a thought-provoking speech. He raised the concern that security troops will be in Kabul while combat troops are elsewhere. I would never take any of his concerns lightly, but I share the hope expressed by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions that the risk of retaliatory action may be reduced because they are in distinct areas of the country.
During the campaign we have heard, because we are dealing with Afghanistan, the usual jeremiads about the experience of the Victorian British and the USSR. People who cite those are guilty of three things: first, of presenting a far too mechanistic theory of history; secondly, of underestimating the extent to which victory has already been gained; and, thirdly, of underestimating the fact that al-Qaeda in particular and the Taliban in general, are not indigenous Afghan forces, but largely foreign and alien forces.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) raised the spectre of Vietnam. In one important respect the action that we are discussing moves us away from one of the dangers of Vietnam, where high-altitude, and sometimes indiscriminate, bombing led to too many innocent people being killed and to the alienation of the indigenous population.
Mr. Paul Marsden: How does the hon. Gentleman explain, therefore, that up to
366
8,000 civilians died as a result of the bombs dropped on Afghanistan? Does he not think that that alienates the population?
Mr. Savidge: I do not know the precise number of civilian casualties and I suspect that some people have exaggerated them considerably. However, I was worried that some of the bombing might be less discriminating than it should be. I was especially concerned about the bombing of certain towns. The form of deployment that we are discussing means that specialist forces can target action specifically at armed enemies, and that is a correct approach.
The campaign has been more successful than the Jeremiahs predicted, but the very fact that the new deployment is necessary should be a salutary reminder that war is not an easy option. There is a real danger that we may suffer serious casualties, which is why it is right that the tone of the debate has been sombre.
In our continuing campaign against terrorism since 11 September, we must recognise that it will not necessarily be appropriate to take similar military action in all circumstances. We must also realise that major wars to change Governments are certainly not an easy option. For that reason, and because of the concern about overstretch, we should be wary of extending our war to countries not related to events on 11 September. We should concentrate on the present campaign against terror that is related to those terrible events.
It is important to our Afghan campaign that we have the backing of a United Nations resolution and the support of a broad international coalition. We must be wary of doing anything to alienate that coalition or to divide it, or of taking any actions that could appear to be unilateral.
Reference was made in an intervention to press speculation that there might be an association between al-Qaeda and Iraq. It is important to remember that that speculation was started by a member of the present Bush Administration who, during an interview in Congress, said it should be recognised that countries like Iraq are happy to co-operate with terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda. That does not sound as if it is based on hard intelligence and we should be wary of using such silly speculation as a basis for considering future action. British military action should be based on intelligence in both senses of the word. It should never be based on the ideology of the US hard right. Under no circumstances should we consider sacrificing British interests or British lives for the sake of a special relationship with a particular US Administration.
The action in Afghanistan is based on a just cause—our response to events on 11 September. We must be careful, however, that we do not take action when it is less obvious that we have a just cause or a proper right, or if it could seem in any way that we are assuming a right to start wars with other countries. We should not lightly go to war in this region. We have been successful because we have had clear objectives and there were predictable consequences, despite the delicate situation in relation to Pakistan. We should not lightly go to war in regions where there could be wholly unpredictable consequences and if there is a chance of causing a catastrophe, possibly involving exchanges of weapons of mass destruction, with perhaps one side using biological and chemical weapons and another using nuclear weapons.

367
I support the action, but I hope that when we consider future action, we seek to maintain the unity of the international community in dealing with a dangerous and difficult world.
7.28 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I intend to be brief because the key part of our purpose in calling for the emergency debate was to give the House itself a chance to express its views. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the quality of the debate and its measured nature have fully vindicated Mr. Speaker's decision to accede to our request. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that our involvement in Afghanistan could be increased from a peacekeeping role to a war-fighting role without Parliament having the opportunity to consider the issue.
The debate also provides us with an opportunity to correct the record. The Prime Minister told the House on Monday that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition
"does not believe that we should be in Afghanistan".—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 25.]
That is entirely untrue. My right hon. Friend and the Conservative party fully support the deployment of British troops for fighting terrorism, as part of an important contribution to the coalition with the United States in attempting to eradicate the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. Indeed, we have consistently made the point that our troops are trained for war fighting, although sufficiently versatile to perform superbly in the role of peace enforcers. I hope that no hon. Member is under any illusion, given the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my other colleagues, about the fact that we support the Government in their move to deploy our forces further in Afghanistan.
This is not an occasion on which to divide the House tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex asked a number of key questions that we believe the Government should address, and I intend to turn to them in a moment. The issues raised are not pedantic points of debate, but critical questions that the House and the British people are entitled to ask. We are entitled to seek assurances that the Government have addressed those issues before committing our troops to what the Secretary of State said on Monday would be missions
"conducted in unforgiving and hostile terrain against a dangerous enemy."—[0fficial Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 39.]
Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) articulated the view of the House when he said that there was nothing disloyal in seeking to call the Government to account before deploying our troops.
In the short time available to me, I should like to go through some of the points made in the debate, but if I miss a few hon. Members' contributions, I hope that they will not take it as a personal slight on what they said. I first turn to the right hon Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, whose near unequivocal support of Her Majesty's Government ought to go down in the history books; it was as near as any Government have come to having his approbation on a defence issue. The Government are entitled to take that as full support from him. He was right to say the t the Select Committee always
368
maintained that the war will not be resolved quickly, which is certainly the realisation of all hon. Members tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made a splendid speech—a man who was unquestionably one of the finest Secretaries of State for Defence that we have seen in modern times and a man who commanded enormous respect in the military community throughout the United Kingdom. His loss to that office in 1997 was a loss to the country as well. He was right to say that this is no time to flinch and that, if we fail in this mission, al-Qaeda will regroup, thereby threatening not only Afghanistan and the stability that we seek to create there, but other neighbouring countries, as well as those further afield. Leaving al-Qaeda intact would, as he said, only serve to encourage terrorism elsewhere in the world.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson)—a former Defence Minister—made an extremely important speech and a very interesting contribution, in which he set out the great difficulties involved in Britain having a unique dual role. I shall turn again to that matter in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) is a man who provides the House with continuity. I always feel that we have a connection right the way back to many Parliaments before this one, and it will come as no surprise to the House to know that, like me, he has been up the Khyber. As ever, he speaks with great authority—he is a man who understands parts of the world that many of us will never have been near. He was right to say in our rather cool British way—indeed, in his rather cool British way—that we should carefully consider every step on the road, not make hasty decisions.
My hon. Friend was also right to utter some salutary warnings, not only about the experiences of the Russians when they were in Afghanistan, but to remind us, the country and indeed the civilised world that-even if we root out all those people from the caves and clear them from Afghanistan, which we are sure will be done—there are nevertheless sleepers in the United States and the United Kingdom who threaten us and remain permanently ready to cause mayhem and havoc in our country.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made an interesting speech. As he said, he does not know where the military endgame will be, and I fear that that is something which we all feel.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) made a perceptive speech. He spoke on behalf of one of the great homes of the Royal Marines and was right to remind us of his own military experience, which he brings to the House and which we therefore value. He also reminded us of the condition of the families—those wives, mothers, daughters and indeed, I suspect, husbands sons and others—whose loved ones are about to embark on a mission for us in defence of freedom. He was right to remind us that we owe them a debt of gratitude and that, throughout the forthcoming weeks, we must support them as well.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) made a very perceptive speech. Indeed, he put his finger on the key point that the Government face two options—we all face them: one is to reduce our long-standing commitments; the other is to provide more resources, and he made his views absolutely explicit.

369
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made, as ever, a robust contribution, in which he said that we must have the necessary kit. I am sure that Ministers will be well aware not only of the need to do that, but that any failure to provide our troops with the kit that they require will be a dereliction of duty, and I am sure that Ministers will not wish to be cast in that light.
I wish to ask four questions that have not been adequately dealt with by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will do so in responding to the debate. First and foremost, will he say what proportion of the front-line forces in the mountains will be provided by the United Kingdom? That question was put to the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he was able to answer it. We are entitled to know to what extent those forces are being provided by us and to what extent by the United States of American and, indeed, other countries whose forces are active in the front line.
Secondly, if the numbers of al-Qaeda produce a greater threat than we anticipate, what plans exist to reinforce 45 Commando? Thirdly, what is ISAF's mission? That is a critical point about ISAF's role, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Is our commitment to ISAF open ended? For example, 3 Commando Brigade headquarters will be inside ISAF's remit area. If the peacekeeping forces come under attack and need to be reinforced, can the Minister explain how the lines of communication will work? How will that issue be resolved operationally, so that those forces can be reinforced—presumably by troops under the command of US Central Command, Centcom?
Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North raised the issue of Britain's unique role in providing front-line combat troops and peacekeepers on the streets of Kabul. The Minister will have heard the hon. Member's comments on the very real difficulties involved, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife also made that point. The House would welcome more explanation from the Minister, to try to help us with that Issue.
The House has made it abundantly clear tonight that it is under no illusions about the dangers that our troops face and the responsibility that rests on the House, and especially on those Ministers who are responsible for the deployment. As Major General Hagenbeck, commander of US ground forces in Afghanistan, has said, the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters represent
"a very smart, aggressive and sophisticated enemy."
The latest deployment is composed of commando gunners, engineers, logisticians, signallers, medics and medium-lift helicopter support personnel. Together they constitute a coherent battle group, which has had the advantage of taking part in the recent demanding exercise in Oman, and we acknowledge, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, the foresight of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in holding them well forward in preparation for just this eventuality.
However, the heart of the operation will be the infantry. The Royal Marine Commandos enjoy an awesome reputation around the world, by land and by sea—per mare per terram. We know that, just as in the Falklands, those green berets will instil fear in the hearts and minds
370
of al-Qaeda, as they have in this country's enemies ever since they took Gibraltar 300 years ago. They are tough, versatile and highly trained. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea said, they are lions commanded by lions. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, I wish them all possible good fortune as they embark on a mission which, although many thousands of miles from these islands, is designed to search out and destroy those responsible for one of the most appalling atrocities of modern times and whose continued existence threatens our very way of life.
7.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We have been fortunate in the considerable time that the House has been able to find over the past six months to comment on and debate the war on terrorism. That has provided some thoughtful and measured exchanges. It is certainly evident that, as the debates have progressed over the months, the quality of contribution has improved. Today's debate is certainly no exception.
I assure the House that its general support and many, if not most, of hon. Members' contributions are appreciated by the Government. It is important, of course, that the outside world and our armed forces see and understand the strength of support that the Government command in our actions. I thank the House for its support. The opportunity to reaffirm support for our armed forces, which has been taken in all quarters of this House, is clearly vital, particularly at a time like this. We heard that on Monday, but it always bears repetition.
I shall attempt to answer as many specific points raised as possible—of all the debates to which I have responded from the Front Bench, the fewest questions have been asked of me in this one—but I want first to highlight some of the points made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. First, we believe that we are right to act in Afghanistan. Secondly, we think that the House should note that the action that the international community has taken to date has been successful. Thirdly, British forces have throughout played a vital role in that success.
I hope and trust that many in the House were reassured by my right hon. Friend's explaining that, first, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in operating within the international security assistance force and undertaking the missions that we are planning with the deployment of 45 Commando.
Secondly, on the question of Turkey, we have been as honest and open as possible in explaining the status of the negotiations and the prospect of Turkey assuming leadership of ISAF. Frankly, all that I can add is that discussions continue, they will be continuing this week, and we hope that they will reach a resolution very quickly. Thirdly, we have constantly stressed—I am sure that that is why the point has also been accepted by the Opposition, certainly by the official Opposition—that the rooting out of the remaining al-Qaeda elements would take time, but that it must be done.
Members have commented and made suggestions on a number of what I would term specific and quite detailed military issues. I hesitate to disappoint Members of all parties, but we generally take our advice from our military staff. That may answer many of the helpful and, perhaps

371
particularly, not quite so helpful suggestions that have been made. I know that many Members have an interest in military affairs, and I certainly recognise that some have military experience—some over many generations, including in the regions concerned—but I do not think that any would claim to match that of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
The House might care to note in passing that in the autumn the Chief of the Defence Staff said:
"We are in this for the long haul".
He was right then, and he is right now. We do not send our forces off around the world on a whim. His advice has been crucial in determining what forces we deploy, for which missions and for how long.
I want to address one or two specific points mentioned. I hope that the Opposition are now satisfied with the response that they have been given: 45 Commando group command and control is entirely separate from that of ISAF, and is integrated in the system for patrolling active operations in the country. The 45 Commando group will come directly under Centcom's command, through our own officers. Frankly, that is entirely normal and correct.
Exit strategies have been mentioned, in which regard I sometimes feel one is expected almost to assume the mantle of the forecaster of tomorrow's racing. It really is not like that. We make the best estimates that we can. The exit strategy on this occasion is simple: we will leave when the task is completed.
I want to cover some of the more detailed points made in the debate. It was suggested by—I think—more than one hon. Member that perhaps some form of armour should be available to the force. That point was equally quickly knocked down by those who have ever been in the area. To provide such armour would surely create a force that is the antithesis of the Royal Marines. It is correct to say that 45 Commando soldiers are lightly equipped. That is one reason for their being what they are. They are mobile and their use in mountain terrain in much of Afghanistan depends on that ability. They rely on speed, surprise and flexibility of operation. They form a composite unit; they have their own light artillery, logistic support and engineers.
Hugh Robertson: I should like to clear up that point. There is all the world of difference, as I am sure the Minister realises, between armour and light armour. The Marines, as a light-armoured force, have been training with light armour for many years. Indeed, I went on such an exercise with them in Norway and spent a whole summer attached to them. Such light-armoured vehicles could play some part in Afghanistan.
Dr. Moonie: I do not want to go into too much operational detail about what we are doing. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that if we need armoured vehicles they will be supplied.
Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman able to answer the question that the Secretary of State was unable to answer? Obviously, many of the Marines whom we are deploying will be in the front line. What proportion of the front line will be British forces rather than Americans and others?
Dr. Moonie: That is a rather difficult question to answer. I am not here to give details of an operational
372
point. This is not a single deployment. We are sending troops to add to the forces that are available in order to root out remnants of the al-Qaeda network. Therefore, on the basis of the information that we have, each deployment will be of the strength thought necessary to carry out the job involved. I cannot answer the question with any certainty. One can conceive of an operation involving part of the frontline strength, and of an operation involving all of it. One can conceive of them acting on their own in relatively small numbers, and of engaging all forces committed to the action. I cannot give any more or clearer answers than that. I hope that that is enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
On the support that is necessary, we must recognise that complete air supremacy is available in Afghanistan. Therefore, at any time during any conflict, the Marines will be able to call on quite a wide array of air-support measures. Clearly, as I have said, we will make provision should armour be thought necessary, but 1 honestly do not think that that will be necessary.
The point was made again about the Pakistani border. Anybody who has been anywhere near the border in Afghanistan will know full well just how difficult it is to contain. We acknowledge that the terrain, geography and ethnicity of the people are factors that demonstrate the difficulty of ensuring that the border remains closed to any member of al-Qaeda who is trying to evade capture. We certainly continue to urge the Pakistan Government to take measures to help to seal the border where necessary, and they have been very helpful in that regard.
We can confirm—again, I shall not give any details—that full operational intercapability of communications is available, as it has been throughout our operations in Afghanistan. Our Marines routinely train with US forces, so they are well used to operating together.
On some of the specific points made, the analogy of the dragon's teeth is not a particularly good one, as Perseus defeated the warriors involved—
Mr. Menzies Campbell: After some time.
Dr. Moonie: But he did defeat them. I shall recite the story in Greek, if the House wants; in fact, I cannot. Enough of such unseemly levity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that our people are going into a dangerous situation.
Much has been made of the risk to ISAF. When ISAF was deployed, it was never envisaged that it was going into a risk-free situation. There have always been exits in view, so that if the worst came to the worst and anything really vicious happened there, the force could withdraw to Bagram and defend itself. I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that it can defend itself very well.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A question was asked about the number of troops that were part of our contribution to ISAF. Am I right in thinking that the figure is about 1,800?
Dr. Moonie: The figures is about 1,600 at present and is scheduled to drop as the mission develops.
Our forces are involved in two distinct roles—peacekeeping duties and top-level fighting. We excel in both. That point must be underlined.
Mr. Weir: The Minister has not mentioned the families of the soldiers, a subject that was mentioned during the

373
debate. He will understand that those families are interested less in geopolitics or the war against terrorism than in the fact that the soldiers are in action. Has the Minister any plans to visit the families?
Dr. Moonie: I have had plans to visit that area for some time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I live near there. I shall be happy to visit the families involved.
It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) and the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
7.52 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move,
That the Orders of 29th October 2001 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme)) and 23rd January 2002 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be varied as follows—
Consideration and Third Reading
(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in three allotted days.
(2) The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

Table

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First allotted day

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 2 to 16, New Clauses relating to the Adoption and Children Act Register, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 116 to 120, 123 and 124

Two hours after the commencement of proceeding on the Motion for this Order or Ten o'clock, whichever is the earlier

Second allotted day

Amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 81 to 88, 121, 122, 125, 52, 54 to 63 and 75, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 76 and 77, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 78 to 80, 89 to 94, 96 to 100, 105, 106, 114 and 115, New Clauses relating to Part 2, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 107 to 112

Ten o'clock

Third allotted day

New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 1, 17 to 51, 53 and 64 to 74

Three hours after the commencement of proceeding on the Bill

New Clauses relating to the remainder of Part 3, amendments relating to Clauses Nos. 113, 95, 101, 102, 104, 126, Schedules Nos. 3,4 and 5, Clauses Nos. 127 to 134, Schedule No. 6, Clauses Nos. 135 to 137, remaining new Clauses, new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration.

Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill

(3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill on the third allotted day.
(4) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
Because of this afternoon's emergency debate, we had to revisit the programme motion late yesterday. I take the opportunity to thank the usual channels for their co-operation in enabling us to make the necessary changes. Following a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, it had previously been agreed that Report should be taken over two days, to allow for the fullest possible consideration of the issues that had arisen in Committee, the changes that the Government undertook to make in response to concerns raised by hon. Members during an extremely useful Committee stage, and

375
concerns raised by those who gave evidence in the Special Standing Committee. So far, the process has been always been open to input from stakeholders.
The motion provides for debates to take place over three days, including tonight. I emphasise that in providing for this revision, it is our intention to allow even more time than was previously available. The second day is not programmed in detail. There will be an opportunity to revisit the motion when the timing of the remaining stages becomes clearer. Of course, there will be full consultation before any revised motion is laid.
The proposed programme provides extensive opportunities to debate aspects of the Bill that attracted particular interest in Committee—for example, disclosure of information concerning adoption, the modernisation of the legal process of adoption, and some of the important changes introduced by the Government, such as the extension of the Adoption and Children Act register to Scotland. We should have an opportunity to discuss that this evening.
I commend the programme motion to the House.
7.54 pm
Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister for a generous allocation of time, which has come about because of the emergency debate this afternoon. The Opposition welcome that. We are itching to get back to this important Bill, from which we have been absent for some two months, since we finished the 24th of our sittings in Committee and Special Standing Committee, way back on 17 January. We are keen to get on with the work of progressing such an important Bill, giving it as much time as possible to be considered in another place, and allowing it to become law as soon as possible. Many of the measures that we have been discussing in detail are sorely needed in the best interests of many children who need stable homes—a luxury that they do not have at present.
I take issue with the need for a programme motion at all, and the need for the programming of the entire Bill through its various stages in the House. Right from the start, the Bill clearly had cross-party support. All hon. Members interested in the subject made a constructive contribution on Second Reading and in some detail, with considerable expertise, during the Committee stages.
This is a case in which programming has been counterproductive. It is a shame that, because of the Standing Orders of the House, we were not able to have more sessions or longer sessions during the pre-scrutiny witness stage at the outset, which we all found exceedingly interesting and helpful, but which was severely curtailed. Given the short period between the witness stage and Standing Committee, there was little time to revisit in more detail some of the issues that the expert witnesses brought up in response to our questions.
Because of the previous programme motion, there was an imbalance in the way the time was allocated during the Committee stage, the result of which is that 43 clauses were unscrutinised, and seven were only partly scrutinised before the knife fell. That means that 37 per cent.—more than one third—of the clauses had no Committee time. Even the more generous allocation that we are getting because of this afternoon's debate does not make up for what we missed out in Committee, where we had little time to debate the detail of placement orders, the problems
376
of recovery of children by parents, parental consent issues, and the finer detail of the adopted children register and the adoption contact register. Two of the five schedules received no consideration in Committee—those dealing with registration, disclosure of birth records and so on.
We welcome the additional time. It is not my intention to take up the entire time allocated for discussion of the programme motion, as we want to get on with the debate. The way in which the emergency debate this afternoon shifted the timetable is helpful. It was only at the end of last week that the Government disclosed their hand on the Bill and tabled about 90 amendments and four new clauses, with a long letter by way of briefing notes from the Minister. Why has it taken two months for those amendments to be put before the House, giving us little time to consider some intricate and technical issues? It is a shame that we have not had longer to consider them.
As many witnesses attested, the Bill is a oncein-a-generation opportunity to change the situation regarding adoption and adoption law in this country. We need to get it right, and we are more likely to do it by maximum scrutiny of the highly technical amendments that we will discuss on Report. It is worth mentioning that the Bill raises certain issues, especially relating to adoption by unmarried couples, domestic violence and contact orders, which, although important, have received undue publicity in the press. I would not like those two issues to overshadow and dominate a Bill that deals with many other important, complex and detailed issues relating to providing better homes for children. It is important to have a good spread of time for those issues.
The Minister said that we may have to revisit the programme motion. I believe that that is a strong likelihood, either because there will be another emergency debate or because many more Government amendments will be tabled later. Few Government amendments have been tabled so far for the second allotted day, especially for the latter half of it. No Government amendments have been tabled for the third allotted day, on what are likely to be interesting matters for debate.
When are the second and third allotted—and, I hope, full-days likely to be? Will the Minister assure us that she will do everything in her power to ensure that they take place sooner rather than later? It is an oddity, although I gather that it is not unique, for Report days not to fall in quick succession. We do not want the trail to go cold.
We shall not object to the programme motion, but we have some difficulties with it. We are agreeing to it reluctantly and giving the Government a great deal of trust. I hope that in return the Government will give us as much notice as possible of any further amendments, with as full an explanation of them as possible. I hope too that the gap between the Government giving us the information and our being able to debate the amendments will be as long as possible.
There is great and increasing interest in the Bill from outside the House. The many interested professional bodies and voluntary agencies take a close interest, and they have been immensely useful to Committee members of all parties in the way that they have informed our debate. In addition, ordinary people have a real interest in adoption, either because they want to adopt or because

377
adoption may become a real option for younger members of their families. The current system does not work as well as it might in helping people in such circumstances.
The Opposition will not oppose the programme motion, but it is worth putting those provisos on record. In the spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Minister will respond generously.
8.3 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In supporting the principle of programming, which has focused the House's attention effectively, I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to a big problem looming in the first part of the third allotted day. Three hours have been provided for what is bound to be a huge debate involving a wider range of people than those involved in Committee about unmarried couples' ability to adopt.
The issue of access to information is also involved. That huge, complex and important part of the Bill needs thorough debate about the issues to do with placement, centred on clauses 31 to 33. Might a way be found of distinguishing between those issues, and in particular between unmarried couples and placement orders? That would afford discrete time, in particular to debate placement decisions, which I fear might be completely pushed out of debate by the weight of interest in the unmarried couples issue.
Finally, when our consideration resumes, I should prefer the two days to be taken together to facilitate debate.
Dr. Evan Harris: The need to discuss both placement orders and unmarried couples depends on how contentious the latter issue is, at least for Ministers and hon. Members of many parties who support the contention. If the Minister were to clarify the Government's thinking on that, it would help us decide whether the proposed amount of time was about right.
Mr. Dawson: I hope that we shall not encounter much contention about placement orders, either. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister tabling a few amendments on that issue, too.
8.5 pm
Sandra Gidley: I shall be brief, because I do not want to take up too much time. I welcome the extra time provided for the Bill. However, an awful lot of Government amendments have been tabled, and, unlike the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I have not received an explanatory letter. 1 should be grateful if the Minister would ensure that one reached me. That was possibly the result of an office oversight, but it would be useful if an explanation were forthcoming.
8.6 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I hesitate to delay the House on a measure that has considerable cross-party support, but I have two points. First, the Special Standing Committee was an example of how the House should consider legislation and take evidence from interested
378
parties. On several occasions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence and opinion in the Committee was at one, and the only people who were out of step were the Government. We shall discuss some of the issues involved again as we proceed.
Secondly, I want to express frustration with the concept of programming and especially about some of the provisions in the programme motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, some 90 Government amendments have been tabled. We have seen them only recently and they will require debate. Some are technical, and others are more complex. I am delighted that at least one is identical to an amendment that I proposed in Committee. The Government said that they wanted to take it away and think about it. I take some small credit for that technical measure.
It was frustrating in Committee when debate on important items was cut short. I remember a vivid example when the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) proposed some important amendments that related to access by violent parents, which reappear in the amendments listed for consideration. She had barely minutes in which to put the case, and there was no time for debate. It is important to have time for debate.
We shall not divide the House. I am grateful that we seem to have slightly more time for debate. If we must have such programme motions, we should be more creative in considering their implications.
8.9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: May I—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The traditional way for hon. Members to catch my eye is for them to rise in their place.
Mr. Djanogly: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I rise to support my hon. Friends' comments. The Standing Committee was the first on which I served, and I was surprised that we did not cover a third of the amendments. It was not as though it was an unfriendly Committee or that we argued needlessly. I believe that everyone who attended would agree that it was a constructive format in which to discuss an important measure. There are lessons to be learned from that in terms of programming.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned that he hoped that we would not be sidetracked by a handful of contentious issues. I fully support that, but they are indeed contentious. I have received more correspondence from various organisations on the issue of contact than on virtually everything else put together. That is of some concern, considering that we did not even cover the contact clauses in Committee. I hope that the issue will be considered properly as we continue debating the Bill.
8.10 pm
Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that we need to address a range of issues, and that is why I welcome the extra days now available to consider the issues. I am disappointed with his comments about the Government

379
amendments. He cannot have it both ways. The Government have been at pains to respond to the issues raised in Committee, and we will debate the Walter amendment on Report. However, some even more important issues have been raised by stakeholders and it was important to discuss them in detail before we tabled amendments. We have listened, and taken on board their concerns.
In relation to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), we are certainly considering more amendments on the important issue of the placement process. We are looking at the evidence from stakeholders.
On the timing of the second and third days, Ministers are at the—
Tim Loughton: Mercy?
Jacqui Smith: The business managers of the House are extremely merciful. They will be the source of the decision concerning days two and three. We have heard hon. Members talk about the importance of ensuring that there is adequate time for debate. That is why I said that it was important that we also looked again at the programming motion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that we need separate discussions on the important placement provisions and the interesting issue of the amendments on unmarried adoptions.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for the fact that she has not received the letter, which I believe was sent to all Committee members. I will ensure that she gets another copy because it was a good letter. It was short on flow charts, but big on explanation. I hope that that will be our approach throughout Report.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Adoption and Children Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

  Adoption and Children Bill
    Clause 4

      ASSESSMENTS ETC. FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT SERVICES
      8.13 pm
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in age 4, line 24, after "needs", insert—
      'or needs of connected persons'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 4, line 30, leave out from "services", to end of line 31 and insert—
      'the local authority has the duty to provide suitable services to that person.'.
      No. 3, in page 4, line 30, leave out "decide whether to".
      No. 4, in page 4, line 31, after "person", insert—
      'and provide a written explanation of their reasons if those support services will not be forthcoming'.
      No. 5, in page 5, line 9, after "conditions", insert—
      'and provide for a review of a decision not to provide adoption support services,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 48 and 37.
      Mr. Brazier: As this is the first group of amendments in a three-day Report stage, I would like to say how much I enjoyed the Committee stage of the Bill. Originating from a long-running national and cross-party campaign, the Bill aims to help some of the most disadvantaged children. The Committee was packed with people with specialised knowledge and interest.
      I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reiterating the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the guillotine of the Committee. I share his concerns about that, but I am pleased to have been part of the process.
      Our amendments concern support services for adopters. It is difficult to exaggerate how valuable and how brave many parents who adopt a child from care are. It is easy to forget that many children are in care because they have been abused or severely neglected. They bring a package of problems into the homes of the adoptive parents, who must deal with them without any professional training.
      I wish to give one example from my constituency of two little boys adopted by a family who discovered that one had been thrown out so often into the cold that his feet had to be treated for gangrene; in fact, he came close to having them amputated. The other had been locked in a cellar for years and, as a result, had no power of speech. Teaching a child to speak at the age of seven involves specialist support services. It is those sorts of specialist services that we are talking about in the amendments.
      The Opposition's concern about clause 4, which deals with these services, is that, as it is drafted, social services are required to make assessments, but are not required to provide any services to support parents who have adopted children from care.

      381
      There are several points that need making here. The first concerns assessment itself. An assessment must be carried out by a qualified person, in many cases a social worker. We are short of social workers. In nearly all cases, an assessment must be carried out by someone from a category of professionals of whom we are short. Yet very often it is obvious what needs doing, and if the local authority is willing to make resources available, carrying out an assessment involves an inordinate delay and a waste of time. Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 would place on a local authority the duty to provide the suitable services that adoptive parents need.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am entirely in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about adoptive parents receiving any service that they have been assessed as needing. Would he also apply that to natural parents, and to children living in residential care, foster care and other circumstances? Why should it apply only to adoption?
      Mr. Brazier: In Committee, we agreed that there should be a requirement in some of those cases. Children being adopted from care are special cases. A failure of an adoption is very expensive for the state, as well as being a disaster for the child. This is a matter of prudence for the state, although we would all agree that the overriding concern is the child.
      I wish to refer to another case from my constituency surgery; that of a girl adopted by constituents of mine from a London authority. She had been sexually abused over a long period by her father. As a result, she needed profound professional therapy. The family that adopted her was receiving no financial allowance of any kind from the London authority and it provided her with no advice. The adoptive parents were extremely poor and it must have been a desperate decision to take the child on. However, they went out and found the therapy. Their request to the authority was to have the bus tickets paid for, so that the girl could go for therapy two or three times a week. In a case such as this, what possible purpose could there be for wasting resources and time on specialist assessments if the therapy has been found by the parents? Surely the best thing would be to provide them with the bus tickets. In that case there was a happy ending—their MP chased the matter up and eventually we got the relatively small sum out of the local authority.
      Mr. Dawson: A hero.
      Mr. Brazier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remark.
      Let me give another example. An adoptive mother rang the Adoption Forum last week, asking how she could get immediate help. One of her two children had been through a particularly bad spell and was being threatened with expulsion from school. The mother said that she had a good enough relationship with her local authority but knew that it would take many weeks, if not months, for it to respond to a request for help. She needed advice right then and there because she could see no way forward. She described how desperate she was. She felt that, in her frustration, she might be driven to a physical attack on the child or other drastic action that could be harmful to this already deeply damaged child.
      382
      The lesson here is different because the family situation might well need assessment; certainly, some serious work would be needed for the family. However, the mother needed help at the time of her call, or at least very soon. She did not need long-term assessment with no determinate date or promise of help at the end of it.
      As Barnardos put it:
      "the provisions contained in Clause 4 do give rise to considerable concern. The right to an assessment of their needs will be available to children and families but the local authority is then under no obligation to provide any of the services that it may have decided are needed. Any potential adoptive applicant reading this Bill would not be reassured that should they decide to take on the—"
      difficult—
      "task of parenting a child with very complex needs, they will not be left to cope without any real entitlement to support."
      The Local Government Association sums it up very well:
      "Support is vital in promoting successful placements and preventing adoption breakdown and should encourage more potential adopters."
      That is the Government's No. 1 objective—more potential adopters.
      The point, which relates to amendment No. 6, is that much of the help needed is for the carer—that is, one of the connected persons in the legal terminology—rather than for the child in isolation. Parents taking on a severely damaged child often need help, hence the wording of amendment No. 6.
      Let me give an example from the moving testimony that we received from the Catholic Children's Society. Bath time is an important time for every mother—or perhaps, in this enlightened age, I should say every parent. It takes on a whole new dimension, however, if it involves a small child who has been repeatedly sexually abused at bath time, which is apparently the most frequent time for sexual abuse to take place. The challenge of trying to bathe a child who is terrified of being taken into the bathroom is one of a quite different order. In those circumstances, the connected person rather than the child may need the assistance.
      Amendment No. 4 is a less stringent requirement for local authorities to provide a written explanation of why support services are not forthcoming. Amendment No. 5 would provide for a review of the decision not to provide such services. I will not dwell on the latter now, as we will come later to a group of amendments on independent reviews. However, if the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 or 7—and I rather hope that they will—surely they could at the very least accept Nos. 4 and 5.
      All too many debates in this House relate to resourcing, so it is important to place the amendments firmly in context. The question of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was a fair one. Keeping children in care is very expensive. Not only is a child far more likely to thrive when adopted, but adoption also places a far smaller burden on the state and means that the child is much less likely to impinge, tragically, on the criminal justice system or mental health establishments later on.
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how short-sighted it is of the local authority not to pursue the

      383
      assessment and pay for the support that is required, because compared with the cost of years in care, it is peanuts.
      Mr. Brazier: I am indebted to my hon. Friend, not least for bringing to mind a particularly telling quote made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) when, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he used to pride himself on being the greatest Scrooge in the House of Commons. Those of us who went to meeting after meeting to discuss adoption and left unwatered might even extend that comparison further. He none the less made the very point that my hon. Friend has just made. He said that this was the one area that he had come across in Government spending where there was a case for unlimited resourcing because the saving would be massive compared with the very small sums in outlay. The sad fact is that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail. This willingness to spend relatively small sums up front can save huge sums later.
      It is not just about money. A child may go completely off the rails and end up in prison. Some 40 per cent. of under-age prisoners have been in care. We, as representatives of the state have failed them. It is not simply that they are expensive; those children's lives have gone from abuse to an even worse downward spiral and when that happens, we really have failed them. The question is not just what price we put on a child's welfare but what the future holds for the state as well as the child if we do not help adoptions to succeed.
      Will the Minister explain where Government amendment No. 37 comes from? It requires the Treasury to be kept informed of certain expenditures. Has Her Majesty's Treasury just woken up to the fact that the Bill involves money?
      In summary, the leaders of all the major parties and hon. Members in all parts of the House have drawn attention to the scandal of children languishing in care. They are all solidly behind this measure to get children in care adopted by loving families. The adopters are providing a wonderful service to society at considerable risk to themselves, taking these often very damaged children into their homes. Offering them guaranteed support when they really need it should be a mandatory requirement, rather than simply assessing them.
      Sandra Gidley: I would like to add my voice in support of the amendments. I tabled similar amendments in Committee. I must admit to disappointment that, despite a wide-ranging debate in Committee, the Government have remained completely intransigent on the issue. That was not only the case in Committee; it was highlighted on Second Reading. We heard two submissions earlier, but nearly every submission raised that very point. During the evidence-gathering stage of the Bill, many of the witnesses highlighted that point.
      As the Bill stands, a local authority must assess the need for adoption services, but is under no obligation to provide those services. Even if it decides to provide them for a short time, it is under no obligation to continue to do so for a prolonged period. The Minister has repeatedly assured us that the rights of the child are paramount. The refusal to provide the necessary adoption support services flies completely in the face of that statement. We want to get real for a moment.
      384
      As has been highlighted, we are not talking about cuddly babies—in 2002, babies are not the majority of children being adopted. A significant number of the children being adopted today demonstrate considerable problems and have complex needs. A significant number of them have mental health problems too. It is not putting too fine a point on it to say that prospective parents can be taking on a considerable case load. Of course, they do it out of a sense of love and the hope that they can make a significant and positive difference to a child's life. However, those parents may not necessarily be in a financial position to provide all the services that have been identified to support their child adequately if the local authority is not in a position to do so. Similarly, a short-term agreement to fund certain services is totally inadequate. The parent is making a long-term commitment to the child, so the Government, via the local authority, should also provide a long-term commitment.
      8.30 pm
      Much in the Bill is sensible and I believe that the Government's heart is in the right place on the issue, but this matter was discussed at length in Committee and all Opposition Members were disappointed at the Minister's response. I will remind the House of what she said:
      "I turn to the argument … that local authorities are very likely just to ignore assessments. That is not my experience of local authorities. In the past, local authorities may not have provided adequate adoption support services when they did not have a duty or the resources to do so."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 13 December 2001; c. 595.]
      Unwittingly, the Minister backed my arguments, as she acknowledged that in the past services failed when resources were inadequate.
      The Government announced extra funding in December 2000, which was to last three years. By the time the Bill is on the statute book, that pot of money will have disappeared—it will be at the end of its useful life. Who knows what the Government's priorities will be then? There is no guarantee for the future of adoption services in the Bill. Many hon. Members want a greater and more prolonged commitment.
      I also support the comments that have been made on the right to appeal. Much has been said about appeal being built into every stage of the procedure. If services are refused for financial or other reasons, the parent, who is acting in the best interests of the child, is in no position to challenge the decision. I ask the Government to think again.
      Mr. Djanogly: I speak in favour of amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Government have made much of the worthy proposal that local authorities will provide adoption support services. Indeed, many organisations involved in adoption congratulated the Government on bringing support to the fore in the Bill. It is fair to say that that was before many of them had had a good look at clause 4, which basically states that an assessment must be carried out if a person requests it but that, having made the assessment, it is up to the authority to decide whether it wishes to provide the services.
      The reality is that the level of services provided varies considerably from authority to authority. Some councils have effective, efficient and helpful services and some do not. One of the good points about the Bill is that it is

      385
      intended to raise the general level of service to what is considered to be best practice. The clause as it stands could, however, work directly against that aim. In fact, it could lead to more money being wasted. Hundreds of assessments could be undertaken but they might not lead to the provision of any support, which would be a travesty.
      I fully support amendment No. 3 because if an assessment is carried out, support should be provided. Equally, I support amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which would pick up councils for wasting taxpayers' money on pointless assessments by making them explain why they refused to act on them. Surely, however, the Government have done their sums on this matter. If they believe in support, they should back that up by paying for it. Alternatively, if they feel that funds will be inadequate, would it not be more appropriate to limit at the outset those who would be eligible for assessment, rather than paying for everyone to be assessed and turning them down afterwards? That could lead to fewer adoptions rather than more, which would be totally contrary to the purpose of the Bill.
      Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that he wants councils to carry out assessments of whether somebody needs an assessment?
      Mr. Djanogly: I am not suggesting that. I am speaking in favour of the amendment, under which assessments should be carried out and funding provided. My argument is that if we accept the Government's approach, it would be more sensible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That would at least avoid getting people into the system, building up their expectations and then spitting them out again. That is what could happen, which could lead to real dangers in the system.
      Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has agreed that his suggestion is as I said—everybody who would otherwise present themselves under the Bill in its current form would present themselves for an assessment as to whether they needed an assessment.
      Mr. Djanogly: I am not suggesting that, but I shall move on. I have made the point that clause 4 still lacks clarity. I do not believe that it is in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will re-address the issue.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I support amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7.
      First, I want to deal with the question of duty. As we know, local authorities have various duties, some of which are obvious, such as that under the Education Act 1944 to provide a reasonable standard of education. Some of them are even more mundane, such as the duty to collect refuse. If, at the core of this Bill, the interests of the child are paramount, I cannot understand why we decline to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to follow their own assessments and provide what is seen to be necessary per the assessment.
      Mr. Dawson: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate any other area of local government social policy in which there is a statutory duty to meet and identify assessed need of an individual or family?
      Mr. Liwyd: Yes. It exists in relation to children who are statemented and to provision for dealing with special
      386
      eeds in schools. Even if I were wrong—I think that I am right—the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has already referred to a more learned person than me making an exception of this area in terms of Government spending. I realise that we are dealing with a finite purse, but only a given percentage of youngsters will be subject to adoption. We have already heard that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail; it is a tragedy when that happens. We all know what occurs: the slide into criminality, awful drug problems and so on. Often—not always, of course, thankfully—the root cause is an unhappy childhood, and frequently that is partly because an adoption has gone badly wrong. I hope that this will be a landmark Bill, but clause 4 is badly drafted and does not provide for this particular duty to be imposed.
      The ignoring of assessments was raised earlier in the debate. I am not saying that local authorities will ignore assessments, but their funding will be finite, and they will therefore be directed as to what services they provide by the amount of money that they have. That is a fairly obvious equation. When local government makes assessments of the care component and the residence component for the elderly, all manner of fun and games occur. The assessments are cost-driven, and we all see the unfortunate results of that.
      I took part in the Special Standing Committee procedure. I congratulate the Government on that positive step forward. We heard from many knowledgeable people and received memorandums from individuals, experts and societies—or stakeholders, in the Minister's words. However, why are the stakeholders being so obviously ignored? The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the views of Barnardos—it succinctly asked what the point of an assessment would be if it were not followed through. That point is logical.
      The Bill—there is much to commend in it—seeks to introduce uniformity in practice across England and Wales. As we know, one of the problems is that the quality of adoption services depends on where one lives. We have heard of postcode prescribing, and in adoption some areas are switched on while others are most definitely not. The Bill also seeks uniformity among providers and agencies, so I do not wish to criticise the Bill for the sake of it and merely because I sit on this side of the House.
      These points were made in Committee but, more important, they reflect what the stakeholders say. Unlike me and possibly several other hon. Members, the stakeholders are experts, and we are here to produce the best possible legislation. If stakeholders tell us time after time that delivery must follow the assessment, we should pay attention to them.
      As I pointed out in Committee, the ATD Fourth World memorandum states:
      "Section 4(4) only places a duty on a local authority to decide whether to provide any services to that person. It is recognised by all parties, including the Department of Health, that adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents all need support. Support services should be on offer to everyone involved who can take them up as they see fit".
      The Adoption Forum's memorandum added:
      "One of the laudable aims of this Bill is to bring adoption/permanency support into the front line."

      387
      I agree entirely with that, as I am sure we all do. It went on:
      "Adoptions that fail do so because families feel unable to cope and support has been all but impossible to find and fund."
      We all want to improve the rate of success, and the memorandum continued:
      "If the rate of success is to be improved—and it is difficult to see why there would be much point in upping adoption figures unless adoptions are going to succeed—then there must be help available."
      I could read further memorandums, and we all heard the evidence in Committee. I am disappointed that that evidence is being brushed aside without proper consideration.
      I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) shares my wish to improve the Bill, but I know what he will say. That is not to suggest that he is boring. I readily admit that he has far more experience in social services than I have, and he will say that funding is finite. However, I have experience in child law, and I anticipate that he will argue that we cannot issue a blank cheque. Perhaps I am wrong, so he might wish to intervene and make another point.
      Mr. Dawson: I cannot resist the invitation. The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but no one is talking about writing blank cheques. Surely his remarks about a lack of support services entirely underestimate the effects that the Bill will have. It will provide a remarkable improvement in adoption and post-adoption support services to children and families. I question why he is so concerned to give unlimited resources to particular people in certain circumstances when he is not arguing the same for children in all other parts of the care system. He is certainly not arguing the same for families with children living in poverty.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and those arguments will doubtless be made in another debate, but today we are dealing with adoption law.
      The hon. Gentleman asks why there should be a carte blanche in terms of resources, but we are dealing with the most needy and vulnerable people in society. The point is that these young kids have probably already been through turmoil in reaching the point of being placed for adoption. We should make the resources available, so that a need can be met whenever an assessment identifies one. Otherwise, there is no point in any of this, and we will be letting children down. Although we all sign up to the principle of the paramountcy of the child, the risk is that the Bill will let children down.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much in the Bill to commend it. It contains several mechanisms that are most welcome and extremely useful, but a weakness has been identified, and in the light of the circumstances, the Special Standing Committee procedure and so on, it is right and proper that we debate it.
      Mr. Djanogly: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a form of postcode lottery operates, whereby people are in effect dependent on living in an area that happens to have a good agency? If the agency can provide the necessary support, they are in luck; if not, that could be to the detriment of the child and others.
      Mr. Llwyd: That is right, and to be fair to the Government, they have identified that problem. Much of
      388
      the thinking behind the Bill is very clear, but the laudable aim is to introduce uniform quality of service throughout local authorities in England and Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: as things stand, there is a postcode lottery. The system is haphazard and the outcome depends on where one lives. Those of us who are members of the all-party adoption group—including the hon. Member for Canterbury—have heard that said year after year. We are therefore delighted that the Government are introducing the Bill, but I am afraid that it is flawed, and it behoves us all to make plain our dissatisfaction with this particular aspect of it.
      Of course, there are degrees of adoption services—some major and others relatively minor—and the Adoption Forum has expressed concern in that regard. It asked what will happen if a local authority agrees that support is needed, but says that it does not have the staff to provide it. Such a situation is not acceptable, but under the Bill as drafted, a local authority could say as much. That is totally unfair.
      I support amendment No. 4, which would require a written explanation of reasons why support services were not forthcoming, and amendment No. 5, which would require a review. As other Members have made plain, many local authorities are failing, and often because of nothing more than a lack of resources. Although it has been said that some local authorities are prejudiced against adoption, I doubt whether any are, and I shall not pursue that red herring now. If the problem is a lack of resources, we must look to Government to provide them. As I have said, in any event we are dealing with only a percentage of youngsters. The problem could be worked out, and the Government could examine the budgeting situation.
      Given that we have gone through the Standing Committee process, heard evidence from the experts in Special Standing Committee, and heard extremely useful and constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the House, it would be a terrible shame if we fell short of our intention to bring in a ground-breaking Bill that will provide an excellent service for those most in need of support.
      Tim Loughton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest and great support, but the problem may be even worse than he suggests. Because of the crisis in many social services departments, whether in the care of children or of the elderly, departments are increasingly having to limit their activities to their statutory responsibilities. Therefore, the responsibilities that are not statutory requirements are taking a lower priority, whether the departments wish that to happen or not. That is exactly what would happen to adoption support services if they do not take on the statutory obligation.
      Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is precisely the position as I see it. Adoption UK told us that it welcomes some of the changes to clause 4 and is delighted that adoption support services will include all those affected by adoption. However, it continues to make the point:
      "Our 30 years experience of supporting adoptive families has shown us that these families need access to the actual provision of support post-placement and post-adoption, not simply an assessment to determine the nature of that support."

      389
      I have made the case as strongly as I can, but I wish to refer briefly—in due deference to the fact that several Labour Members have previously been involved in social work—to the British Association of Social Workers, which said:
      "Clause 4 needs substantial improvement … Social work support in connection with adoption should always be available and it should not initially be conditional on an assessment of the person's needs having already been carried out."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 168–352.]
      That goes even further than what we are arguing.
      I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government's position on clause 4. She rightly referred several times to stakeholders as she opened the debate. If stakeholders mean anything, they should be listened to.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I feel as if I am entering a private party among the members of the Committee. I contributed on Second Reading, but I was not a member of the Committee so I am returning to some of the issues. In this instance, it is a surprise and a disappointment that the issue was not resolved in Committee in the direction that my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members have urged the Government to take.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He rightly referred to the group of amendments and their various aspects. If it were my choice, I would ask the Minister to fix on amendment No. 7 as most deserving of acceptance by the Government. One slight difficulty that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has advanced is that inevitably there will be limited circumstances in which the Government will legislate that a local authority has a duty not only to provide services but to provide all such services as are required by a person regardlesseffectively—of the resources available to it. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the Exchequer and individual local authorities would receive obvious positive benefits from a successful placement for adoption, but resource constraints may still make provision of the services in question difficult for local authorities. Amendment No. 7 would at least recognise that local authorities would exercise a judgment, having interpreted the need for adoption support services, and then be able to follow that through. Rather than support all the amendments willy-nilly, I express my support for amendment No. 7.
      In Cambridgeshire, the annual report on adoption and permanence for the local social services illustrates my point well. Some 26 children were placed for adoption in 2000–01 and adoption allowances were agreed for 16 children, six of which were in-principle agreements that focused on the possible need for treatment or extra provision in the future. The report drew attention to the high proportion of adopted children who require such financial or other support. It states that it
      "is a reflection of the physical and psychological difficulties which many children have and/or of the need to keep siblings together. The 6 "in principle" allowances reveal the uncertainty which adopters accept when children's previous history or genetic inheritance suggest significant difficulties may develop in future."
      That passage points to the importance of providing a countrywide system of support on which those adoptive families can rely, if we are to sustain—as is one of the
      390
      Bill's principal intentions—the number of those adopting and prevent the disruption of those adoptions once they have taken place.
      My hon. Friends have referred to the difficulties associated with the current inconsistency in the levels of support that are being provided. I understand that the legislation is intended to deliver greater consistency, but there is a question as to the level at which consistency will be delivered. In Cambridgeshire at the moment, a more stringent means test is being applied to adoption allowances. Cambridgeshire now falls mid-band among local authorities in the level of the means test but, as the report also shows, difficulties have emerged when families who adopted in the past, under a more generous scheme, have sought an allowance for a further adoption. If we are going to introduce a degree of consistency we must expect it to be consistency at a level of provision that is relatively high when compared with the present level; otherwise, there will he substantial disincentive effects.
      I am keen that, in the course of amending clause 4, we should push not only for consistency but for a fairly high level of provision, and a degree of certainty on the part of adoptive parents that that provision will be made available to them if they are assessed as having need of adoption support services.
      When I approached the legislation afresh I was seriously concerned that the Government, having understood what was required, had failed to legislate precisely for that to happen. It was the Government, in their White Paper "Adoption: A New Approach", who presaged this legislation. In paragraph 6.27, they said that they would introduce new legislation
      "to place a clear duty on local social services authorities to provide post-adoption support, including financial support, planned jointly with local education authorities and the NHS, and any other relevant agencies. This support will be available from the time a placement is made, for as long as it is needed."
      That was not a commitment on the part of Government to introduce legislation providing that local authorities had a duty to decide whether to provide post-adoption support. It was a clear commitment to introduce legislation placing on social services authorities
      "a clear duty … to provide post-adoption support".
      In the absence of amendment No. 7, the Government will have moved away from the commitment in the White Paper to something watered down. The loophole that will have been created is one through which it would be possible to drive a coach and horses in subsequent years, if local authorities were not properly resourced and the Government did not give them the necessary support. I therefore urge the Government to adopt amendment No. 7.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I agree with parts of the arguments made by Opposition Members. In particular, I agree that at present the provision of adoption support services across the country is patchy and inconsistent, in that in many areas very little support is available for adopters once a child has been placed for adoption. However, we part company over the suggestion that the Bill does not significantly address that issue, because its new provisions on adoption support will tackle that inconsistency.
      The Bill places for the first time a clear duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services, which will include

      391
      financial support, delivering on the commitment that we made in the White Paper quoted by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). That new duty is set out in clause 3 and it will ensure that local authorities make available adoption support, including that financial support.
      9 pm
      Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. That is a new right introduced by the Bill that delivers a key commitment made in the White Paper. The Bill goes even further than the White Paper, in which we made a commitment to give families adopting children a new right to such an assessment. The Bill extends the right to an assessment to all the people listed in clause 3(1), namely children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians.
      Mr. Brazier: Does the Minister accept that she is talking about assessments, not about the services themselves? As every major stakeholder who has written to us pointed out, clause 4 covers assessments, not services.
      Jacqui Smith: I shall deal with the importance of assessments in a moment.
      I was talking about the important duty in clause 3 to provide the service, the important right in clause 4 to receive an assessment, and the extension of that right to people prescribed in regulations made under clause 4(1)(b)—namely, those listed in regulations made under clause 3(3)(a). The Government intend that they will include birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted.
      The assessment will ensure that adoptive families and others no longer have to fight against the system to get the help and support that they need. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to such fights, and many of us will have heard tell of them at constituency surgeries. They are the legacy of a system that has not properly prioritised the need for local authorities to provide adoption support.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister said that clause 3 provides the services required, and she is now helpfully moving on to cover assessment. I ask her to look at clause 4(4), which reads:
      "Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for adoption support services, they must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person."
      I am afraid that that drives a coach and horses through the hon. Lady's argument.
      Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that I am coming on to that point. The Bill will ensure that public services are properly joined up in the provision of support services on adoption.
      Several hon. Members asked about the nature of the assessment and expressed concerns that it might contribute to delay. I assure them that assessment under clause 4 can cover a full range of assessments from a quick decision with a very rapid response to a full
      392
      multi-disciplinary assessment where that is required to put together a support package. People who gave evidence in the Special Standing Committee told us that there may be occasions on which it will be important to have such a proper assessment in relation to a child with multiple needs. That was seen not as a barrier to the provision of adoption support services, but as an important gateway to the provision of those services and to ensuring that they were provided in a joined-up way. Of course, adoptive families will not need to wait until an adoption order has been made to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. They will be able to request an assessment at any time—for example, when they have been matched with a child or when the child has been placed with them.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 7—Conservative Members have not tried to hide this—seek to restrict the discretion of local authorities to make decisions about the way in which they provide adoption support services. Local authorities must, of course, act reasonably in deciding whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment, but clause 4(4) makes it clear that it is for the local authority to make a decision on whether to provide adoption support services in each individual case.
      Sandra Gidley: It occurs to me that there are interesting parallels with education. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have frequently been approached by parents who are unhappy with the provision for their children. The county council's attitude seems to be, "This will do," rather than, "This is what is best for the child." The Minister appears to be describing a similar set-up.
      Jacqui Smith: I was actually talking about the need to ensure that local authorities had discretion in this context, as they do—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made the point—in the context of many other public services.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned assessments of older people's needs, but did not go as far as suggesting that the proposals to limit authorities' discretion should also apply to them. I do not know whether that reflects his relative priorities when it comes to needy older people and needy adopted children. The hon. Member for Canterbury was very honest in expressing the view that adopted children's needs should have priority over those of others needing social services assessments, including children in care. He was honest; I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.
      Mr. Brazier: I shall not repeat my reasons for considering these children to be a special case, in both personal and financial terms. I merely say that if we compare this provision with provision for special needs in schools where local authorities have statutory duties, we see that there are fewer children adopted from care in a single year in most local authority areas than there are special needs children in many individual schools.
      Jacqui Smith: There is no argument about the importance of adoption support services. That is why, for the first time, we have a Bill that imposes a duty on local authorities to provide such services.
      Mr. Llwyd: As the Minister accused me of dishonesty, let me point out that I thought she was dealing with the

      393
      Adoption Act 1976, which deals with children. To say that I rank children below or above elderly people is to reach an unjustified conclusion which in fact does little justice to the Minister. May I declare an interest? My own mother is going through an assessment, and I am offended by what the Minister has said.
      Jacqui Smith: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman. I was simply examining the logic of the argument that discretion for making decisions about the provision of adoption support services should be removed, while discretion relating to other services should not. Members must face up to the logic of their arguments in the context of amendments Nos. 3 and 7.
      Mr. Djanogly: The Minister still has not dealt with the basic point. If councils are to have discretion not to provide services, how is it rational to require them to provide an assessment? Why should they have to waste money on an assessment if they are not going to spend money on support afterwards?
      Jacqui Smith: As I have said, an assessment is important as a gateway to the provision of services. Given the extra investment and given the duty imposed by the Bill to provide adoption support services, it cannot be said that the vast majority of authorities will not supply massively better services for adopted children and their families than were supplied under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported until 1997.
      My point is that amendments Nos. 3 and 7 remove local authorities' discretion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading on 29 October last year, ultimately local authorities provide the adoption service, so they must decide who needs what level of support. I would like to provide two more quotes about the importance of the discretion given to local authorities. Quote No. 1 is:
      "We will put our faith in local councillors, the people who are closest to those who will rely on us to deliver better public services."
      Quote No. 2 is:
      "community government must mean giving greater freedom to local authority.
      We can deliver that freedom if we are prepared to trust that our councillors will use that freedom responsibly to deliver better services."
      Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to disagree with hon. Members this evening. Discretion for local authorities is important. The effect of the amendments would be to remove that discretion from local authorities.
      Tim Loughton: That argument is even more disingenuous than the argument that the Minister used in Special Standing Committee to try to weasel out of the commitments. She is not taking away the requirement on local authorities to provide an assessment, but she is allowing local authorities to place a lower priority on providing support services. That is nonsense. It is a waste of money, and it has absolutely nothing to do with giving greater autonomy to local authorities. If the requirement on providing the service is there, there is a greater chance that the Government will, rightly, provide the resources
      394
      for the services that we all agree are essential, so let us not have any ridiculous arguments about the autonomy of local government being infringed by what we are proposing.
      Jacqui Smith: I appear to have hit the mark. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the legislation reduces the likelihood that local authorities will offer adoption support services but it is placing a duty on local authorities to provide those adoption support services in a way that never existed before. It is providing a right for people to be assessed for those services, which will lead to local authorities being able to provide the appropriate packages, but they must have the discretion that exists in relation to every other assessment to determine how those services are provided.
      Mr. Dawson: Does not this part of the debate exemplify the way in which the Opposition missed the point over the issue of assessment? Surely, when we are delivering a much improved adoption support service, the process of assessment will follow much more naturally and organically out of the improved relationship and ongoing commitment of local authorities to children who have been adopted.
      Jacqui Smith: As always, from his experience, my hon. Friend makes a very important point.
      Opposition Members have raised the issue of resources. We can expect a substantial amount of the extra £66 million for adoption that was announced in the White Paper to be used by local authorities to improve their adoption support services. It will ensure that many more people receive the support that they need. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is chuntering about support to social services departments. This is £66 million on top of the 20.4 per cent. real-terms increase that has gone to social services authorities, an annual real-terms increase of over 3 per cent. per year. I ask hon. Members, in considering the provision of adoption support services and social services funding. to compare that amount with the 0.1 per cent. real-terms increase in the last five years of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported,
      Tim Loughton: On that point, simply repeating and re-repeating the sum of £66 million under the quality protects programme does not make that figure any more than £66 million over a three-year horizon. If the Minister is serious about it, will she give an undertaking now that when the three years have run out, a serious sum of money—at least as much as that, and at least as much as is required to provide serious support services—will be forthcoming? Simply to repeat the sum of £66 million does not make it go any further.
      Jacqui Smith: I was talking not only about the £66 million but about the other significant investment that the Government have put into social services—money that the Conservative party notably failed to pledge to match at the last general election. I will give the hon. Gentleman a commitment: of course we will consider the provisions on adoption support as part of the current spending review process. When the results of that process come through, I shall challenge the hon. Gentleman on whether his party, if in government, would match the investment that we are making in social services.

      395
      9.15 pm
      I shall now deal with the other amendments. Amendment No. 4, which was debated in Committee, would require local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons for not providing adoption support. As I said in Committee, that is not a matter for primary legislation. It may be good practice for local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons, but it is more appropriate for that to be covered in guidance to local authorities. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to provide a verbal explanation.
      Amendment No. 5, which we have also debated in Committee, would enable regulations to provide for a review of a local authority's decision not to provide adoption support services. Where a local authority decides not to provide adoption services following an assessment of needs, a complaint can he made to the local authority in the usual way. Adoption is a mainstream social services function. It is therefore appropriate for complaints to be dealt with, following the changes in the Bill, through an improved local authority social services complaints procedure.
      Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority, in addition to carrying out an assessment of needs for adoption support services of the person who has requested the assessment, to carry out an assessment of the needs of connected persons. It does not make clear who those connected persons might be. The examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury were largely of adoptive parents who already have a right to an assessment under clause 4(1). I do not dispute the importance of the issue, but those people are already covered, so the amendment is unnecessary.
      I shall briefly move on to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 48 relates to clause 9, which provides a general power to make regulations concerning the activities of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. Regulations may be made for any purpose relating to the exercise of the functions of local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies in relation to adoption and the exercise of functions of adoption support agencies in relation to the provision of adoption support services.
      Subsection (2) provides that this general regulation-making power is not limited by any of the specific powers included in the Bill. Amendment No. 48 is therefore a technical amendment stemming from changes made to the Bill during the Special Standing Committee. It inserts in subsection (2) of clause 9 a reference to clause 52, which was added to the Bill Government amendment in Committee.
      Hon. Members present in Committee will remember that clause 52 makes it clear that the general regulation-making power in clause 9 may be used to set out the key stages at which adoption agencies are to provide information to prospective adopters, and the information that they are to be obliged to provide. The amendment makes it clear that the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 9 through clause 52 does not limit the generality of that power.
      Finally, Government amendment No. 37, which the hon. Member for Canterbury asked about, relates to payment of grants to local authorities in respect of their adoption services. Clause 124 amends section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, which enables the Secretary of State to pay grants to local authorities in respect of welfare services.
      396
      Clause 124 clarifies that grants may be paid under section 93 in connection with welfare services, as well as for their direct provision. That means, for example, that the Secretary of State may pay grants to local authorities to help re-engineer or develop their current adoption services, as well as to help them provide new services.
      These provisions are important because they will be used to meet commitments made in chapter 7 of the White Paper to support local authorities in generating best practice models for managing and improving their adoption services. We intend to pay grants to support local authorities in piloting new ways of working, such as the commissioning of children's services and arrangements for consortiums.
      Amendment No. 37 clarifies the Treasury's powers to give consent to, or withhold consent from, spending Departments for the making of grants to local authorities in England under section 93 of the 2000 Act. It explicitly recognises that the Treasury must approve the proposed terms and conditions of any grant made under that section, and it is able to take those factors into account when deciding whether to consent to the making of a grant. The Treasury rightly takes an interest in everything that happens across government, and it is, of course, appropriate to represent that in the amendment.
      I ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments and reiterate the significant improvements that the Bill makes to the provision of adoption support services. I oppose the Opposition's amendments. They fail to recognise those improvements and would limit the discretion of local authorities to make them.
      Mr. Brazier: The purpose of the amendments is to assist a small but deserving number of people. We are not convinced by the Government's arguments, but in the spirit of our support for the Bill, and in light of the fact that there is little time to discuss other important measures, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9
      GENERAL POWER TO REGULATE ADOPTION ETC. AGENCIES
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 7, line 42, after "12" insert "52".—[Jacqui Smith.]
    Clause 10

      MANAGEMENT ETC. OF AGENCIES
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 9, line 7, leave out—
      'fee of a prescribed amount'
      and insert "prescribed fee".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 79, 82 and 44 to 47.
      Jacqui Smith: Before I begin, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what happened to Government amendment No. 37.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That comes a little later in the amendment paper. I will not overlook it.
      Jacqui Smith: I have every faith in you. The Bill is close to my heart and I want to ensure that we get through it all.

      397
      The amendments provide greater consistency in the approach to prescribed fees and ensure that the powers in relation to fees are flexible and clear. Amendment No. 47 is relevant for the purposes of all the other amendments in the group. It inserts a new subsection in clause 131, which provides a general interpretation of the terminology used throughout the Bill, and clarifies the meaning of a power to prescribe a fee.
      Where the Bill confers a power to make regulations to prescribe that a fee must or may be charged or paid, or where it confers a power to prescribe such a fee by way of an Order in Council—for example, in relation to the adoption and children register—that fee can be any of the fees set out in the amendment. It could be a fixed amount. Alternatively, it could be a fee not exceeding a fixed amount, as made clear in proposed paragraph (a), or a fee that is calculated in accordance with a formula set out in regulations or in an Order in Council, as made clear in proposed paragraph (b). Proposed paragraph (c) provides that the fee may also be a reasonable fee, determined by the person to whom it is payable.
      The remaining amendments ensure that in every case in which the Bill confers a power to prescribe a fee, the term "prescribed fee" is used consistently. That ensures that any of the fees that I have just described can be prescribed in regulations or in an Order in Council. If the provisions already refer to a prescribed fee—for example, in clause 11—an amendment is, of course, unnecessary.
      Although I am willing to go into the details of each amendment if hon. Members so wish, I think that that sets out our approach to them all.
      Tim Loughton: These amendments will probably be known as the prescribed fee group, because, as the Minister has explained, that is essentially what they deal with. However, I should like to question her on a few issues that arise from them. She said that these amendments had been introduced in the guise of greater consistency, flexibility and clarity. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, for example, why Government amendment No. 43, which simply changes the terminology from
      "fee of a prescribed amount"
      to "prescribed fee", has taken two months to produce after the end of the debates in Committee.
      On a more substantive point, under Government amendment No. 79, the word "prescribed" will be inserted before the word "fee" in clause 118(3), which states that the order
      "May require an agency giving information which is entered on the register to pay a fee."
      Will the Minister clarify—she said that she would like to do so—the guidance, which her Department issued to adoption agencies last August, that gave them the strong impression that her Department had promised to fund the adoption register? Why does the question of fees arise—whether they are prescribed fees, charges or whatever she wants to call them?
      On 21 August, it was reported that the Department of Health would pay for the use of the adoption register
      398
      information. A Department of Health briefing, issued on 26 August last year, stated that it
      "will be fully funded by the government and will be free to use by councils and voluntary adoption agencies."
      So will the Minister explain exactly where those fees will be directed and for what purpose, as certain adoption agencies have been given the impression that the register would be funded by the Department? That is something of a mystery, so perhaps she could explain that in the interests of clarity and consistency.
      I have no argument with Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45, which will bring into effect the charging of prescribed fees for using the contact register, as does Government amendment No. 46.
      Government amendment No. 47, which the Minister dealt with first, relates to clause 131. Will she provide further clarification of some of the definitions used in that clause? In particular, will she explain proposed paragraph (c), which states:
      "a fee determined by the person to whom it is payable, being a fee of a reasonable amount"
      How would she define the term "reasonable amount"? Who will determine the amount? How often will it be redetermined to ensure that it is still a reasonable fee? Will the fee differ for the various agencies in different parts of the country? Will it differ by local authority, given that the Minister is apparently a late convert to giving local authorities greater autonomy?
      Government amendment No. 47 is rather widely drafted, and hon. Members would benefit if the Minister would provide greater definition, but I am particularly keen for her to explain, for the benefit of the agencies involved, why a fee will apparently be charged, given that it was strongly suggested that no fee would be required of voluntary agencies.
      Jacqui Smith: I should like to make it clear that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is right to say that the Government are funding the operation of the adoption and children register. The Government do not intend to charge adoption agencies for the use of the register. However, consequential effects and possible future decisions need to be represented in the legislation. Of course, the existing inter-agency fee system, whereby an adoption agency pays a fee to another adoption agency to cover the costs of recruiting and assessing an adoptive family on its behalf, will continue to operate as it does at the moment, but the Government have promised to keep the inter-agency fee under review. The provisions in clause 118(3) and 119(4) help to provide the flexibility to make changes in the arrangements should that be considered necessary. I reiterate that the Government are indeed funding the register, which is currently operating very successfully, bringing together adopted children and potential adopters.
      9.30 pm
      Tim Loughton: We need to get this absolutely clear. I think that the Minister is now suggesting that there will not be charges but that the Government are establishing the potential for their introduction. Will she cast her mind forward, as we need clarity for the long term? In what

      399
      circumstances might her Department institute charging for operating the register, so that it will not be wholly Government funded?
      Jacqui Smith: I certainly did not say that we were considering imposing charges. I said that a review of the inter-agency fee arrangements, whereby authorities pay each other for the recruitment of adopters, could involve a routing of the fee via the adoption register. What is important is that, in drafting legislation that will exist for some time, we provide opportunities for the consideration of such issues.
      The hon. Gentleman also raised the definition in proposed paragraph (c) of amendment No. 47—that the fee may also be reasonable if it is determined by the person to whom it is payable. We discussed the charging of reasonable fees at some length in Committee, such as in the context of inter-country adoption, where it would perhaps most appropriately fit. The Government intend to make regulations under clause 11(2) to enable local authorities to continue to charge prospective inter-country adopters a fee to cover reasonably incurred expenses.
      In this context, a reasonable fee would of course bear in mind the fact that each adoption agency has slightly different costs and should be able to reflect those costs in the fee charged. Agencies should not, as was made clear in Committee, be able to recover more money than they expend; they should be able to recover only their costs. What would be a reasonable fee for inter-country work might vary from adoption agency to adoption agency, and it would therefore clearly be inappropriate for a fixed amount to be prescribed. The proposed subsection enables the flexibility on reasonable fees that we discussed at some length in Committee.
      I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will feel able to support the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF DETERMINATIONS
      Mr. Brazier: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert
      '(1) Regulations under section 9 may establish a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a determination has been made by an adoption agency ma) apply to an organisation or panel, independent of any local authority or voluntary adoption agency but approved by the appropriate Minister for a review of that determination.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 14, page 10, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) If as a result of an independent review any local authority is found to have failed, without reasonable cause, to comply with any of the duties imposed on them virtue of this Act, the appropriate Minister may make an order declaring that authority to be in default in respect of that duty.'.
      Mr. Brazier: As the clause stands, most of the important detail is left to regulations. For those of us who have been pressing for many years for an independent appeals process for adoption-related matters, the clause is welcome. None the less, it is disappointing that the Minister said in Committee on 18 December at column
      400
      676 that regulations are likely to focus on only two matters—at least initially. They are, first, prospective adopters' suitability for the new national list, and secondly, the provision of information by adoption agencies.
      Mr. Djanogly: The Minister may wish to clarify this, but I think that, following the Government's changes on access to information, the regulations will now focus on only one area.
      Mr. Brazier: My understanding is that the review process will still focus on the two matters. Crucially, that does not seem to apply to other parts of the adoption process. In particular, it is not likely to apply to decisions on individual matchings. That is a come-down from the Secretary of State's apparent pledge on Second Reading, when he said:
      "It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system"—
      his words—
      "whether of the provision of information to adopted children about their birth families, or of decisions to place a child with a particular family"—
      the Secretary of State's very words—
      "They are difficult issues."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]
      Explaining the need to limit the review process, the Minister in Committee stressed issues of resourcing. She claimed that the review process inevitably draws on the same over-tapped pool of professionals and social workers, who are in short supply and must come off their current tasks to review past ones. That is a weak argument. There is a strong case for lay involvement in the review process. None the less, there is a large range of other circumstances in which things can go badly wrong in the adoption process, and there is no redress for prospective adopters, other interested parties or the child.
      Given the short time available, I shall not restate points made in Committee about how expensive judicial review is or the fact that the ombudsman is powerless and that there is little point in appealing to the local authority.
      Our amendment No. 22 seeks, first, to extend the scope of reviews from qualifying determinations to all determinations. That does not automatically make all determinations subject to review. It merely allows the Secretary of State to set out such wider categories as he sees fit. Secondly, the amendment seeks to set up an independent framework for the hearing of such appeals. Amendment No. 23 is largely consequential. Under amendment No. 22, the Minister will be able to allow an independent appeal process across the entire range of activities, so it seems reasonable to limit the Minister's powers to the outcome of such appeals.
      Mr. Dawson: By moving the amendments, is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of putting the interests of adults before those of children? Does he not run the risk that placement decisions and the efficient and proper implementation of placements will be subject to the activities of vexatious litigants?
      Mr. Brazier: In Committee the hon. Gentleman discussed the matter at length. To summarise my

      401
      argument, there are all sorts of ways of putting filters into the process. Perhaps the best answer to his intervention is to go straight on to some examples.
      The current appeals procedure would not cover approved adopters who are denied a match with the child whom they wish to adopt, even if there is no other applicant for the child and has not been one for a long period. Surely there could be no clearer example of the vital interests of the child. As another example, if a care plan is not being heeded or a bad decision has been made, how will the child or the child's representative—perhaps a foster carer or an independent visitor—get justice?
      Further examples include a child being moved on unwillingly to yet another set of foster carers, foster carers being refused permission to adopt a child whom they have fostered for years—the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) will know that the Government-commissioned research produced in Cardiff two years ago showed that some local authorities never allowed foster parents to adopt—and approved couples who are again and again refused matchings. I could go on. I shall give two other examples, before returning to a more detailed case. What will happen when information has been retained on a child's background? All those who served on the Committee heard strong testimony about the importance of getting that information released. There is currently no recourse if the local authority refuses to give the parents information about the child's history, which is so vital if the child has been abused. Above all, what recourse will there be for whistleblowers in the social services system? Such people are brave professionals who often write off their entire careers by putting principle before their own interest for the sake of children.
      It might be helpful if I describe in detail an actual example at the end of that list of hypotheticals. Mr. and Mrs. J, who live in central London, would have liked to appeal on several grounds. No avenue of appeal was available to them, and the Bill, as currently worded, would not provide one. They said to the Adoption Forum:
      "We live in a very mixed area, racially speaking. Our circle of friends and acquaintances is also mixed. We adopted a 7-year-old white English boy from our local authority in 1996 and, with the usual ups and downs, it is a stable and happy relationship for my husband, me and our boy. In 1999 we applied to adopt his mixed-race … half-sister, then 13. We had grown very fond of her after regular contact ordered by our local authority and she had been moved several times in foster care and expressed a desire with live with us. Our local authority refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and we were not. We did our utmost to try to persuade them but nothing was achieved. We still abide by the contact order. The girl is still in foster care (she has been in several placements) which we all value. But we believe the girl, our relationship with the girl and, inevitably, with our son, too, have been ill-served by the decision not to allow the placement".
      Surely such a case is worth a review? However, as the clause is worded, without amendment No. 22, it would not get one—unless the Minister's thinking changes.
      The clause also establishes an appeal structure. There is a concern that, under the clause as currently worded, the appeal might not be truly independent. For example, it might be considered by people from the local authority involved, and the adoption agency might be made to pay for it. In the case of voluntary agencies, that could be disastrous and would be a burden on local authorities, too.
      402
      The Government have a mass of tribunals stretching across many different Departments, covering everything from employment to parking fines. Surely our most vulnerable children—those in the care system whom we in Parliament have failed in all too many cases—are worth an independent appeal heard by a properly constituted independent panel.
      Mr. Djanogly: I rise to support amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which relate to the new procedures to be put in place for what the Bill refers to as an "independent review of determinations". As it turns out, that title is rather ambitious. Two issues seem to be involved in reviewing what counts as a qualifying determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) suggested.
      My hon. Friend also mentioned that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
      "It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system".—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]
      I draw attention to the word "throughout". That does not describe what has happened, as things have turned out.
      We know little about the purpose of the proposed review panels. We do not know who will sit on them, how and when they will be convened, what their procedures will be, or the time limits for convening them. Indeed, in Committee, the Government did not even know when the system would be introduced.
      We need to consider why review panels are important. Gradually over the past 30 years, people have lost confidence in the adoption system. Many potential adopters feel that they have received unfair treatment at the hands of agencies and social workers, that their wishes have been sidelined, that delays in the system are unacceptable, or that a decision made in the adoption process was wrong. Currently, complaints go through councils, where one can go through three stages of complaint procedure. Of course, one is taking one's complaint to the very same council that one has the complaint against, which is hardly an independent process. Alternatively, in some cases, one may be able to go to judicial review, but that is a very expensive process, open only to a very few.
      9.45 pm
      The main thrust behind the Bill is to emphasise the importance of the child who, under clause 1, is to receive paramount status. That being the case, it becomes more important that other parties to the adoption process should receive an independent right to redress. I would certainly accept that a properly convened, easy-access, low-cost and informal panel system would work well. That would allow for any person, including natural parents and adoptive parents, to apply in relation to any adoption agency determination. That is proposed by the amendment, and I fully support it.
      It is important to appreciate that, as things stand, even if the panels are formed, they will be available only to one party—the prospective adoptive parents—and then only in relation to their being refused permission to adopt, and then only to those who make it to the formal stage of the adoption process. However, only 10 per cent. of those who apply get to the formal stage of the adoption process in the first place, which means that the measure would apply to 4 per cent. of prospective adoptive parents.

      403
      This is being called an independent review system but I would hardly call it a full and comprehensive system. It is turning out to be little more than a sham. It does nothing to demand a review of a child who is moved between foster carers, or to allow for a review of the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective parents. It gives no recourse to a review of delays in the process, or to the giving of parental consent to adoption, or to assessing whether the child's views have been taken into account in the process. There is no provision for a review of the parents' assessment for support—if they are to get any at all—or issues relating to the content of or access to the three adoption registers; or, indeed, inter-country adoptions.
      For all those reasons, I support the amendments.
      Jacqui Smith: Hon. Members have expressed concerns about various different stages of the adoption process, and their conclusion has been that the independent review process should be extended to all those stages. I hope to demonstrate not that I do not believe that those are justifiable concerns, but that, given the other structures that are in place, I do not believe that an extension of the independent review process would be the most appropriate way of dealing with those concerns.
      As the White Paper made clear, the intended purpose of the independent review mechanism is to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, to address concerns that there was bias or that a decision was not soundly based and—to reassure the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—to provide a means for an independent review of some of the decisions made on the access to information provisions introduced by the Government. I reassure him that that remains a purpose of the independent review. It was never intended, as appears to be the intention behind the amendments, as a means of micro-managing the day-to-day business of adoption agencies.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to foster carers who, for four years, have been blocked from adopting. Under clause 41(4), they can apply, regardless of the local authority's views, if they have had care of the child for one year. Adoption standard B5 emphasises that assessment for foster carers should be speedier; four months, rather than eight.
      The hon. Gentleman again raised his concern about the use of the independent review mechanism with regard to adoption agency determinations about matches between children and approved adopters. I undertook to consider whether, as we consulted on the use of the independent review mechanism, that might be an appropriate determination to be considered. The consultation is due to take place in the autumn. We have also undertaken initially to implement the independent review mechanism in 2003 and, as I said, to consult on the extension that he referred to in Committee.
      I hope that I can reassure hon. Members by outlining some of the regulatory and quality assurance mechanisms. Some are enshrined in the Bill and many involve independent scrutiny, which I hope will overcome some of the concerns that have been mentioned.
      As a starting point, the Bill places every agency under a statutory obligation to make the child's welfare the paramount consideration in any decision relating to the adoption of a child. All adoption agencies will be
      404
      regulated by the independent National Care Standards Commission. Voluntary agencies will have to be registered to perform their functions legally. The NCSC will set national minimum standards for all agencies covering the facilities, staff, qualifications, skills and procedures that should be in place for the organisation properly to perform the functions of an adoption agency. All voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be subject to regular independent inspection by the commission against those standards.
      Aside from the overall regulatory structure, as we touched on earlier, local authorities have to set up complaints procedures under the Children Act 1989 in respect of children and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in respect of adults. Both procedures require an independent person to be appointed to supervise the conduct of the complaints process, which we are reforming and improving.
      In relation to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about young people—
      It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [29 October, 23 January and this day] put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Speaker then put the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 14

      DEFAULT POWER OF AN APPROPRIATE MINISTER
      Amendment made: No. 34, in page 11, line 1, after "Act" insert—
      'or of section 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

    New Clause 8

      USE OF AN ORGANISATION AS AGENCY FOR PAYMENTS
      '(1) An Order under section 116 may authorise an organisation with which an arrangement is made under section 117 to act as agent for the payment or receipt of sums payable by adoption agencies to other adoption agencies and may require adoption agencies to pay or receive such sums through the organisation.

      (2) The organisation is to perform the functions exercisable by virtue of this section in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State; and the directions may be of general application (or general application in any part of Great Britain) or be special directions.

      (3) An exercise of the Secretary of State's power to give directions under subsection (2) requires the agreement of the Scottish Ministers (if any payment agency provision applies to Scotland) and of the Assembly (if any payment agency provision applies to Wales)'.—[Mr. Kemp.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 9

      TERRITORIAL APPLICATION
      '(1) In this group of sections, "adoption agency" means—

      (a) a local authority in England,

      (b) a registered adoption society, where the registration authority is the National Care Standards Commission.

      405

      (2) An Order under section 116 may provide for any requirements imposed on adoption agencies in respect of the register to apply—

      (a) to Scottish local authorities and to voluntary organisations providing a registered adoption service,

      (b) to local authorities in Wales and to registered adoption societies, where the registration authority is the Assembly,

      and, in relation to the register, references to adoption agencies in this group of sections include any authorities or societies mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) to which an Order under that section applies those requirements.

      (3) For the purposes of this group of sections, references to the register applying to Scotland or Wales are to those requirements applying as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of subsection (2).

      (4) An Order under section 116 may apply any provision made by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments]—

      (a) to Scottish local authorities and to voluntary organisations providing a registered adoption service,

      (b) to local authorities in Wales and to registered adoption societies, where the registration authority is the Assembly.

      (5) For the purposes of this group of sections, references to any payment agency provision applying to Scotland or Wales are to provision made by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] applying as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of subsection (4)'.—[Mr. Kemp.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 116

      ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 68, in page 66, line 13, leave out from beginning to "establish" and insert—
      'Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the Secretary of State to'.
      No. 69, in page 66, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
      '(2A) For the purpose of giving assistance in finding persons with whom children may be placed for purposes other than adoption, an Order under this section may—

      (a) provide for the register to contain information about such persons and the children who may be placed with them, and

      (b) apply any of the other provisions of this group of sections (that is, this section, sections 117 to 120, section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] and section [Territorial application]) with or without modifications'.

      No. 70, in page 66, line 31, leave out "Regulations" and insert—
      'An Order under this section'.
      No. 71, in page 66, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Clause 117

      USE OF AN ORGANISATION TO ESTABLISH ETC. THE REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 66, line 38, leave out "with the Assembly's agreement".
      No. 73, in page 66, line 39, leave out "his function" and insert—
      'any function of his under an Order under section 116'.
      No. 74, in page 67, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 75, in page 67, line 9, leave out from "any" to end of line 14 and insert—
      'directions given by the Secretary of State and the directions may be of general application (or general application in any part of Great Britain) or be special directions.
      ( ) An exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under subsection (1) or (4) requires the agreement of the Scottish Ministers (if the register applies to Scotland) and of the Assembly (if the register applies to Wales).
      ( ) References in this group of sections to the registration organisation are to any organisation for the time being performing functions in respect of the register by virtue of arrangements under this section'.—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Clause 118

      SUPPLY OF INFORMATION FOR THE REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 67, line 16, leave out "Regulations" and insert—
      'An Order under section 116'.
      No. 77, in page 67, line 19, leave out "regulations" and insert "the Order".
      No. 78, in page 67, line 21, leave out "Regulations" and insert—
      'An Order under section 116'.
      No. 79, in page 67, line 22, leave out from "a" to second "to" and insert "prescribed fee".—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Clause 119

      DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 80, in page 67, line 35, leave out from "disclosed" to "or" in line 42 and insert—
      'under subsection (2) or (3).
      (2) Prescribed information entered in the register may be disclosed by the Secretary of State or the registration organisation—

      (a) where an adoption agency is acting on behalf of a child who is suitable for adoption, to the agency to assist in finding prospective adopters with whom it would be appropriate for the child to be placed,

      (b) where an adoption agency is acting on behalf of prospective adopters who are suitable to adopt a child, to the agency to assist in finding a child appropriate for adoption by them.

      (3) Prescribed information entered in the register, or compiled from information entered in the register, may be disclosed by the Secretary of State or the registration organisation to any prescribed person for use for statistical or research purposes, or for other prescribed purposes.
      (3A) An Order under section 116 may prescribe the steps to be taken by adoption agencies in respect of information received by them by virtue of subsection (2).
      (3B) Subsection (1) does not apply—

      (a) to a disclosure of information with the authority of the Secretary of State, or

      (b) to a disclosure by the registration authority of prescribed information to the Scottish Ministers (if the register applies to Scotland) or the Assembly (if the register applies to Wales).

      (3C) Information disclosed to any person under subsection (2)'.
      No. 81, in page 68, line 1, leave out "Regulations" and insert—
      'An Order under section 116'.
      No. 82, in page 68, line 1, leave out from "a" to first "to" in line 2 and insert "prescribed fee".
      No. 83, in page 68, line 5, leave out "section 116(2)" and insert "subsection (2)".
      No. 84, in page 68, line 6, leave out "section 116(3)" and insert "subsection (3)".—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Clause 120

      SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 68, line 13, leave out from "In" to end of line and insert "this group of sections—
      ( ) "organisation" includes a public body and a private or voluntary organisation'.
      No. 86, in page 68, line 14, leave out "regulations" and insert—
      'an Order under section 116'.
      No. 87, in page 68, line 16, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

      '(c) "Scottish local authority" means a local authority within the meaning of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001,

      (d) "voluntary organisation providing a registered adoption service" has the same meaning as in section 131(2A).'.

      No. 88, in page 68, line 18, leave out "sections 116 to 119" and insert "this group of sections".
      No. 89, in page 68, line 24, leave out "sections 116 to 119" and insert "this group of sections".
      No. 90, in page 68, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (5) If any provision made by an Order under section 116 would, if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation to make the Order is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.
      (6) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 containing any provision in respect of the register is to be made to Her Majesty in Council if the register applies to Wales or the Order would provide for the register to apply to Wales, unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.
      (7) No recommendation to make an Order under section 116 containing any provision by virtue of section [Use of an organisation as agency for payments] is to be made to Her Majesty in Council if any payment agency provision applies to Wales or the Order would provide for any payment agency provision to apply to Wales, unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly'.—[Mr. Kemp.]

    Clause 124

      PAYMENT OF GRANTS IN CONNECTION WITH WELFARE SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 70, line 41, at end insert—
      '(4) After subsection (6) there is inserted—
      "(6A) Before making any determination under subsection (3) or (5) the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Treasury.[Mr. Kemp.]
      It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings, further consideration stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

PETITIONS

  Sandringham School
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: I bring a petition from several thousand of my constituents in St. Albans who object to the transfer of Sandringham school out of St. Albans into the Harpenden educational area. The petition states:
  "The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to take steps to ensure that Sandringham school remains as a St. Albans school."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rugby League
  9.54 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 30,000 rugby league supporters, which draws attention to their concerns over inaccurate and ill-informed commentary on their sport in some sections of the media.
  The petition requests:
  "that the House of Commons shall recognise the support which Rugby League has throughout the United Kingdom; acknowledge its unique contribution to the sporting life of the nation; and call upon the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to make every effort to promote fair and constructive media coverage of Rugby League."
  To lie upon the Table.

NHS Consultants
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.55 pm
Ian Lucas: National health service consultants are the engine that drives the hospital sector. In the deluge of reforms that has swept through the NHS in the past 20 years, it is remarkable that the contract that governs the way in which NHS consultants work has remained largely unchanged since 1948. Therefore, I very much welcome the proposals that the Government published in February 2001 for a new approach to the consultant contract.
As a former non-executive director of an NHS trust, I am well aware of the prodigious commitment of some NHS consultants to their patients. They work long hours above and beyond the call of duty to treat patients who are in pain and need the professional skills that they offer. But I am also aware that there are consultants who are employed in the NHS, especially some of those who work under part-time contracts, who spend a great deal of their time working outside the NHS in the private sector.
Danger of abuse in the health service is always at the point where private commercialism impinges on the service. Abuse occurs when an attempt is made to marry the incompatible principles of private acquisitiveness with a public service. It was Aneurin Bevan who identified that problem in "In Place of Fear" more than 50 years ago. Half a century later, that problem affects the care of NHS patients.
At the outset, it is worth noting the present pay levels of NHS consultants. Under the present contract, the basic pay scale is between £50,000 and £66,000 per annum, although discretionary points can lead to salaries in excess of £80,000 being paid. Over and above that income, NHS consultants can earn very large sums from the private sector. I commend the excellent report of the Health Committee on consultants' contracts in the previous Parliament, which revealed that from 1999, the estimated annual average private earnings of NHS consultants in plastic surgery exceeded £75,000 and in orthopaedics were almost £59,000.
There is some evidence to show that that figure is likely to have substantially increased in recent years. The pressure to reduce waiting lists means that more public money is being used to employ NHS consultants outside the NHS and some consultants are exploiting their monopoly position to increase their income.
This week, the Financial Times reported one NHS trust chairman as saying:
"Consultants have suddenly realised they are in short supply and that they have market power. Last year we settled at a price of around £600 a session … We are now negotiating for what we will pay them after April and their opening offer to us is £1,500."
On 17 March, The Sunday Times reported that one David Taggart, a consultant surgeon at the Oxford John Radcliffe hospital, was paid £34,000 over and above his salary for operating on his own patients to reduce waiting lists.
One of the commonest complaints in my constituency surgeries is from those who have been given a waiting list appointment, but who are then made aware that if they were treated in the private sector they could secure the
410
same treatment, often from the same doctor, almost immediately. That gives consultants a perverse incentive to keep waiting lists long and to encourage trusts to use additional public funding to buy health care from them in the private sector. That boosts their private income and means that long waiting lists give financial benefits to those consultants.
To my surprise as a trust board member, I learned that boards have no idea how much the consultants they employ actually earn from the private medical sector. Even more disturbing is the fact that NHS trusts have no means of knowing how many hours consultants are working in the private sector. In the era of clinical governance, that is simply intolerable. I was the chairman of a clinical governance committee with a responsibility for assessing the quality of work carried out by consultants. How can that be done when the committee has no means of knowing how many hours a week its employees, who are often carrying out hugely complex surgery, are working?
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Ian Lucas: Until there is full disclosure by NHS consultants of the work that they do in the private sector, there will be doubt that they are fully committed to NHS work and that they are not working excessive hours in the pursuit of profit. Openness is in the best interests of doctors, the NHS and patients.
I know that the Government's proposals for a new NHS contract were greeted with howls of outrage from the British Medical Association. I admit that this is a difficult issue, but I urge the Government to stand firm on the principles laid out in their proposal for a new approach to the consultants contract in February 2001.
As someone who was part of a management team at an NHS trust hospital, I do not believe that the present contractual arrangements allow NHS managers to manage consultants, who are some of their most important employees. Floating sessions allow consultants maximum freedom to work as they wish and give managers minimum power to ensure that consultants work within the aims of the NHS trust by which they are employed. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph published on 28 February, Mr. John Hale, who worked in the NHS for 15 years, wrote:
"one of the biggest drains on the service was consultants with part-time contracts. They spent fewer than their contracted hours working for the NHS, concentrating on their private practices. As a consequence of their commercial activities, many consultants are late arriving at their out-patient clinics or operating sessions and frequently do not attend at all."
Consultants operate on the basis of good will, not contractual obligations. In the modern NHS, in which strategic planning is of vital importance, that cannot be allowed to continue.
I welcome the fact that the BMA agrees that greater transparency should be the basis of the new contract. Consultants should know what is expected of them, managers should know what to expect from consultants, and patients should know that the generous pay levels thought to form part of the new proposed contract will fund real commitment to the NHS on the part of all consultants.

411
There is one further area of great concern. In February 2001, the Government proposed that new consultants should, for the first seven years of their contract, be prevented from engaging in similar work outside the NHS. It takes substantial public investment to train consultants; the private sector does not fund the training. It is right, in principle, that as the public sector funds the training, the public sector should benefit. However, it is not just a matter of principle. Those who manage the NHS tell me that such a change would dramatically increase the NHS work carried out by new consultants, which would help reduce waiting lists. The Government must therefore stand firm.
I suspect that the negotiations on the NHS consultants contract may come to a head soon. The key to successful reform of the hospital sector lies in a new NHS consultants' contract that harnesses the skills of consultants for the NHS. It has taken more than 50 years for this opportunity to come. Having created the chance for reform, the Government must not duck the issues.
10.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate on the important issue of NHS consultants' contract. I also acknowledge his expertise and experience in these matters, and his encouragement to the Government to stand firm in the negotiations that are currently going on.
My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom Health Departments—we are negotiating the contract on a UK basis; it is not just a matter for England—are currently working with the central consultants and specialists committee of the British Medical Association on the new contract. I hope he will understand that, while the negotiations are under way, I cannot discuss the details of what is under discussion. As he said, the negotiations are complex and difficult, but it may be helpful if I set out why we are engaged in trying to reform the consultants contract and describe the benefits that we are hoping to achieve for consultants and staff from the new arrangements.
We recognise the dedication and commitment of doctors throughout the NHS. We know that consultants do an excellent job for the NHS which patients very much appreciate. Consultants often work under real pressure and sometimes flat out to provide the best possible care for their patients. We want the new contract to provide a better framework within which we can acknowledge this commitment to the NHS and to the patients under their care.
We have delivered the largest-ever sustained increase in funding for the NHS, but resources alone will not modernise and improve the service. We need to make the whole system work better and be prepared to do things differently. We are beginning to see much of that change happening throughout the NHS, and our challenge is to make the change universal and to get good practice adopted everywhere. We need consultants to be at the forefront of this modernisation, leading clinical change and redesigning clinical services around the patient, so that we no longer have a top-down service. We want to put patients at the centre and to ensure that all the services meet their needs.
412
We must also recognise that consultants sometimes feel they are struggling against the system. They cannot always get access to theatre or out-patient slots and sometimes the equipment that they want is already being used. Too often consultants feel that they do not get rewards for their service—6 per cent. of all women consultants hold a distinction award compared with 5 per cent. for all ethnic minority consultants and 17 per cent. for all white male consultants. Clearly those issues need to be addressed.
We need to tackle the issue of private practice. We all know that the majority of consultants work extremely hard for the NHS, working long hours and showing outstanding commitment. We need to tackle head on any suggestion that there could be conflicts of interest between NHS work and private work by NHS consultants. The time has come to be transparent, open and straight with people about such issues. The place to do that is in the contract negotiations.
Many factors affect waiting lists and waiting times in the NHS, and not all of them relate to the availability of individual consultants, but they have a key role to play in making sure that waiting lists and waiting times go down. We need to be to able to reassure patients that there is no conflict between consultants' work in the private sector and their work in the NHS.
We want to develop a contract that sets out clearly arid unambiguously what is expected of consultants, that allows the NHS to make the most effective use of their time and that properly rewards consultants for their commitment to and performance in the NHS. That involves changing the way the system works to make it better for patients and consultants. We hope to do that through partnership in the negotiations that are currently taking place.
The NHS plan set out our plans to overhaul the contract and to work with doctors' representatives to try to achieve a mutually agreeable conclusion to the negotiations. We set out our proposals to develop the system of medical care in hospitals so that it becomes a more consultant-delivered service, with much more direct patient care being delivered by consultants. The NHS plan also set out proposals for an unprecedented increase in consultant numbers—equivalent to an increase of more than 30 per cent. since 1999. The Government have shown a real commitment to increase the number of consultants in the NHS so that patients can be seen more quickly and more effectively by very senior members of staff who can provide excellent quality care.
To make the best use of the increased number of consultants, we must have a clear contract that sets out the commitment of consultants to the NHS. The Government published detailed proposals on the consultants' contract in February 2001, building on the commitments set out in the NHS plan. These proposals, and the British Medical Association's proposals, form the basis of the negotiations currently taking place.
Our specific aims are to develop a system that gives better rewards to those who do most for the NHS, that gives proper recognition for the intensity of different working patterns, that makes better use of consultant time and effort, and that offers incentives and rewards to those who make a long-term commitment to the NHS.
The key elements of our proposals are a higher starting salary of £60,000, compared with the current salary of £51,000; additional pay thresholds that will take the basic

413
salary up to £80,000, depending on satisfactory performance; immediate access to a new and much more transparent awards scheme—replacing the current system of distinction awards and discretionary points—that will offer awards of up to £65,000 in addition to the basic salary; a new concept of phased careers, involving an initial phase of maximum patient contact and high-intensity working when people are at the beginning of their careers and have lots of energy, drive and enthusiasm; the scope to reduce work load intensity for more experienced consultants who might want to do other work or change their working patterns; and a new system of mandatory job planning, with annual job plan reviews. My hon. Friend made the important point that often NHS managers do not have available full information on what consultants are doing, and where, when and for whom they are doing it. A job planning system will make the process much more transparent.
A crucial part of the plan is an initial period of perhaps seven years during which newly appointed consultants would be restricted to working exclusively in the NHS. Following that initial period, there will be a choice of contractual arrangements, based on time and service commitments to the NHS. For NHS employers, such a contract will provide greater direct management of how a consultant's time is organised, and enable working together to design job plans. All activities will be programmed into that job plan, and an increased proportion of programmed consultant time will be devoted to direct clinical care. A clear restriction will be imposed on carrying out work for other organisations in NHS time, and the opportunity will exist to offer greater rewards for NHS service and good performance.
For consultants, the proposals offer a significant increase in pay and rewards, and better planning of their time. We recognise consultants' concerns about inability to plan work loads—particularly emergency work loads—into their job patterns. Indeed, the profession itself wants clarity in terms of its commitments. As I said, we want to ensure proper rewards and incentives in the system.
For new consultants, our proposals would provide 15 per cent. higher lifetime earnings than the current arrangements. After 12 years, the majority of existing consultants would be between 15 and 20 per cent. better off than under the current arrangements. The proposals offer a real incentive for maximising commitment to the national health service. For patients, better planning of consultant time will allow better use of staff, equipment and facilities, greater opportunity to plan the working day and shorter waiting times.
414
An intensive programme of negotiations is under way. They deal with job planning, organisation and timetabling of the working week, core working hours, the possibility of extended patient services, on-call and emergency work, starting salary, consultants' progression up the pay hierarchy, disciplinary arrangements and links to private practice.
I am pleased to say that good progress has been made, but some difficult issues still need to be resolved. We need to ensure that trusts and consultants work together to deliver the new contract and benefits for patients. Implementation has to be led by a strong programme of support and guidance, and we are working with the BMA to ensure that implementation can proceed smoothly, so that there are no disruptions to patients or staff.
This is the first fundamental overhaul of the consultants' contract since 1948, and we should not underestimate the work to be done. It is crucial that we get it right. We published our initial proposals in February 2001, and we have been working with the BMA since then to develop detailed proposals. Some tricky issues are involved, but we remain committed to seeing the negotiations through and improving the system.
Consultants throughout the NHS work very hard, and I understand that only 15 per cent. are on part-time contracts. Some choose such contracts for domestic reasons, and in order to have flexibility in their careers. We recognise that the vast majority of consultants work extremely hard for the NHS.
The current contract, largely unchanged for more than 50 years, is outdated. We are developing a new contract that will recognise consultants' contribution and also commitment to the NHS. We want to have a system in the future that is designed around the needs of patients, that recognises the skills that consultants bring to the service and that makes patients the driving force. That is not an easy task.
We are prepared to make a substantial investment in the right contract, and I have outlined the increases in pay and rewards that will be on offer for those who want to devote their time to working for the NHS. I am confident that we will have a package that will be seen as a major improvement on the current system and that will deliver the significant benefits we want to see for patients in the NHS. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham raised this important subject this evening and I welcome his support for the Government's proposals in the negotiations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Jim Cunningham: First, I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate, which is the third on Walsgrave hospital. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to get through what I want to say as quickly as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) has been held up because of a road accident, but he is definitely on his way here.
The debate has cross-party support and there is nothing political about it, as it involves the welfare and well-being of the people of Coventry. I shall be jumping in and out of the Commission for Health Improvement report; hon. Members will not want me to go through the whole thing and bore the heck out of them. We welcome the management and personnel changes and the management restructuring that have taken place at the hospital. We also welcome the fact that steps have been taken to implement the CHI report.
The impression has been given from time to time that we have been critical of the hospital staff. To the best of my knowledge, no hon. Member has criticised them. Indeed, we believe that they have done an excellent job in difficult conditions. According to my postbag, the public have always praised the medical treatment they received from the staff.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, why has there been a delay in publishing the CHI implementation report? We expected it in January, but it was not made available until March. I am at a loss to understand the reasons for that delay. Why was there a delay in signing the contracts for the new hospital? There might be a perfectly logical reason for that, but the people of Coventry would be worried if the project were delayed, because they are anxious to have a new hospital.
Hon. Members are aware that a number of concerns about the hospital have been raised over the years. For example, the style of management and the relationship between consultants and management is highlighted in the report. Another worry is the suspension of consultants, the cost of those suspensions and the loss of the consultants' skills for long periods. Legal redress has a financial cost. That money—thousands of pounds—could be recycled into the national health service, rather than being spent on long-winded procedures that try to gain someone redress and justice.
Then there is the general cost to the trust of the loss of good will. The CHI report touches on that when it mentions the relationship between consultants and previous management. Next is the question of how long it takes to deal with the suspensions. For example, not too long ago, in the case of a consultant in Coventry, it took up to two years. Those are long-winded
74WH
procedures. There is also a cost to individuals—to their self-esteem and pride. More important, the families also suffer, whatever the outcome, and they are often innocent. I hope that the Minister studies those procedures and speeds them up.
Over the past few weeks, another consultant has been suspended, although we cannot judge why. Again, however, the trust and the hospital have been denied the services of a top consultant in his field. There is concern about what is happening. The previous management suggested that they could not deal with some problems at the hospital because planning and programming the new hospital diverted their attentions. I do not know how true that claim is, but I certainly question it.
About two years ago, we had a problem with bed blocking. I became involved during the parliamentary recess. I readily acknowledge that we cannot simply blame the trust, because three agencies are involved, but the issue requires more attention. The three agencies cooperate as best they can on a problem that creates anxieties among families who, because of lack of cooperation or of social workers, must wait for relatives to be discharged from hospital. It is a difficult issue, but we must nevertheless tackle the concerns.
There has been a lack of consultation between the trust and local MPs about not only the new hospital, but matters of common concern, so I hope that efforts are made after the debate to involve local MPs much more. People know that we are in the business of trying to help the NHS, not of knocking it. My hon. Friends and I are concerned to work with the trust and the management locally to provide the best health service for the people of Coventry. That is what this is all about and why we have constantly raised those issues over the past two or three years.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister responds to another concern about consultants. When does whistleblowing become serious misconduct? I know one or two consultants who blew the whistle in the best interests of their hospital or trust, but found themselves charged with misconduct. I am sure that my hon. Friends know of similar instances. Where the charge is not misconduct, employers have invented a new charge of bullying. My hon. Friends know that the trade union movement has pushed for several years for something to be done about bullying, certainly in the classroom and the workplace. I have no evidence of this, but I would not like to think that employers are using the charge of bullying as a catch-all, just as some employers charge individuals with gross misconduct, which is a catch-all and very serious. We must give a lot of thought to the charge of bullying.
I recently introduced a ten-minute Bill based on the Kennedy report about Bristol. I thought that it would be useful to include two aspects of the report in my Bill, which is still proceeding through the House. For example, it provides for trusts to have two additional members or for two members to be designated with responsibility for upholding the public interest, regardless of what the trust may do. As I am sure my hon. Friends know, trusts have a dual function, which I want to remove. Again based on the Kennedy report, the second part of my Bill would allow facilities to be provided for staff to upgrade their skills after two or three years. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is considering that issue.

75WH
I welcome the CHI report's recommendations. CHI initially became involved as part of a routine review of the hospital's facilities between February and July 2001. The findings were published in September 2002. So far, I welcome the action taken by the trust to implement the CHI report, as I am sure my colleagues do, but there are still two areas of concern. Before I come to them, it is worth reminding the House that there were five initially: the practice of putting five beds in a four-bed bay, the high death rates for non-emergency admissions, the organisation of the emergency departments and the emergency assessment unit, the relationship between some consultant medical staff and senior managers, and the need to address current service problems.
Satisfactory progress has been made with the bedding bays, death rates for non-emergency admissions and the service problems, but progress on organising the accident and emergency departments is limited. The relationship between some staff needs improvement, a subject that I touched on earlier.
Outstanding problems are still to be resolved. Although progress has been made by the trust to ensure patient safety across the split site services, the agreement and implementation outlined in September has not occurred. Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on that in her winding-up speech? The trust has stated that it intends to implement one of the three structural solutions proposed by the external review, but CHI is concerned that the proposals are costly and that no priorities have been identified.
No contingency plans are in place should full funding for the changes not be available and CHI remains worried that only limited progress has been made between consultant medical staff and senior managers. Two clinical service teams have been found to have significantly dysfunctional working practices and some senior staff remain disengaged from management colleagues. The trust has proposed a new management structure to strengthen the role of clinical staff and has employed external teams to change management and build teamwork, but it is too early to evaluate the possible impact of that.
I welcome the changes made in the trust, especially the appointment of the new chairman, with whom I look forward to working, as I am sure my colleagues do. We should learn lessons from the CHI report, and I hope that there will be no need for more debates on Walsgrave hospital. We have never tried to tell anyone how to run a hospital, but we are certainly interested in the well-being of the hospital staff and consultants and, ultimately, the service delivered to the Coventry public. We should draw a line under the past and make a fresh start, so that we can all work together to provide the best medical facilities for the people of Coventry.
9.42 am
Mr. James Plaskitt: I am pleased to contribute to the debate, as I was regrettably unable to attend when Walsgrave was discussed in this Chamber previously. Although Walsgrave is not my local hospital—Warwick has a different district general hospital—what happens there is of considerable concern to my constituents and to me, as many of them are treated there.
76WH
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said. I have not had occasion to deal with complaints from my constituents on the clinical care that they have received in the hospital or the quality of work from its staff, but plenty of casework about what goes on at Walsgrave has been brought to me over the years and all the issues raise questions about management.
I use Warwick hospital in my constituency as a benchmark. It has had several management problems during the past few years, including considerable turbulence in management personnel, and we recently lost the chief executive as a result of questions about the management of figures supplied to the Department of Health. That turbulence has created great difficulties for the hospital but, throughout the period, not one clinician has said that they have lost confidence in its management.
In contrast, I received a petition signed by more than 80 clinicians at the Walsgrave, telling me that they have lost confidence in the management of the hospital. Clearly a serious state of affairs has been reached. I have received evidence not only from constituents, but in the form of the petition signed by clinicians, and I know of the concern of my colleagues who represent Coventry constituencies. I hear whispers and comments in the health community.
That is the background, but as a responsible Member one looks for objective assessment of what is happening. The report by the Commission for Health Improvement provides that, and it puts the problems into sharp focus. As colleagues have said, most alarm bells rung in the report are relevant to the way in which the place is being managed and run, but less relevant to the standards of clinical care. Yet although it is, in essence, a management issue that we are dealing with, there are clinical consequences and my concern is focused on that aspect.
By way of illustration, I want to raise the case of Mr. John Clifford, a resident of Lapworth in my constituency. In July 2000, he attended the surgery of his GP, who detected heart problems. Mr. Clifford was examined and it was discovered that he had a faulty aortic valve. He and his family were told that a replacement operation was required and that such operations have a 95 per cent. success rate. They were told of the importance of the operation being done within, ideally, six months.
Mr. Clifford was placed on a waiting list and he and his family were told that hopefully—that was the expression used—the operation would be done in or before April 2001. During 2001, Mr. Clifford's condition deteriorated. His GP contacted the hospital several times to urge that the operation be brought forward. The April 2001 deadline passed without a date for surgery being offered. In despair, the family contacted the Walsgrave again in October 2001. The consultant told Mr. Clifford that he would be seen within the next three to four weeks.
In November 2001, the family remained very concerned about Mr. Clifford's condition and contacted the hospital again. Because of their concern and the urgency of the case, they said that they would contemplate private treatment, only to be told that there was no point. Nothing would be gained by securing

77WH
private treatment, as Mr. Clifford was third on the list and his operation imminent. Yet by January 2002 a date for treatment still had not been given.
Mr. Clifford was very ill over Christmas and new year. Eventually, on 26 January, he was admitted as an emergency case to Warwick hospital. On 4 February, with Mr. Clifford in Warwick, the family received a letter signed by Mr. Loughton of the Walsgrave:
"I am pleased to inform you Mr. Clifford will be called to come into hospital for his surgery within the next few weeks. If for any reason this does not happen, Mr. Clifford will then be given the opportunity to utilise the private sector".
That came after the family had been told that there was no point in going private because he was third on the list. On 6 February, in a worsening condition, Mr. Clifford was transferred back to the Walsgrave hospital, where a consultant examined him, said that he was too ill to be operated on and told the family that he had missed his "window of opportunity". On 13 February, Mr. Clifford died.
The community health council is investigating the case, at my encouragement, and I understand that Mr. Richardson, head of communications at Walsgrave hospital, has told a local newspaper that an internal review of management procedures has taken place in order to examine what happened in Mr. Clifford's case. However, he has told us that the results will not be published. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether that is a common procedure, whether, in her view, it is acceptable and whether the Department can obtain the findings of that important inquiry, which the hospital seems unwilling to share?
I cite the tragic case of Mr. Clifford as an example of what can happen when a hospital has dysfunctional management. I therefore read the March update from CHI with considerable concern. It reviews progress following its earlier report, but still finds:
"Limited progress has been made by the trust to build effective working relationships between doctors and managers".
The clinical governance review found that
"relationships had broken down between some consultant medical staff and senior managers. In particular, some doctors did not feel safe to raise concerns about clinical risk."
It continues:
"CHI remains concerned about the limited progress in the area. CHI was particularly concerned that some senior medical staff remain disengaged from management colleagues. CHI found further evidence of two clinical teams with significantly dysfunctional team working."
Those are serious findings, and to have them reiterated in a follow-up visit by CHI is worrying. CHI says that the role of the trust board is vital in correcting the problems, and I am sure that we agree. It also says that the board has been strengthened by new members since the CHI clinical governance review, adding:
"There needs to be an ongoing commitment and recognition by the Board that these issues should he tackled."
That is an understatement—dysfunctional management and the breakdown in the relationship between management and clinicians contributed to the tragic outcome for my constituent, Mr. Clifford.
78WH
I cite a press release issued by the hospital on 11 March. It indulges in an element of self-congratulation based on Dr. Foster's independent hospital guide, which is available on the web and which I have checked. Walsgrave hospital receives a five-star rating—apparently not a bad evaluation—but even that guide points to problems in the cardiothoracic service and the high death rates at the hospital. I conclude by mentioning the guide and the Walsgrave's interpretation of it because Mr. Loughton concludes his press release by saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that
"no chief executive should be 'looking for the excuse book'".
Indeed they should be looking for the excuse book, given what has happened and what is still happening. There should be no hiding place. Will the Minister comment on what she thinks should happen to chief executives who have such a record on leaving their post? Should they pop up in due course, elsewhere in the national health service?
9.55 am
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful for an opportunity to take part. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on securing the debate and on introducing a ten-minute Bill. I also welcome the Minister, who is attending for the first time, I believe, one of our three Adjournment debates on matters relating to Walsgrave hospital. We are sure that she will give a lucid and serious reply to the deeply worrying concerns that remain in our minds despite the enormous step forward that has taken place since our previous meeting in this Chamber, when the Minister of State promised to take on board what we said. Since then, Mr. Loughton has handed in his resignation. Without any personal animosity, and respecting the proper limits on our privileges in this House, we regard that as an important step forward. However, ahead of that suspension, a further suspension took place, which is a cause of grave concern to us all. Let me say why.
In none of our criticisms in any of our Adjournment debates have we sought to speak other than wholly positively about the nurses and support staff at the hospital. This is purely a management issue. We believe that the performance of some consultants at Walsgrave has not been up to the standards that the national health service or the Department of Health would allow to continue if they knew the full facts.
In its second report, CHI emphasises that one key area in which great improvement is still necessary is working relationships between consultant staff and management. Now there has been a further suspension, that of Dr. Mattu, which is bound to be, at the very least, a setback to any improvement. We already know that there has been an initial meeting of the consultants at which a wide range of concerns were raised. The necessary signatures for an emergency debate were forthcoming and we shall be plunged back into exactly the same destabilising process that applied in the case of Mr. Barros D'Sa, which lasted over 20 months. Later, I shall say something about the time that suspensions take, because I am sure that the Minister finds that as unacceptable as I do, and I know that the Government are taking steps to accelerate the process.

79WH
The problem with the suspension of Dr. Mattu is that it is following exactly the same lines as that of Mr. Barros D'Sa. There is no hint of criticism of his professional competence. On the contrary, he is the top man in his field and he has an international and national reputation. I believe that he has given papers in north America, which, by any standard, leads in virtually all aspects of coronary care, diagnostic and surgical. In fact, Dr. Mattu is giving a paper there this very week.
We have a major national shortage of surgeons and doctors and the distinguished surgeon Sir Magdi Yacoub is scouring Europe and north America to recruit top surgeons and consultant cardiologists, but we, in our wisdom, have managed to suspend probably our top man in the field. That is worrying.
The same applied with Mr. Barros D'Sa. There was not the slightest hint of professional incompetence in his case. In addition, the charges are exactly the same—harassment and intimidation. I cannot take a view on those charges, and I do not expect the Minister to give us her view this morning, but I hope that she gives the matter her attention, because that would mean a lot to us in the circumstances.
The charges come from a junior doctor, who worked for Dr. Mattu and made a series of recriminations that, frankly, if boiled down to their essence, do not amount to much more than self-interested tittle-tattle motivated by the fact that he did not get everything that he wanted. There is a childish quality to the charges, which hardly merit a suspension when we so desperately need people such as Dr. Mattu.
One cardinal sin may have been committed: the complainant attacking Dr. Mattu alleges that he said that the incident might bring about the suspension or dismissal of Mr. Loughton. If that were a hanging charge, all the MPs here today would be suspended. Having some experience in such matters, I could advise my hon. Friends on how to handle it.
Dr. Mattu was one of 80 people involved. He did not simply say, alone in conversation with one of the junior staff, that there was a move to secure Mr. Loughton's resignation. Eighty people went public in a debate or ballot, and many of them went public outside the secret ballot to make it clear that they had no confidence in the chief executive. There was an open movement, backed by most of the surgeons, to achieve that very end. Therefore, the charge has no significance or seriousness.
There is another similarity with the whistleblowing incident in the case of Mr. Barros D'Sa. There was a terrible record of colorectal perinatal death rates at the Walsgrave, but that was not accepted. We raised it with the hospital management—I did so myself at a very early stage—but no action was taken until we received the Commission for Health Improvement report. Two steps have been taken since: a new colorectal specialist has been recruited and the surgeon whose performance was unacceptable no longer does that job, but it took us two years to get to that point.
Finally, thanks to CHI, we have eliminated the problem of having five beds in a four-bed room. Dr. Mattu made that point to me nearly two years ago, but nothing was done. I wrote to the management and I
80WH
wrote to David Loughton personally at least twice, telling him that the practice must change. Dr. Mattu was so forceful and confrontational on the subject that I felt that the very least I could do was write a letter, or he would perceive the fault as mine.
Dr. Mattu is that sort of person— he cares deeply, and I can see how that might upset people, but that is no reason for suspension. He may be a little to blame for the fact that personal relationships between him and his staff in the department are not perfect, but knocking heads together—including Dr. Mattu's, if required—is the right strategy. We should not have to go through a lengthy and costly suspension procedure that also seems to me, although I pass no final judgment on it, to be of questionable necessity.
In passing, I address the question of Mr. Loughton's resignation. I ask respectfully what the redundancy arrangements will be. Will there be severance pay or will he move to another position in the NHS? The Minister may not be able to give an answer this morning, but the people of Coventry have a considerable interest in knowing what is going to happen.
I address two other aspects of the suspension procedure in respect of Dr. Mattu. I am not sure what guidelines are set down by the Minister or the NHS executive, but the process followed in this case is unacceptable and smacks of the arrest procedures characteristic of a communist or fascist dictatorship. The Minister is bound to refer to the fact that the relevant letter was signed by the medical director, but it would be naive of any of us to imagine that the hand of Mr. Loughton was not behind it.
I can assure the Minister that Mr. Loughton has been boasting to other senior consultants and consultant representatives, some of whom he probably thought would be favourable to Dr. Mattu. Mr. Loughton has assured them that the matter has gone to the highest level in the national health service—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the one hand and the chief medical officer on the other—and that everyone is wasting their time opposing it, almost as if the outcome is prejudged and the suspension not a neutral act as it was meant to be.
David Loughton is leaving now and we can speak with a frankness that may not have been possible before. At public meetings, he let it be known to consultants and others in the hospital that he had a hit list of five people whom he was going to get rid of before he left, by suspension or some other method. We have all heard that and we believe what we hear when it comes from reliable sources who have heard it from the horse's mouth. Perhaps that was his parting shot. Nothing that can be said about the action in question will do other than convince me and, I think, my hon. Friends that it was inspired by David Loughton.
The manner of Dr. Mattu's suspension is unacceptable. Two people—the medical director and deputy personnel director—banged on his door and demanded entry. He let them in and they made it clear what they were about. He said that he had the right to be represented, but they questioned the need for representation. Dr. Mattu had no forewarning. There was no prior discussion, airing of grievances or attempt at conciliation with the parties involved. It is almost as if people wanted to provoke the incident. Dr. Mattu was

81WH
shown to the door and marched off the premises. He was not allowed to take his computer, which was his own. The locks on his door were changed and the details on his floppy disk, or whatever was in the computer, impounded by NHS staff, who I understand had nothing better to do than start transcribing the whole lot to see what they might find out about him.
That gives my hon. Friend the Minister an idea of the way in which the process can be conducted and the military behaviour of the management, and I hope that she is reassured that the steps that we have taken—bringing those matters to this place three times—have not been taken lightly. We are pleased that the chief executive has gone, but, following his last throw of the dice, we must pick up the pieces.
Another important point is the sheer length of these suspensions. I know that the Department has published a new notice, probably at the Minister's initiative, insisting that dealing with such cases should be speeded up and suggesting the manner in which that could be achieved. I raise the issue because another surgeon at the hospital, Miss Briony Ackroyd, has been suspended for, I think, more than two years. It is not acceptable that suspensions are allowed to last so long at enormous cost. That is the bizarre aspect. I believe that it costs the best part of £400,000 or perhaps £500,000 to deny the people of Coventry the services of such a good surgeon.
Similarly, Raj Mattu is a top-flight surgeon—the best in his category. There is great need and we are trying to recruit people from abroad, but he may be out for up to two years for harassing or having a set-to with some of his junior staff. We all have those problems, but we sort them out. I can remember similar incidents in the Department where I worked. We had rows and yelled at one another, but we knocked heads together and solved the problems ourselves. That is what this is about.
When the Minister reads the charges levelled at Raj Mattu, she will see that this is nothing but a case of people falling out and saying things in the heat of the moment that they should not have said. The top man has been suspended, however, which is nothing short of crazy.
I hope that my remarks are sufficiently clear, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered the overall issue and where the case of Briony Ackroyd stands. I know that Miss Ackroyd would like the matter to be resolved. There are too many questions for the Minister to deal with today, but I have utter confidence that she will answer them. We are pleased to see her in her place.
10.9 am
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on securing the debate about the situation at Walsgrave hospital and on gaining Mr. Speaker's consent to another discussion of a subject that so concerns us.
This is the third debate on Walsgrave. The last one involved seven hon. Members in an unprecedented display of concern following publication of the initial Commission for Health Improvement report. The situation is not new. It did not suddenly develop last year after publication of the report, but has been developing in the management and the culture of the hospital for probably more than a decade. In recent
82WH
months, especially following publication of the report, the public and hon. Members who represent them realised that they could not allow the culture that had developed in the hospital to continue to cause these problems. Public confidence in the delivery of NHS services in our area was being increasingly damaged, and the CHI report was the last straw. All the MPs who represent constituencies in the area had to take a stand.
The problem at Walsgrave is clearly dysfunctional management. The clinical staff, senior consultants, nurses and those who support them have all worked enormously hard to deliver good quality medical care to patients, but they have been handicapped by the quality of organisation that is supposed to run the hospital. We must restore public confidence and make it clear that the staff have been doing a tremendous job, despite the handicaps that they face.
It is time for a new start and a new culture. We no longer need the Thatcherite approach to management, if I may describe it like that—management by diktat from the top, whereby an individual decides to run things as he thinks appropriate without consulting others who work with him. For a time, a weak management board allowed the chief executive, David Loughton, to carry on in such a manner, but we have the opportunity to make progress with the public-private partnership that the Government have approved and prospects at the hospital are brighter.
The new culture, the new hospital building that the public-private partnership will produce and the development of the new teaching hospital plans will all enable us to paint a bright picture for the future of Walsgrave. That should start to restore confidence that not only are there good workers at the hospital, but there is the prospect of good management and delivery of a first-class service.
The most recent CHI report still fills us with concern. On the five key issues, the action plan shows some improvement in some areas. On reducing the number of beds in bays from five to four, the first CHI report expressed concern that five-bed bays put patients in danger, despite the hard work that the staff put into caring for them. Some problems have been addressed and the response in the new report is satisfactory. Satisfactory progress has been made on analysis of death rates, but more work needs to be done.
Some progress has been made on organising care in the two accident and emergency departments and the emergency assessment unit, although it is unsatisfactory and more work must be done there. Inevitably, progress on rebuilding working relationships was limited while the chief executive, David Loughton, was in post. I hope that his decision to go enables those working relationships to be improved. Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned about references to the two clinical teams with significant dysfunctional teamworking, which the management must tackle.
There has been some satisfactory progress in dealing with the serious service problems, but, as my hon. Friends said, until there is a new building and better facilities can be provided to deliver services, the longterm problems will remain and will need constant vigilance by the new management. However, a new chief executive and the current chairman, Mr. Stoten, should be able to create a new culture and start to deliver further improvements.

83WH
I share my hon. Friends' anxieties about the disciplining of consultants at Walsgrave hospital, which must change. There must be a more sensible, and faster, approach to the matter, but it is not the consultants' job to run hospitals. NHS management is given the responsibility of running hospitals on behalf of the public. However, it is the responsibility of those who provide patient care to inform their Members of Parliament and other public representatives if problems arise, and they must be able to do so.
I want the Minister's assurance that if consultants have serious anxieties about care in a hospital such as Walsgrave, they will be able to take that concern to their Member of Parliament. There should be no restriction on them doing so, such as a disciplinary obligation on consultants to go through a certain procedure before talking to their MP. The NHS is a public service and Members of Parliament are responsible for ensuring that it is delivered. If there is a concern, I should be able to bring it to the Minister's attention and consultants should be able to talk to their MP.
Mr. Robinson: May I reassure my hon. Friend that in my experience of dealing with consultants, none of them wanted to run the hospital? They wanted the hospital to be run properly and in respect of clinical care, for example, they did not want five beds in rooms designed for four. They felt that surgeons whose perioperative fatality rate was far too high should not be retained and they were worried that in a four-year period Coventry had almost the worst record in artery and valve heart surgery. Those are the concerns that consultants brought to my attention.
Mr. O'Brien: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Consultants do not appear to be seeking to run the hospital, but it is right to make it clear that a public service must be delivered, and managers are employed in the NHS to do that. Consultants should also look to themselves and develop a culture in which they can work with the new management at Walsgrave hospital.
I do not want to have to go to the electorate in three or four years and face public expressions of concern about how the hospital is run. The problems must be sorted out now. I hope that everyone at the hospital pulls together and I am sure that they will. I am pleased that the new chairman is prepared to come to grips and I hope that he continues to address the issues seriously.
The Government's decision to franchise the chief executive's post struck me as odd. I can see why a Minister might decide to franchise the whole team, but I cannot understand the decision to franchise, from within the NHS, only that one post. Why was it taken? I am not sure what difference it will make, as it only delays the appointment of a chief executive by obliging a franchising procedure to be carried out, although there may be a good and logical reason for doing so.
Why was the team not franchised? I am not advocating franchising, however, as I do not think it necessary. The best approach would have been to carry on and appoint a new chief executive from within the NHS. A limited number of people can apply, as probably only a handful have the necessary experience
84WH
of running a very large hospital. Considering the numbers, I do not think that franchising will make a difference.
No doubt the Minister has a reason for taking that course of action; I am merely curious about it. Perhaps it is a way to express concern that things have reached a pretty bad pass in the management of the hospital and to show that she wants fundamental change. If that is the case, I accept it. The board, by and large, is new. Many senior management posts in the hospital are acting or are held by new people. We are getting a new management team in anyway, which is good. The objective must be to restore confidence, and I am sure that we can do that.
10.20 am
Andy King: I shall keep my remarks brief because, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have been here three times already.
The people of Rugby feel that Mr. Loughton should not have been allowed to resign, but should have been removed much earlier. They, and the people of Coventry, would have suffered far less if that had happened. The report points out some improvements. There certainly have been some improvements since the arrival of the new chairman, and I feel much more positive about the future, especially since we heard the good news of Mr. Loughton's departure. What concerns the people of Rugby. however, is that he seems to be hanging around for a considerable period. We want him to go as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend said, the people want to know that he will not walk away with some handsome package into another top job somewhere else. We must not be seen to reward someone who has not done the job that he was paid to do—delivering the best quality services.
CHI is doing an excellent job. The whole purpose is to ensure, through clinical governance, that people receive the highest possible quality of service. I am sure that my hon. Friends have shared my experience. Constituents come to me regularly, with details that defy belief and reason, about the way in which they have been treated when they have gone to Coventry and Warwickshire hospitals.
The following examples date from after the first CHI report. In November a constituent took his wife, who was 23 weeks pregnant, had stomach cramps and was bleeding, to Walsgrave hospital. He said that the labour ward could only be described as prehistoric. It was cold and dirty, the wallpaper was peeling and the floor coverings were taped together.
Another constituent with varicose veins was seen by four different consultants. Some were in the same department; others were in different departments. On every occasion her notes were missing. Staff had no idea why she had been referred. Internal communications between departments were non-existent.
When another constituent took her son to Walsgrave, he was moved to 10 different beds in 15 days. To add insult to injury, when he returned to St. Cross in Rugby by ambulance, the staff did not know that he was arriving. That tells a terrible tale of incompetent management in life-threatening situations, which must not be allowed to continue.

85WH
The second CHI report called for significant improvements in those five areas. I am delighted that it found it impossible to paper over the cracks and give the impression that those significant improvements had taken place, because, as was rightly pointed out, the core of the problem was poor management and the dreadful culture that persisted in the hospital. As the report said, that problem must be tackled and those cultural changes must take place. We know that it takes time to change a culture, but unless that happens, we will be in the same cycle in the years ahead. As representatives of the people of Coventry and Warwickshire, we cannot stand by and watch. The future is positive, and I look forward to seeing the new chief executive in post. I wish him well—[Interruption.] I apologise; I wish whoever is in post well. be it him or her. Whoever it is, they will need all the support that can be given to them.
I have already arranged a meeting in May with staff representatives and the chairman, and I intend to ensure that such meetings take place regularly. I have met several consultants and found them to be committed people who are determined to deliver the best quality services that they can. I appreciate the hard work that the Minister has done to help, especially those in Rugby, as we were taken over by the Walsgrave hospital. I thank her for her assistance in ensuring and safeguarding the local hospital services for my constituents in Rugby.
10.28 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution, Mr. O'Brien. I am not, I believe, the only speaker not to have been present from the start of the debate, and I have been present at every stage of the battle to get justice done for our constituents. My constituent, Simon Standley, alerted me to the problem after he suffered a failed renal transplant at the Walsgrave hospital, and I speak with him very much in mind. He was there for four and a half months, and was able to observe at close quarters the profound problems that were later identified in the CHI report.
At Mr. Standley's request, I shall return to the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). Something is awry in the unfair way in which the whistleblowers were dealt with at the hospital. I speak with the consultant Mr. Barros D'Sa in mind, and also on behalf of the cardiologist Mr. Raj Mattu. When the whistle was blown, the management wanted to suspend Raj Mattu, who had been brought in to solve the problems in the department. Ultimately, the suspension was dealt with by the medical director, which is the correct procedure. However, his suspension will be overseen by the chairman and chief executive who originally called for that suspension, which represents a conflict of interest. The cardiologist holds strong views, as one would expect of a person brought in to troubleshoot a department and get things done. I wished to raise that issue with the Minister, and I shall confine my remarks to that remaining injustice. I look forward to her comments in response to the wider issues raised by colleagues.
10.30 am
Dr. Evan Harris: This has been a serious debate and has raised serious issues. Although some hon. Members are veterans on this
86WH
subject, this is my first venture into it, so I will be cautious. My experience is of management and consultant conflict in the cardiac unit at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, which has experienced similar problems, although not as deep as those at Walsgrave hospital.
The problem has been going on for a long time, and hon. Members with local constituencies have deeper knowledge of the situation, so it would be inappropriate for a Front-Bench spokesman such as myself to go into such detail. Hon. Members have demonstrated that when seven or eight of them act in concert—they have been able to have three debates on this subject so far—they can bring a great deal of experience, wisdom and insight to an issue, as well as bringing pressure to bear on their local trust in order to effect change. Both the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who secured the debate, and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) deserve praise and applause for their assiduousness in bringing forward such matters.
I wish to draw out some of the questions regarding the wider issue of performance indicators, and how useful they are compared with Commission for Health Improvement reports. I shall also comment on the franchising process mentioned by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and discuss whistleblowing.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South rightly struck a positive note when introducing the debate by welcoming the role of the Commission for Health Improvement, as well as its involvement and follow-up report, and the management change. He was at pains to point out that he and many other commentators on this subject are not generally criticising the staff at any level, which is important to mention. Although some appraisals of hospital performance are valid, I contend that some are not, and they may have a negative impact on morale at a time when retention and recruitment are critical in terms of capacity and quality of care.
Among his concerns, the hon. Member for Coventry, South identified management style—a point that has resonated throughout the debate—and the relationship between consultants and managers. It is important to make clear, as did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that consultants do not, and should not, want to run hospitals. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) said that, in his experience, the consultants in his area did not wish to run hospitals. However, in my experience, people with a lifetime involvement in a hospital do not necessarily embrace changes that may weaken their power. That is not always a bad thing, although some may describe it as a wrecking attitude. Nevertheless, we must recognise that the balance of power should shift away from senior consultants in hospitals. Most of them understand that, although of course we should note that some do not, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire pointed out.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I would not like the idea to get around that any of the three consultants mentioned in my contribution had that sort of problem. They are certainly not resistant to change. They have problems

87WH
because their changes are resisted by management—changes that would be wholly to the good in terms of improving health care.
Dr. Harris: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and stress that my remarks are general.
The costs incurred through the loss of consultant input from those suspended, the number of consultants suspended and the time for which they are suspended have been raised many times. This is a further reminder that procedures must be speeded up. It is difficult to say that no people who are under investigation should ever be suspended, because if a complaint is made, it is difficult for someone to come out as a whistleblower if they must work with the person against whom serious allegations have been made. Speed of process will be important.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said that he had heard no complaints about clinical care per se, and that complaints were mainly about management. It is important to stress that—although the two things are connected.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to a petition from 80 clinicians. We must be careful about sacking by petition, because many politicians—and, indeed, Governments—would be in deep trouble on that basis. He was right to say that the Commission for Health Improvement report—an independent report following an in-depth study—was helpful. The inspection was routine, and it was fortuitous that it happened. Going back was also important.
The hon. Gentleman related well the striking and tragic case of his former constituent, Mr. Clifford. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions without hearing the other side of the argument—there usually is another side—one cannot get away from the fact that that gentleman was first told that he needed a relatively urgent operation in July 2000, yet more than 18 months later he still had not had it. The point is that he needed his operation within six months. If patients who have waited longer but whose cases are less urgent are prioritised, which is the risk with maximum waiting times, there is a danger there will be less political focus on others. Mr. Clifford had been waiting almost 18 months when he underwent his tragic emergency admission. A lesson must be learned about the need for admission to be governed by clinical priority—and, of course, about the need for sufficient capacity.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West made a refreshing speech; characteristically, no holds were barred, and he spoke with his usual candour. He gave his view on the allegations against the suspended consultant, although he was careful to say that he was not making a final judgment. There is an issue about temptation, because we know that people might give a view that did not take account of the junior doctor's difficulties in the case in question. I do not want to be drawn on details because I accept that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of them is greater than mine. However, speaking generally from my experience as a spokesperson for junior doctors, I know the number of times that I was approached by junior doctors who said that they were terrified of making any complaint
88WH
because they feared that it would be seen as a spat between two equals. The power structure between a consultant and a junior is very different, because a junior doctor relies on a consultant for his or her reference. The sooner we move to a system of open references, the better.
As the hon. Member for Meriden said, there is a balance between whether there should be maximum freedom for whistleblowing from the outset or whether trusts are right to have procedures whereby people approach problems internally first. In the Labour Government's first term, they said that they would get rid of gagging clauses. However, my experience—and, I think, that of other hon. Members—shows that staff are still scared to speak to their Members of Parliament. That point was made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked a good question about why franchising, rather than advertising, is being used for the post, given that the Government are restricting applications to those from within the NHS. I suspect that that is because franchising is a new policy for which the Government can take credit, by definition, because they invented the term. Hospitals that are doing badly can only do better. When they do better with a new manager, the Government will say that that is a direct result of franchising, rather than of the new manager.
Finally, I must mention performance indicators. The Sunday Express set out the position by pointing out that there are three sets of performance indicators in use at once. The star rating system was slammed by health service journals and others as irrational and subject to fiddling. It causes the distortion of resource allocations and clinical priorities, and measures such things as capacity, over which hospitals have little control. Further indicators are the Dr. Foster ratings and the CHI report. All the indicators drew very different conclusions about the hospital. John Richardson, a spokesman for the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust, said that the naming of the hospital as a poorly performing trust was catastrophically damaging to its staff and unduly worrying to its patients.
That was not said about the CHI report, which allows the press to go into the detail of the specific allegations and to see that the concerns are not mainly clinical but are about some of the broad-ranging performance indicator systems that are being used, such as the Government's performance indicator. There is an element of blame shifting in the system; we must be aware of that.
Someone referred to the Secretary of State's comment that no chief executive should be looking for the excuse book. That message could come back to haunt the political chief executive of the NHS, because in the end, the proper performance of hospitals is a matter for the politicians.
10.40 am
Mr. Simon Burns: Like other hon. Members, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on bringing this important debate before the House of Commons yet again. Its importance is highlighted by the presence of so

89WH
many Labour Members who represent constituencies that are directly affected, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The debate is important because—not unnaturally or unreasonably—hon. Members want to secure the best health care for the communities in their constituencies.
In Walsgrave hospital, we have seen the high standards of health care that we and our fellow citizens expect unravel for far too long, and now they have completely collapsed. It is important to repeat what many hon. Members have said: we are not criticising the dedicated staff who work in that trust and that hospital. What has happened in that hospital has been described by many hon. Members both in this debate and in the past: the trust has a dysfunctional management team, and that has caused many critical problems with the provision of health care in what should be a first-class hospital offering first class patient care to the people of Coventry and the surrounding area. For far too long, it has been blighted by a series of ongoing disputes. They have torn the hospital apart. Consultants have, in effect, been at war with the senior management, and especially with the chief executive. That has resulted in a dismal level of health care and patient care, which led the hospital to receive a zero star rating in the league tables issued in late 2001.
The hospital has been riven by suspensions of consultants, resignations, bullying, low morale and a desperate atmosphere of suspicion, tension and recrimination. In short, the atmosphere and conditions in which people have had to work, and which patients have had to put up with, are poisonous. That has led to low morale among the patients and the staff, who have had to do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the damaging CHI report, which makes for shocking reading. Its criticisms of the hospital—which should be a centre of excellence for local health care—are convincing and damning. It states that the trust scores significantly higher than the national average for the percentage of patients readmitted within 28 days of being discharged, and for the percentage of non-emergency admissions who die within 30 days. Overall, the hospital's comparative death-rate score is 14 per cent. higher than the national average for emergency admissions, and a staggering 60 per cent. higher for non-emergency admissions.
Many critical areas of the hospital have suffered from overcrowding. We have heard from hon. Members the example of the five beds in the four-bay wards. The CHI report also condemned the level of cleanliness; it said that some areas were dirty, unhygienic and unkempt. That is in a hospital, where one would expect cleanliness to be so good that one could—metaphorically—eat off the floor. That was not the case at Walsgrave.
The CHI report contains 68 individual criticisms or areas in which action is called for. Perhaps the most important, in the context of the breakdown of confidence between the consultants and the chief executive, is about the relationship between senior management and staff—that senior staff felt isolated, disempowered and undervalued.
90WH
CHI's action plan says:
"Clinical Risk Management is seriously undermined by some senior clinical staff feeling intimidated and threatened by senior managers when reporting concerns about clinical practice".
I find that a staggering complaint to be levelled at the management of a national health service hospital in this day and age. The report continues:
"Confidence, communications and relationships between some senior medical staff and senior managers need to be restored in order to develop effective working relationships."
That is an equally damning indictment, but what I find worrying is that CHI's follow-up comments about areas in which there is a need to restore trust and heal the breach between consultants and management make it clear that not enough is being done fast enough to allow the hospital to move forward rather than be constantly tainted and affected by what has happened in the past.
With that breakdown in communications, it is hardly surprising that 66 per cent. of the senior medical staff have, in effect, passed a motion of no confidence in their chief executive. Looking at that fairly superficially, I would think that it is unheard of in the NHS, and must be a key indicator that something is very wrong. The situation has been going on far too long; it is a total mess.
The chief executive, David Loughton, seems to have been the cause and catalyst of many of the problems that have emerged in the hospital, through his management style, his high-handedness and his actions. His suspension of surgeons such as Mr. Barros D'Sa and Mr. Raj Mattu seems incomprehensible, and gives credence to the accusations that his management style was based on bullying and intimidation. That is a deeply flawed management style that is not needed, and should not be welcome, in the national health service.
Mr. Loughton has now announced that he is leaving the post, although I understand that he may not do so for up to six months from 6 March, when he made that announcement. In the light of that, I have several questions for the Minister, and I would appreciate it if she could give specific answers—if not in this debate, by writing to me.
Did Mr. Loughton genuinely resign, or was he pushed? Why has he been allowed to remain in post for such a long time, given what we have seen, given the zero rating of the hospital under the Government's system of tables, given the damning indictment in the CHI report and the criticisms that hon. Members have made to Ministers over a long period? It was quite clear that something was wrong with the hospital and the trust. When Mr. Loughton had lost the confidence of a significant number of the medical staff with whom he had to work, and the trust's performance was so poor, why was he able to survive for so long, when such positions as his are critical in assuring the highest performance of this country's trusts and hospitals?
Can the Minister provide a financial figure for what the suspension of consultants, which carried on for so long because the system to resolve the problems that caused them was long-drawn-out and complicated, has cost the health service, and thus the provision of health care?
I should also be grateful to know why Mr. Loughton remained in post once the CHI report, which damningly highlighted many problems and showed the need for

91WH
action, was published. In other parts of the world, such as business—although I accept that a hospital is not a business—if the chief executive were presiding over such calamity and failure they would have gone long ago. I should also be interested to know what the Government and the Department of Health have been doing about that sad saga, and why they did not do more to bring those problems to an end.
Finally, with the departure of Mr. Loughton, I too should like to know whether he is to be moved on to another job within the health service. To be fair, that has been common practice in the health service by Governments of all political parties, regardless of how poor performance has been. Will he leave the health service—which would be a blessing for it—and be paid off with a financial package of cash and pension rights? If someone is responsible, or seemingly responsible, for completely ruining a trust and the provision of health care in an area, it adds insult to injury for the patients and staff who have had to put up with and work in those conditions if the person who seems to have caused them is handsomely rewarded financially.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on securing a debate on the progress in implementing the clinical governance action plan at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust, and in particular on the issues at the Walsgrave hospital.
My colleagues and I are fully aware of the concerns that have been raised locally and the issues highlighted in the CHI report. Those issues are of great concern to people in the area who need to use health care services in Coventry. Obviously, I appreciate how strongly hon. Members in that area feel, and over time they have raised those issues in Parliament and with Ministers. All the hon. Members who have spoken have made clear their support for both the excellent work being done by many of the clinical staff at the trust, and the care that is very often provided for patients. As we discuss the concerns that have been raised, it is important to acknowledge that.
The Commission for Health Improvement's rolling programme of clinical governance reviews began in 2000, and it examined the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust in February 2001. During the review, CHI examined the clinical governance structure within the trust, taking the views of patients, staff and local partner organisations. As hon. Members have mentioned, the report, which highlighted five areas requiring immediate attention, was published last September. The areas requiring attention were the practice of placing additional beds in bays not designed for that purpose; the need for a review and analysis of mortality rates for non-emergency admissions; the organisation of care between the two accident and emergency departments and the emergency assessment unit; the relationships between some consultant medical staff and senior managers when concerns about clinical risk were raised; and the need to address current service problems.
92WH
Hon. Members will be aware that as a result of the CHI report the trust was awarded a zero star rating in the NHS performance ratings in September 2001. Accordingly, the trust's chief executive was given three months' notice to achieve satisfactory performance improvements in those five areas. It is worth pointing out that that is the first time we have had a proper procedure that flags up such problems and provides both an independent external assessment and a proper process for developing action plans. Where such problems are not likely to be dealt with, they can be turned round by new procedures for bringing in alternative management and arrangements. Those sorts of procedures are now available in the NHS for the first time. They are extremely important, and have been critical in handling the issues at Walsgrave hospital.
The trust's work in developing its action plan was extensive. Its staff have worked hard, not only in the areas identified by CHI, and on 22 and 23 January this year CHI assessed progress against the five major areas of concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South asked whether there was a delay in the implementation of the report. I understand that the report was always intended to be issued about eight weeks after the visit, so it was always expected in March.
CHI observed that some progress had been made, especially on problems such as a fifth bed in four-bedded bays. Satisfactory progress has been made in analysing mortality rates and identifying a programme of developments, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, more work needs to be done. Some progress has been made to accident and emergency services, limited progress has been made in addressing poor relationships between medical staff and managers. and satisfactory progress has been made on current service developments.
In summary, the trust has made satisfactory progress in three of the five areas, but limited progress in two areas. The commission noted some improvements but, as hon. Members have made clear, it continued to raise concern about the working relationships between some doctors and managers of the trust, and in some teams. As a result, it was decided to franchise the management of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. An advertisement will be placed next week to seek a high calibre chief executive to take the agenda forward, with the continued support and direction of the chairman.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire asked why we are using franchising instead of reappointment. The process of franchising is only for trusts that are zero rated, to signal the need for broad and substantial change to solve their problems. It builds change into the process of appointment, with the development of action plans to turn the trust round, and franchise plans on how the key issues will be addressed by an incoming chief executive. Trusts can appoint experienced NHS leaders who have already been appointed elsewhere in the service. There are various differences, and I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend about the significance of franchising.
Several hon. members have spoken about the suspended consultants. They will be aware that it is difficult for me to comment in detail on individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) referred to Miss Ackroyd, whose case is

93WH
awaiting the outcome of an inquiry by the General Medical Council. Other hon. Members referred to the recent case of Mr. Mattu, which is being examined internally by the trust. It is important to say that the suspension of an employee is a neutral act and does not prejudge the outcome of a case. All the cases are subject to detailed procedures under health service guidance issued in 1990, and employment law. I share the concern that the procedures take too long. It is not acceptable for cases to drag on, often at great cost to employer, employee and the health service.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson rose—
Yvette Cooper: I am tight for time, so I shall not take interventions.
We are introducing improvements to speed up cases, including the establishment of the National Clinical Assessment Authority, and an extensive review, involving medical and professional organisations, to try to speed up the processes and improve the care of patients.
Hon. Members have also expressed concern about whistleblowing. All trusts are required to introduce procedures so that staff at all levels can raise matters of concern without fear of retribution. It is critical that they should be able to do so through existing line management. If necessary, however, they should be able to bypass management arrangements. It is also important that people should be able to talk to their Members of Parliament. As so many hon. Members have raised that matter, I shall examine it further in the local area.
I shall also examine the tragic case of Mr. Clifford, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) raised. Obviously, it will be little consolation to the family to have the matter investigated now, but I am keen to look into it further and get back to my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members have also raised a series of further questions to which, unfortunately, I have not had time to respond. I hope that I shall be able to reply to them later, and I undertake to write to all hon. Members about the additional points that they have made. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, and, like other hon. Members, I strongly want improvements to be made in their local trust. We now have in place a system to deliver those improvements, and to flag up problems when they arise. That is right. As hon. Members have said, we can now move forward, improve care and look to a new future for the local community.

Age Discrimination
11 am
Hywel Williams: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate age discrimination. This is a timely debate, particularly given that the Government are consulting on the equal treatment directive. That consultation will conclude at the end of this month.
Last Saturday, at Plaid Cymru's spring conference, I chaired a meeting with Age Concern Cymru at which the latest version of the pensioners' manifesto for Wales was launched. Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that the fourth of 12 points in the manifesto is a call for legislation to make discrimination on the grounds of age illegal. That is a live and important issue for older people, as it should be for us all as we face the prospect of growing older—some more than others. I was proud to associate my party and myself with that call for an end to age discrimination, particularly given the salience of the issue in Wales, where a large proportion of the population is over retirement age, and in some areas the figure is extremely high.
I am gratified that hon. Members from other parties who have a long-standing interest in this matter hope to speak in the debate. I supported the Age Equality Commission Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I am glad to pay tribute to her hard work on the issue, and, like others, I was disappointed when the Bill was withdrawn.
Yesterday, I was glad to associate my party and myself with a ten-minute Bill on age discrimination, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) introduced. Both he and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne are present, and I trust that they will elaborate further on their arguments with their usual eloquence, should they be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. O'Brien.
As someone in the middle years of life, I am beginning to understand the Welsh adage: yr hen a wyr, yr ifainc a dybia—the young suppose, the old know. What is it that the old know? They know that age discrimination is an all-too-real aspect of their everyday lives. An ICM poll for Age Concern found that nearly one person in three knows someone who has been the victim of age discrimination at work. Seventy per cent. of the population believe that ageism still occurs, and the public overwhelmingly believe that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their age.
I know that other hon. Members will discuss other aspects of age discrimination, but I shall make some general comments before moving on to employment issues.
In preparing for the debate, I asked a few constituents for examples of age discrimination. They readily responded, and just a few examples will suffice. As regards health, a patient was told that she was too old to have cervical screening, even though she had specifically requested it. Someone who was recovering from a heart attack said that she was not given access to the rehabilitation services, including dietary advice, that a younger person would have received. She was told off the record that resources were rationed by age, and that was her perception.

95WH
As regards the provision of care, it is too easily assumed that residential care is the appropriate response to the needs of the older person. From my experience in social work and in social work education and training, I know full well that there is a strong move towards care in the community for older people. I am also aware that young people might be maintained in the community as a common-sense strategy, while older people might be admitted to residential care as a matter of common sense. I also have family experience of the value of the independent living fund's support in maintaining younger people with a disability in the home—with the valuable help of the social services and of the voluntary organisations. Would that that support were available to the same degree for older people for whom, too often, the assumption is that residential care is the proper option. We need to shift from this common sense of what is appropriate care to assessing individuals and their needs.
In many areas of Wales, health and care services are not available through the medium of Welsh. That is significant, given the greater proportion of older people making use of such services. For example, the Stroke Association points to the effect of a stroke on language ability; people might lose their ability in their second language. Services in the medium of Welsh might not be available in southern and eastern urban areas, even though the person has no choice but to use his or her first language. That counts as indirect discrimination.
I have a further short example. Last week, I met someone who had applied for motor insurance. She faced a 400 per cent. increase in the cost of her premium. The reason that she was given for the jump was her age—she is over 75. She is a very active person and a student in higher education—so much for assumptions about the capacity of older people—and I understand that she is also a very good driver.
Turning to employment issues, older employees are valued by far-sighted and clear-thinking employers for their commitment. their experience and their skills with people.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When I was a youngster, I was an articled clerk to a person of retirement age. He taught me everything that I know about being a lawyer.
Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have met his former colleague, who is as spry as he ever was, and now in his 90s, I understand. Older employees are valued by their employers for their commitment, skills and experience. It is well known that B&Q employs older people—the effect of that policy has been to reduce its staff turnover by 60 per cent. and absenteeism by 39 per cent., so continuing the employment of older workers can be good for employers. However, employers often assume that age implies the existence of other characteristics—it is a proxy for poor health and the lack of flexibility in the workplace, or a lower capacity for work. Those assumptions are not based on the individual's health or work record, nor even on the record of older workers as a group, but they are influential assumptions.
96WH
I hope that the House will forgive me for introducing this thought about assumptions. It has stuck with me since a friend inflicted it upon me and I cannot shake it off. To assume something is to be in danger of making an "ass" out of "u" and "me". The message is that we should assume nothing. People should not be treated as asses; certainly the law should not be one.
The age discrimination that is faced by many workers often leads them to feel that their right to work is less certain than that of other employees. Their commitment might be sapped, their experience disregarded and their skills with people undervalued—those are real problems for older workers. However, the Employers Forum on Age reports that 55 per cent. of managers admit to using age as a criterion for recruitment, and a third have not heard of the voluntary 1999 code of practice on age diversity in employment.
During a debate on the Employment Bill, I raised a point about the unfair dismissal of people aged over 65. Many people find retirement to be a time of freedom and opportunity. Their right to choose to retire should be protected. Others, however, want to work into later life. That is an entirely laudable desire; they want to maintain their networks of colleagues and friends and they want, and need, to maintain their incomes by earning money for work done. That, too, is laudable. An increase in the percentage—8 per cent., according to the labour force survey in spring 2001—of people over 65 continuing to work, perhaps part-time, makes a lot of plain common sense. It can be good for employers and employees. Is it therefore reasonable to maintain a mandatory retirement age. and is it not unacceptable to remark on the financial burden that older people allegedly present while insisting on a mandatory retirement age? Older people should have a proper choice to continue working if they want to.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Is it not ironic that this House, which legislates on matters such as a mandatory retirement age. benefits most from the contribution of people who have passed that age?
Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting point. I have been impressed, as I mentioned earlier, by the clarity and incisiveness of the contributions of people who might in other situations be regarded as beyond working age—or perhaps even as being on the scrap heap.
A significant aspect of age discrimination is the age limit of 65 on protection from unfair dismissal. I tabled a new clause to the Employment Bill on Report with the aim of removing the age limit. That would have ensured that an older person would be able to claim for unfair dismissal, just like any other employee. It would have brought that right into line with a great many other employment rights, which are not subject to an upper age limit, such as the right to paid leave and the right to a minimum wage. The right would be consistent with the right to claim unfair dismissal for specified reasons that are automatically regarded as unfair, such as trade union membership.
It was a disappointment, therefore, that there was only the briefest opportunity to discuss the new clause. The hon. Member for Runnymede and

97WH
Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said on Report that he had much sympathy with the aim of the new clause, and that he looked forward to
"a constructive discussion on how to protect the rights of older workers … when the consultation in which the Government are engaged is discussed".—[Official Report, 12 February 2002; Vol. 389, c. 159.]
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's remarks this morning.
As we know, the Government confront an equal treatment directive. The short guide to their proposals puts matters succinctly, stating that
"it is wrong for people to be singled out for different treatment, merely because of personal characteristics."
As far as I can see, the age limit on protection from unfair dismissal singles people out on the basis of their personal characteristics—their age. However, I understand that the Government are not asking a direct question in the consultation about employment rights for people over 65. I accept that another broad question—question 15.20—might elicit views on that issue; but only indirectly.
I note that the equal treatment directive allows the Government to justify some differences in treatment on the ground of age, such as when there is a genuine occupational requirement. Different treatment can be justified on the basis of employment policy, and relevant differences in treatment may include dismissal conditions. However, I cannot see why the attainment of the age of 65 should be the point at which people automatically lose the employment right of protection from unfair dismissal.
Ms Candy Atherton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the problems that employers and employees face is that of obtaining insurance at the age of 65. That applies in volunteering as well. Will he comment on that?
Hywel Williams: That is a salient problem. I referred earlier to difficulties in that respect in obtaining motor insurance. Clearly, the availability of insurance would facilitate the employment of people over 65.
The bad effects of age discrimination may deprive employers of some of their most valuable employees, at a time when they are most needed. I referred earlier to B&Q's experience of the value of older workers. Losing older employees because of age discrimination can therefore be bad for employers and, in turn, the economy in general, because of lost production, extra benefits paid and lost taxes. The performance and innovation unit report "Winning the Generation Game" estimated that the cost of lower economic activity among the over-50s was £16 billion in lost GDP and between £3 billion and £5 billion in lost taxes.
Discrimination may also undermine older employees' ability to choose to continue working, because their position seems less certain and valued than that of younger employees.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I accept entirely that the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument relates to older workers, but would he acknowledge that age discrimination operates at the other end of the age spectrum?
Hywel Williams: Certainly, and Plaid Cymru has taken a petition on such matters as the minimum wage for younger workers.
Age discrimination also affects people over 50. The Government have said that they intend to introduce new legislation to prohibit discrimination in work on the grounds of age, but they want to take the fullest period available for consultation on the age strand of the equal treatment directive, up to December 2006. It has been pointed out in earlier debates on an age equality commission that the Government have had commitments to end age discrimination for at least six years, since 1996, which is the year before they were elected. Many older people have the potential of years of work before them. They should not have to wait until 2006 for protection from age discrimination and unfair dismissal.
We are given to understand that the Government's preference is for a single equality commission. Other hon. Members will no doubt speak on that matter, but I shall pose a few questions before finishing. Will such a commission address a broad range of discrimination issues, or will it concentrate on employment questions? Clearly, it should consider discrimination broadly. The establishment of such a commission may be some way off, so what will happen in the interim for the rights of older people? Will the commission be established through primary or secondary legislation? Will we have to wait for a body of case law to be developed?
Will the Minister note my general concern about the danger that issues of age discrimination, so long unregarded, will not have a sufficiently high profile when struggling for attention with other important aspects of discrimination? There should not be a competition between the different "isms"—between issues of discrimination on the grounds of ageism, racism, sexism or disability. Alas, that competition sometimes seems to exist.
In conclusion, by 2006 I shall be in my early 50s and we shall have had another general election. I have every faith in the support of the good people of Caernarfon, but I admit to having a personal interest in the matter.
A debate on age discrimination should cover aspects of discrimination addressed by other equality legislation on employment, access to goods and services, buying and renting property, and so on. No doubt, other hon. Members will address some of those issues. I look forward to the Minister's response.
11.17 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on securing the debate. Age discrimination is fast becoming a major issue of political activity and debate. Yesterday we had a ten-minute Bill on age discrimination and I attended a conference on older people in the media, at which my hon. Friend the Minister was the keynote speaker. Recently, we debated my private Member's Bill and Help the Aged launched its On the Scrapheap campaign, which helped to raise the profile of the issue still further. All that is good news for tackling age discrimination across society. In addition, the Government have adopted article 13 of the equal treatment directive and are consulting on how to implement it.

99WH
The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred to the problems faced in the world of work. I could wish that the wholescale discrimination that people faced was to be found only in the workplace. Sadly, the workplace is just the tip of the iceberg, and the iceberg is rather large.
I am a member of Equal Rights on Age, which comprises national organisations such as Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Association of Retired and Persons over 50, the National Pensioners Convention and a handful of hon. Members, such as myself. We have come to some conclusions on how we believe the Government might tackle age discrimination and, as we reach the end of the first round of consultation on age, it seems appropriate to explain our point of view.
We all know the statistics that show that age is becoming the social issue of our time. We are being urged daily to consider working longer, even into our seventies, in order to provide financial security for the future; yet, at 47, I am deemed to be an older worker, as are most hon. Members. The House is one of the few places where a 40-something, as I am, can still find herself referred to as a young thing—one of the great ironies of life. Older people are more likely to watch television, an argument voiced at the Independent Television Commission and Help the Aged conference yesterday, yet older people rarely appear on television and then only in caricatures such as Victor Meldrew, or in parts such as Prunella Scales' role as a somewhat daffy older shopper in Tesco's advertisements. Older people do not appear in the main stream, and they know it.
It is clear that the Government need to set the agenda, and that it must be secured by primary legislation. Regulation provides no legal statutory power, and it has been shown that voluntary codes of conduct are ineffective. Indeed, age equality should be treated in the same manner as sex, race and disability. It will not be enough for legislation to cover only employment. It must cover access to goods, facilities and services, and the management, buying or renting of land or property. The ERA group, not unnaturally, believes that people should not be treated less well than others purely because of their age. The Government and public bodies should, of course, take the lead with positive images.
If age is to be treated equally, there should be an enforcement body, which should work to eliminate age discrimination, promote equality of opportunity, encourage good practice and advise the Government on age discrimination. The Government could even adopt a template from those commissions that deal with race, gender and disability. The commission could help people who have been discriminated against, such as the vet in Cornwall whom I have mentioned before, to secure their rights. The House might be amused to learn that my vet, Noel Stewart, has now leapt to fame. From being excluded as a vet working on foot and mouth, he has been nominated as the sexiest man of the year by Radio Cornwall, which shows how life can move on.
A commission could provide information and advice to individuals, employers and service providers, prepare new statutory codes of practice and offer practical guidance. It could provide a conciliation service, investigate the many cases of discrimination, monitor
100WH
the law and initiate judicial action where necessary. All the organisations campaigning for older people's rights believe that those issues could be secured through an age equality commission—and, to coin a phrase, we want it now. Age equality requires that a commission should be created as soon as possible. In the minds of employers and among society generally, a recognition of ageism lags behind that of other forms of discrimination. In order to catch up, it is vital that the Government create a commission to focus on age. Later, the commissions could be melded together, with the different strands of discrimination all being represented in one body.
At the moment, legislation to tackle age discrimination is the great omission. That makes remedial work all the more urgent. Age discrimination must be treated in the same way as the other areas of discrimination. It would be wrong for the message to go out that the Government somehow feel that it is okay for ageism to be treated differently from other forms of discrimination. Older people need to be a visible part of the commission, and it should be sufficiently resourced to serve the millions of older people in this country. It would be wrong on all counts for age to be linked to disability, as has been suggested for the structure of discrimination commissions in future.
The Government should legislate to give employees flexibility on when they retire. By adopting that position, they might show enlightened self-interest. One in four older people say that they have been affected by age discrimination in the workplace, so if we presume that we all have two sets of grandparents, every family in the land has been affected. I urge the Minister to think how warmly those people might take to a Government who effectively and efficiently introduced comprehensive legislation on age discrimination, and who recognised that age discrimination in the workplace cannot be tackled if people cannot get insurance to enable them to work. The Government have tackled pensioner poverty, for which I applaud them, and they could tackle all aspects of age discrimination. Older people are more likely to vote, hence the enlightened self-interest.
The Government could recognise that older people are sometimes the only people who can deliver what is required. For example, 87-year-old Dr. James Van Allen is apparently the only person in the world who can analyse data sent from Pioneer 10 in deepest space to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States. Let us celebrate the contribution that older people make and want to make. Let us enable them to participate by removing the barriers in services. Let us end discrimination that means that the older people are, the more they are seen and treated as second-class citizens.
11.26 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on his interesting remarks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on hers. Like me, she is 40-something and feels relatively youthful in this place. I am not sure who first replied, when asked what they felt about getting older, "Not bad considering the alternatives."

101WH
Like many other people, I have noticed that newspapers tend to give numbers after people's names. At the conference organised by Help the Aged, Kate Adie, 56, talked about the marginalisation of older viewers of television. Reference has been made to the fact that, when considering equality, we should take care to think about age separately from gender, race and disability. The work of the equality commission must not be a battle between those who consider such issues. When legislation is being drafted, we must ensure that those who feel that race, gender or disability has caused a problem for groups in society understand that various problems in relation to age must also be tackled.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman referred to the apparent obsession of newspapers with people's ages. Does he suggest that they should not publish the age of the people to whom they refer? When they do not, I confess that I ask myself how old the person is. Whether someone is 18 or 68 makes a difference to how I read an article.
John Barrett: I have no objection to newspapers including an individual's age, but it tends to slant the news coverage if a newspaper names someone and then mentions his religion immediately afterwards. It may be of general interest to know the age of the person speaking, but what if newspapers then mentioned that he was disabled? I would not urge newspapers to stop the practice, or try to legislate against it. I was pointing out why they used it in the first place.
As the hon. Gentleman said, age discrimination is an issue for younger members of society as well as its older members. I want to raise two issues; voting rights and the national minimum wage. On 5 March, voting age was debated in Westminster Hall, so I shall not dwell on that subject for too long, but I should remind hon. Members that we are happy to collect tax from people at 16. I am the parent of a teenage daughter, and when she was 16 she reminded me that she was old enough to get married in Edinburgh. Although she was prepared to help in the campaign, she was not old enough to vote. At a time when our forces are being deployed abroad, we should remember that young people can join the armed forces and the Government can make important decisions about where those forces are deployed, but some members of the armed forces are too young to vote for the Government who will make decisions about where they should go and what they should do.
As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has already said, older people are more likely to vote. It is interesting to note that as many as 47 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds felt that voting was important and could have considerable influence, but that the figure for 17 to 20-year-olds dropped by 12 per cent. So as young people go into their 20s, they seem to think, for whatever reason, that it is less important to vote. They may change their minds later through self-interest, but the Liberal Democrats believe that if we are to encourage people to take an active interest in politics, the voting age should be 16.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned employment legislation, and there are real problems in relation to unfair dismissal, but I want to talk about the
102WH
national minimum wage. The British Youth Council has been campaigning to end discrimination against young workers. It has said:
"Workers should be paid equally for work of equal value. Any lower rate to the National Minimum Wage should be assessed by training, not age. The most vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds in society have no safeguards against poverty if they have no wage protection rights or have no entitlement to benefits."
It goes on to say:
"The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ends the current age discrimination in the National Minimum Wage…all workers from 16 years of age should be entitled to the same minimum wage rights as adult workers."
Other campaigners on that issue include the GMB.
If, when legislation is framed, the House can appreciate that age discrimination takes place at the younger as well as the older end of the spectrum, that will be a step forward.
11.32 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) for his initiative in securing an Adjournment debate on this subject. It is timely, not least because of the ten-minute Bill that I introduced yesterday. As I said then, about 15 pieces of private Member's legislation have been before the House during the past 5 years, attempting to nudge the issue forward, roll this large rock up the hill and persuade the Government that age discrimination requires more than just a voluntary approach; it requires a statutory approach. Perhaps as a result of the European Union directive on equal treatment in employment, there will now be some progress and legislation will be introduced by 2006. However, in common with others who have spoken today, I take the view that we need more comprehensive legislation that also addresses issues relating to the provision of goods and services.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) was absolutely right when she said that we should celebrate the fact that people are living for longer. However, it is not always the case that extra life is added to those extra years, in terms of the quality of their experience, and that is a problem, but all too often, the language that we use to debate old age is ageist in its assumptions. We use phrases such as "the demographic time bomb" and "bed blockers", which suggest that age is some sort of problem, rather than an opportunity not just for the individuals, but for the wider community. That is why we need to look not just at the employment questions that the hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly tackled, but at the broader picture that he also touched upon. We need to address ageist assumptions, attitudes and practices. A comprehensive age equality Bill has a part to play in dealing with that.
There is a lot of research evidence, both domestic and international, about the extent of discrimination in the labour market. Far less research is available into the causes and extent of ageist assumptions and practices and the wider agenda of public policy and private practice. At the beginning of the month, Help the Aged published a useful and timely report on age discrimination across public policy. I make no apologies for the fact that I shall probably refer to much of its evidence. Help the Aged drew together the existing

103WH
evidence. It looked at the problem and identified a series of age barriers. We often talk about age barriers in terms of access to health and social care, but they are much more widespread than that. In many cases they are being used as explicit devices to ration access to services and public resources. In other cases, they are implicit, but just the same they are used to ration resources.
There is a much bigger challenge than the direct discrimination issues. There is the challenge of how we address indirect discrimination, such as institutional ageism. Many organisations unconsciously discriminate on the basis of age. We need to think carefully about how we address that. Many organisations fail to include older people in the development of policy and the implementation of services. In terms of health, for example, old age is equated with illness and disability. That is wrong. The majority of us will probably not need any form of long-term care. We will pass on never having had to come into contact with social care or the health care services in our later lives. There is also direct discrimination. There are age limits on screening programmes such as for breast cancer. Older people are excluded from clinical trials and have to wait longer in accident and emergency departments.
There is age discrimination in social care too. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly said, assumptions are made about where it is appropriate for an older person to be cared for. We cannot generalise about the care needs of older people. People take a journey through their lives, and part of that journey may entail them being cared for in their own homes. At some point they may need to be cared for in residential care. There are discriminatory elements there too. The maximum fee levels for care homes for older people are lower than the fees that are paid for younger people in care homes. Why? That needs to be looked at critically. Why does it take someone like Rose Cottle to come to Downing street to raise those concerns about underfunding of the care home sector? The practice of limiting expenditure for home care to equate to the cost of residential care is also widespread. Placing that cap denies that person the opportunity to live as independently as they can in their own home.
The same applies in the benefits system. Older people have longer waits for the disability fund. Only 10 per cent. of older people get money from the social fund, despite being poorer, often for longer, than younger people. The mobility component of disability benefits is another serious concern. In the 1970s, for example, people under 65 who qualified for the disability component for mobility, continued to receive it once they reached that age. Someone who becomes disabled after the age of 65 is no longer eligible for the mobility component, as if it is entirely appropriate for them to be stuck indoors, unable to get out. Such forms of discrimination in public policy show that we have a widespread problem of ageist assumptions and practice that need to be addressed.
I have four questions for the Minister with regard to how we can move the agenda forward, and they are not all about legislation. First, what is being done to tackle ageism in public policy? What steps have been taken across Government to audit public policy to get to the roots of where ageism exists? Through its national
104WH
service framework, the Department of Health is at least beginning to do that and may provide a template that other Departments need to follow. Is the national service framework being followed up, and if so what lessons are being learned to ensure that staff are equipped with the tools to enable them to identify and tackle ageist assumptions and practices?
Secondly, we need a change in the law because, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon identified, the voluntary terms of practice for employment have not worked. Most employers do not know that they exist and those who do are confused about what they are for. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly said, however, we must go further than employment and have a comprehensive Act that deals with employment and goods and services, and places a general duty on all public bodies comprehensively to tackle age inequality and actively to promote age equality.
Thirdly, we need a mechanism to educate, inform, learn and enforce. An age equality commission is vital and I hope that the Minister will say something about that. We must avoid a situation in which age discrimination always ends up as the poor relation of all the other forms of discrimination. Can further thought be given to the time scales so that such a commission can be running, even if only in shadow form, before other changes take place? A body of skill, knowledge and experience could therefore be built up so that if and when we had a single commission, it would not be overshadowed by others that had been in place for much longer.
Fourthly, we must strengthen the evidence base. We need a series of data, the better to understand what is happening. We do not know the number of people in the work force who are past retirement age, nor do we know the differences in the experience of men and women past retirement age in respect of transport and health care. We do not have information about the interrelationship between age and ethnicity. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what research is in hand across Government to strengthen the evidence base so that there is more evidence to inform policy development.
Yesterday, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on age discrimination. The Press Association produced some copy about how it went and felt the need to describe me as "Paul Burstow (39)". My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West referred to that. It felt that it had to give my age, which is unnecessary and constitutes stereotyping. What on earth does a reader gain by knowing my age because I have an interest in ageism issues? It adds nothing to the piece and merely stereotypes still further.
We should be moving these issues from the margin to the main stream. I hope that the Minister will respond to my questions, because ageism is clearly a serious issue and a serious challenge for us all. It costs our economy £31 billion and it is time that we all said not only that we will no longer tolerate ageism, but that we will tackle it through legislation and concerted action across Government.
11.43 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on obtaining the debate. I am

105WH
genuinely delighted that he was successful, because he drew the short straw twice in the Standing Committee that considered the Employment Bill and on Report, when he tried to raise this important issue, but fell foul of the timetabling procedures. I am glad that he has had an opportunity to elaborate on the points that he was forced to make in 90 seconds on Report. I hope to have the chance to respond more fully than I was able to then, when I had the last 15 seconds before the guillotine fell.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has clarified his status in the great age debate as someone rapidly approaching the 40 watershed. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) referred to being one of the 40-somethings taking part in the debate, and the hon. Gentleman is shortly to join us.
Ms Atherton: I never referred to 40 as a watershed; I merely said what age I was. The problem with stereotypes—saying that a person is 40-something, or 30, and that it is a watershed—is that they perpetuate ageism.
Mr. Hammond: If we are to have a serious debate on the subject we must avoid political correctness for its own sake. People are interested in a person's age; it is a relevant piece of information. As I said earlier, when I read a newspaper report of a trial or criminal proceedings, knowing the age of the person involved helps me to form a mental picture of them. I want to know lots of things about them.
It is perfectly possible to address the issue of unjustified discrimination without going to the extreme of suggesting that it is always wrong, or always unjustified discrimination, to want, out of curiosity, to know a person's age. It tells me something about the person and I am not ashamed to admit that.
Mr. Burstow: Is there any other information that the hon. Gentleman would expect to have—for example, whether a person has a disability, and, if so, what it is? What does it tell him to know a person's age? What are the lessons to be learned from knowing a number?
Mr. Hammond: It depends on the circumstances. We have all sorts of information about a person if we are watching them on television because we can see them. When we read something in a newspaper we have to imagine what the person looks like and knowing how old they are helps us to build up an image of them. It is human nature to want to have that information. I shall say something about education versus legislation later.
If we set out fundamentally to change human nature it is likely to be a long haul. I hope that we do not attempt to do so as I have sensed a large degree of consensus in the debate about what needs to be done, which is relatively unusual in this place. We should exploit the benefits of that consensus and see what we can do with it, rather than trying to drive wedges between us by citing extreme examples.
It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in the Chamber; I am glad that the national minimum wage was mentioned because whenever I see the hon. Lady that subject inevitably comes into my mind. However many times I debate with her, I doubt that we shall have
106WH
the pleasure of spending as many hours together as we and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne did on the Standing Committee on the National Minimum Wage Bill. The debate, introduced by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, has focused on employment issues, which the hon. Gentleman raised in debates on the Employment Bill.
I was particularly pleased that the need for a flexible approach to health and social care for older people was raised. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have discussed those important issues on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that ageist assumptions lurk throughout the structure of society. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the age of 65 was a sort of magical marker which became institutionalised and it will take a great effort to shift it. Since then, especially in the last 20 years, the transformation in people's life expectancy and in their expectancy of a fit and active older age has made the watershed of 65 increasingly irrelevant and absurd. That is the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
This debate takes place in the context of the European Union equal treatment directive and the obligation on the United Kingdom to legislate by 2006. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne mentioned the distinction between primary and secondary legislation. Although 2006 is still a long time away, will the Minister confirm that there will be primary legislation to implement the directive?
The Government's preference so far has been for voluntary codes to try to achieve progress, despite the clear position set out by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). As Opposition spokesman in 1996, he said categorically that an incoming Labour Government would introduce comprehensive legislation to outlaw age discrimination. The Labour party in opposition said many things that have not translated clearly and unambiguously into Government programmes, and that is certainly one example.
The Conservative party's position is clearly in favour of flexibility. I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarfon now, as I would have told him on Report had I had enough time, that the official Opposition will be supportive—
John Barrett: On the question of flexibility, should not the hon. Gentleman point out that the Conservative party's policy in Scotland, which is for long-term care for the elderly, is the exact opposite of that in England?
Mr. Hammond: I am certain that we do not have a policy in England against long-term care for the elderly. The approach of the Westminster Government is different from that of the devolved Government in Scotland with regard to the provision of so-called free long-term care for the elderly. Indeed, we have questioned the definition of free nursing care—as the Government desire to call it—on many occasions, but I suspect that we stray from the main theme of today's debate.
I should like to place on the record that we will support carefully thought out proposals to abolish blanket mandatory retirement limits in employment, so that people's individual circumstances can be properly taken into account. We believe in flexibility. It fits

107WH
clearly with our core principles of flexibility in labour markets, the supremacy of the individual and a rejection of blanket, one-size-fits-all solutions.
The Government have also talked about flexibility in relation to retirement. They mention a flexible decade of retirement, but it is not clear what that entails. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation. Is the flexible decade from 65 to 75 or 60 to 70? Will she elaborate how the mechanics will operate in practice?
I am glad that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne had an opportunity to speak this morning. The Opposition were anxious to see her Bill taken in Committee, because we could have had a genuine exploration of some of the issues needing further debate. Unfortunately, it was not to be.
There has been a good deal of consensus in the debate so far. However, legislation is always a blunt instrument. I realise that the EU directive requires legislation, so we will have it, but it does not automatically change people's attitudes. I urge the Minister to consider the educative process alongside the legislative process. The Government must be proactive in educating employers about the advantages of employing older workers and the disadvantages of an arbitrary, mandatory retirement age.
Mr. Burstow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although legislation might not change attitudes, it provides a mechanism for challenging them? Does he also agree that we must ensure that the legislation that is on the statute book is sufficiently comprehensive to address not only employment, but the goods and services issues?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Legislation changes people's superficial attitudes. With regard to that, I offer the example of race discrimination legislation. It is relatively easy to put in place legislation that carts people off to court for overt racist behaviour, but it is much more difficult to change people's fundamental attitudes. That requires an education process—not merely the heavy hand of legislation.
I do not disagree that both approaches are needed, but I hope that the focus on legislation—and the European Union requirement for legislation—does not lead us to lose sight of the need for a parallel process of education because, particularly with regard to employers and employees in the workplace, there is a genuine win-win possibility here. To some extent, people are not exploiting that because they are not aware of it—they have not had the opportunity to understand the full possibilities that are available to them.
Ms Atherton: I am listening with great care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that a commission would be able to spearhead the educative part of the process of tackling age discrimination?
Mr. Hammond: That is a responsibility of Government, and a commission is one way of achieving it. When the Minister replies, I would be interested to
108WH
hear about what the Government are doing, not with regard merely to relying on future legislation, but to setting in train a process of preparing public opinion—of changing attitudes and educating people.
I return to the point that I was making. There is a job to be done in educating employers about the advantages of employing older workers. It is also important to overcome some of the stereotyping, to which several hon. Members have referred. There is also a job to be done in educating employees, by persuading them of the need continually to upskill, so that they do not inadvertently reinforce the prejudice that older workers are likely to have less relevant skills. It is clear that, as people become older, they must upskill and retrain themselves, to ensure that they have the relevant skills that are needed in the workplace throughout their working lives.
Fiscal incentives are always a good way for Government to persuade people. I notice that the Minister is smiling, and I remember that she was a Treasury Minister in the previous Administration. Nothing is as effective as a fiscal incentive in changing people's behaviour, as I am sure that she is aware. Fiscal incentives will be an important tool in ensuring extended participation in the work force, with a staged departure from it at a time that is appropriate to the individual's needs—rather than at a time that is imposed by an arbitrary limit.
I also urge the Government to lead by example. The Government are a large and, I suggest, a relatively rigid employer throughout the nation. When the Minister replies, will she describe how the Government are leading by example in addressing the question of fixed retirement limits in the public sector and other matters that have been mentioned in previous debates? As the Government are a large employer, they can lead by example on the issue, as is the case with regard to all employment-related matters. The probing of Ministers during the Standing Committee that dealt with the Employment Bill made it clear that although the Government were willing, in several areas, to lecture employers about the benefits to themselves of adopting more flexible and family-friendly employment practices, they did not always take the lesson of that lecture to heart by practising what they preached in their role as an employer.
The core of the point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon wanted to raise during consideration of the Employment Bill and today is compulsory retirement. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether her interpretation of the European Union directive is that the Government would be required to outlaw blanket arbitrary and compulsory retirement at a certain age. May we address the practical concerns that would follow from that?
I hope and assume that all hon. Members agree that if people need to retire because they are no longer able to perform their role in the work force effectively, there must be a mechanism to achieve that. I argue—I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber agree—that a blanket age limit is a crude and ineffective way in which to achieve that. If we say that a person should not be required to retire at a certain age and we should instead examine their capability to do a job, is the Minister confident that we would not fall foul of another anti-discrimination provision? For example, if fitness and

109WH
capability to do a job were the criteria rather than age, could we fall foul of anti-disability discrimination legislation? It is important that we look across the piece at the different anti-discriminatory provisions that are in place and ensure that there will be an effective way for employers to address people who no longer have the ability to perform the function that they have performed in the work force.
Mr. Burstow: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He suggests that discrimination legislation on disability is framed to give an advantage to disabled people rather than requiring reasonable adjustments to allow them to use properly the abilities that they have.
Mr. Hammond: I was raising a genuine issue of concern. Presently, we have a crude and arbitrary test of fitness to continue work that is based on an age limit. All hon. Members will agree that that is pretty irrelevant. People do not become unfit to work in a certain role when they are aged 65 and a day if they were fit to perform the role two days before. There will have to be other tests, and I foresee that problems will arise from them. Although employer organisations are becoming more receptive to the increasing unsustainability, inefficiency and ineffectiveness of a blanket age limit on retirement, they are worried about how we will deal with future issues.
The Government's consultation document raises all those issues, but it does not suggest any answers. Responses to the consultation are due by the end of March, and I hope that the Minister will accept what hon. Members have said in the debate as a response to the consultation process and take that into account.
Perhaps unwisely, I confessed to my own weakness earlier in the debate by telling the Chamber bluntly that sometimes when I read about somebody in the newspaper, I wonder why it does not give his or her age. I make a confession of the latent ageism that I suspect we all have. As I have grown older, I look at people—especially professionals such as lawyers and accountants—and think, "Good God! He can't possibly be old enough to give me legal or financial advice."
Ms Atherton: I am listening with some interest to the hon. Gentleman. If he reads about a Sam Brown or a Leslie Brown representing a person, does he know whether that person is a man or a woman? Does that flavour his judgment about the person who makes a statement?
Mr. Hammond: That depends on the context, but there are certainly times when I am interested in someone's gender, when the name does not betray it. I do not feel in any way ashamed to admit that. I think that it is natural human curiosity. I am merely telling the Committee, in all honesty, what has happened as I have grown older and become 40-something—I am actually not far from becoming 50-something now.
Ms Atherton: Another watershed.
Mr. Hammond: As I have grown older, I have started to find, inevitably, that more and more people in positions of authority with whom I deal are younger
110WH
than I when once they were older than I. That is a perfectly natural experience, and I find it interesting, in the context of this debate, to examine my own reactions and instinctive prejudices. We all have those, and to pretend that we do not is not a sensible starting point for the debate. I hope that we are all mature enough to recognise that they are largely irrational and absurd, part of the conditioning that all of us 40-somethings have because we grew up in a world where people were assumed to retire at 65 and cease to be economically effective or participate in the work force from then. That is the era in which we grew up, and it will colour us.
I have probably gone on for far too long already, but I have one or two more points. Whatever people think about the moral arguments against ageism, there is clearly an unanswerable economic argument against the current mandatory retirement age. As we all live longer, it is simply not an option for us to expect to work for 30 years and then live comfortably for another 30. The country cannot afford that and we as individuals shall not be able to afford it unless we are prepared to consume a very much lower percentage of our product during our working years, and I suspect that most of us are not willing or able to do that. We all face a private challenge as we examine the huge benefits of longer life expectancy. There is also a public challenge for the state, in examining how to encourage us to remain economically active and contributing for longer periods of our lives.
I urge the Government to lead by example and to recognise that, although legislation is needed to satisfy the requirements of the EU directive, that cannot be a substitute for education. The key challenge for the Government is to educate employers and employees in the concept of a flexible approach to retirement. If we are to have a mature debate, the Government should acknowledge that all forms of discrimination are not necessarily wrong. We are here talking about unjustified and irrational discrimination.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned health care, and he and I have discussed that before. There will be cases when the clinically appropriate treatment for a person differs, depending on whether they are 18 or 80. It would be a great shame if, in trying to tackle inappropriate, unjustified, irrational age discrimination, we allowed the debate to be hijacked and lost sight of the fact that there are areas and issues where discrimination on age grounds is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon cited the car driver who could not get insurance, or was charged a large sum for it, because she was over 75. There are many other car drivers who are grateful that their car insurance premiums are very low because they are over 50 or over 55. Those differences are actuarially justified.
My party and I have an instinctive sympathy with the position set out by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, which underlines the importance of individuals and of dealing with each person's position on the basis of their individual characteristics, capabilities and needs. The arbitrary blanket retirement age is the opposite of that.
We have here a rare, genuine win-win opportunity by which employers, employees and the public purse can all benefit from a change in attitudes, which can be underpinned, but not solely brought about, by

111WH
legislation. I hope that when the Minister replies she will specifically address education and the Government's role as a major employer in leading by example.
12.10 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The debate has been extremely good. I agree that the time for this issue has come. There is a great deal of public interest in it, and there is certainly a great deal of interest in the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) said, the conference held yesterday by Help the Aged and the Independent Television Commission enabled us to consider in more detail the representation of older people in the media.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talked about general education, which is very important. I am pleased to see him opposite me again because our paths have not crossed since those heady days on the National Minimum Wage Bill. Indeed, there were heady nights as well; we spent not only days but nights on that Bill. We set the record, which was about 36 hours, for the longest sitting in Standing Committee. You will be relieved to know, Mr. Taylor, that given the limits of Westminster Hall I do not intend to repeat that today.
It is clear that unfair discrimination on the grounds of age is not tolerable. We need to counter the unthinking prejudice that blights not only people's lives, but our economy. Older people are a major and growing section of the population, and we need their skills, talents and contributions if we are to create a successful society and economy. Although it is right to say that the over-50s suffer most from age discrimination, it is not the exclusive province of older people. Younger people also experience ageist practices, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) pointed out. We have all heard, for example, about whiz kids doing well in the City, but we have also heard about people who cannot get jobs in IT because they are over the hill at 30. The hon. Gentleman referred to training and to the need to keep skills up to date. Much of the research actually shows that older workers are the most assiduous in following modern technology and practices, and in making sure that their skills are competitive.
There has been a great deal of discussion today on the question of whether ageist employers miss out on the skills and experience of a diverse work force. Reference has already been made to the fact that the estimated cost of that is £31 billion according to the Employers Forum on Age publication "Ageism: too costly to ignore". The Cabinet Office report "Winning the Generation Game" discusses similarly large sums of money.
The Government are determined to tackle discrimination against older people. We are taking action for older people right across Government through legislation outlawing age discrimination for the first time, and in the Age Positive campaign initiated by the Department for Work and Pensions, the new deal 50-plus and the Department of Health's national framework for older people. Through our Age Positive campaign we are challenging ageist employment practices, and I shall speak about that legislation in a moment.
112WH
Many employers are already committed to employing a diverse work force. As champion employers, they have shared their experience of good practice along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. There is good practice out there, and those employers who have good policies implement them not only because they are nice people, but because to do so makes economic sense and gives them a competitive advantage. Those employers are astute.
Through the new deals we are helping older people to find work. For the past four years the employment rate for the over-50s has increased faster than the overall employment rate. During the first 21 months of the new deal 50-plus, more than 61,000 people have been helped through the programme. That is a tremendous number of people.
Ms Atherton: Is my hon. Friend aware that even people who have found employment through the new deal are turfed out on certain dates because the employer or voluntary organisation to which they are offering their services cannot obtain insurance cover for employment or work undertaken in a voluntary capacity? If that barrier in the goods and services insurance industry is not tackled, there will never be a resolution to the problem.
Mrs. Roche: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter. I understand why and will deal with it in a moment.
On education, learning can play a major contribution in helping older people to fight discrimination by giving them the confidence and skills they need to compete for interesting and rewarding employment.
I turn to the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, and by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—health and social care. The national service framework directly addresses age discrimination against older people in accessing NHS or social care services. It sets out, for the first time, national standards for the care of older people and will ensure that older people are not unfairly discriminated against when accessing NHS or social care services because of their age. Action plans are being drawn up to deal with any unfair policies that have been identified as age based. Ageism is intolerable and NHS treatment should be based on clinical need, not age. We cannot say that too often because it is important to get that message across.
Age discrimination in the workplace has been the focus of much of our discussion. Too often in the past, older workers have been written off although they have much to offer. Nearly 70 per cent. of people between 50 and state pension age are in employment, but for the remaining 30 per cent. finding and retaining suitable employment can be a serious problem. We welcomed the employment directive because it is important in ensuring equal opportunities for all workers in this country and elsewhere in the European Union. However, legislating against age discrimination is not simple. The House knows that article 13 of the directive introduces some new strands.
Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister tell me what has changed since 1996 when her right hon. Friend the

113WH
Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), now the Minister for Pensions, said that an incoming Labour Government would introduce comprehensive legislation outlawing age discrimination? She is now saying that it is not so simple.
Mrs. Roche: There has been no change. We are absolutely committed to implementing the directive, which is what we shall do. Our consultation document highlighted some complexities and I shall deal with them now.
Legislating against age discrimination is not simple. Complex and sensitive problems must be resolved so that the eventual legislation is practical and helpful to employers and employees. For example, the directive recognises that differences of treatment are sometimes justified on the ground of age. The challenge for implementation is thus to identify which differences of treatment are acceptable, and which are not. That means that we must carefully consider the response to the consultation.
The consultation will be in two stages. The current consultation on equality and diversity seeks views on several broad issues. We want to discover what people think about mandatory retirement ages. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon who initiated the debate. With regard to justifications, we aim to find out what practices employers have, why they need them and why they need to retain them. The consultation finishes at the end of the month. We will then develop specific proposals in the light of the responses to it, and consult on them later in the year.
Mr. Hammond: While the Minister waits for responses to the consultation, what has she done to examine the way in which the Government treat their employees, and their view on mandatory retirement ages, especially in the civil service?
Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is more impatient than I remembered. He will have an answer if he can just contain himself a little.
Mr. Hammond: That is what Ministers always say when they are about to run out of time.
Mrs. Roche: I will return to that issue, if the hon. Gentleman can just contain himself.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon was concerned about the rights of older workers and the upper age limit for unfair dismissal in the Employment Rights Act 1996, as his amendment to the Employment Bill showed. We will consider that as part of our overall approach to the implementation of the directive.
There have been several questions about goods and services. On Second Reading of her private Member's Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne eloquently drew attention to the difficulties that some older workers experience. There should, of course, be no identifiable differentiation in the provision of financial services or credit. The banking code is voluntary, but it is followed by almost everyone in the banking industry; it includes undertakings on nondiscrimination. However, the directive applies only to employment and training, which is a major step in itself.
114WH
We must resolve several issues before we can introduce the legislation, and it would not be sensible to be distracted at this stage by the further complexities that legislation on goods and services would pose. For example, should we outlaw 18 to 30 holidays because they are ageist? Should concessionary travel continue to be available to pensioners? What about other concessions, such as the television licence?
Demographic and economic factors will provide powerful incentives for shops and service providers to change their practices towards older customers. I use the phrase "demographic factors" positively, not as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam used it.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister at least reflect on the fact that there is rarely an opportunity for primary legislation, and that it would be a loss to pass up the opportunity to legislate on goods and services when the Government are legislating on employment?
Mrs. Roche: I will, of course, listen to what hon. Members have to say, as the House expects me to. However, I do not want people to underestimate the number of difficult and complex issues that we will have to resolve if we are to implement the legislation to which we are committed. That is our priority.
Hon. Members referred to an age commission. We are determined to put in place effective arrangements for advice, support and guidance for individuals and employers. Those will cover all the new discrimination strands in the directive—age, sexual orientation and religion. It is not clear that an age commission is the best way to proceed, and such a course could raise questions about cost-effectiveness and overall coherence. It is essential that the Government study the issue in the round, and it does not make sense to establish new single-issue arrangements before we have thoroughly considered the strategic and practical issues for all the new strands. It is important that we take the issue forward in that way.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked about research, and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry are working with officials at the Department for Work and Pensions. DWP officials also work on the Age Positive campaign, which is led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, and on commissioning research. I agree that it is important that we do that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about tackling ageism in public policy. I take his point that we must look at the issue throughout the Government. The Cabinet sub-Committee on older people, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is taking a close and active look at age issues across Government policies. It is also examining the Government's role as an employer, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is right that the Government should act as an exemplar on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the flexible decade of retirement. The current consultation seeks general views on the retirement age, and we shall consult on specific proposals later in the year.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we would incorporate the policy strands. The document said that we aimed to prepare separate items of legislation for

115WH
each strand and to use regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement the directives where possible.
As regards the Government acting as an exemplar, the Cabinet Secretary has written to permanent secretaries about the need for the civil service to ensure that it takes that role seriously.
The hon. Gentleman asked about mandatory retirement ages. There is, of course, no legal retirement age, and employers are responsible for setting the retirement age for their employees. Through the document, we are consulting on whether there should be mandatory retirement ages. It is probably one of the most complex issues in the document and in the consultation process.
The process of developing legislation to outlaw age discrimination at work is nearing the end of its first stage as the consultation exercise draws to a close, and I look forward to considering the responses. That is why this debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, is timely. I undertake to ensure that I take account of the comments that have been made. I also look forward to consulting on the specific proposals later this year.
These are important issues, and this has been an extremely good debate. I look forward to working with hon. Members to take the agenda forward.

Car-jacking
12.30 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of car-jacking for what I believe is the first time in this House. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on my congratulations and regards to the Prime Minister, who has pre-empted this debate and has set up a street crime and car-jacking taskforce to deal with the problems that I shall outline?
I hope that the taskforce will consider not only car-jacking but new measures to tackle the junior criminals who move from bullying in the classroom to taking part in antisocial behaviour on street corners. In West Bromwich, East, my neighbours are driven to misery by teenagers who create mayhem late at night. Although they conduct relatively minor acts of antisocial behaviour, they belong to the generation that can graduate to street crime and violent car-jacking. I hope that addressing persistent and defiant behaviour in very young people will be a core goal of the taskforce.
The Government have worked closely with the car industry in the past couple of years and have successfully introduced new security measures in vehicles. However, we now see the flip side of that. At the end of January, the violent stabbing to death of 25-year-old Timothy Robinson outside his home by a gang of suspected car-jackers brought this new crime to the attention of the public. Thieves often target motorists who have items on their passenger seats, such as a handbag or laptop computer, and in nearly all cases they strike when the vehicle is stationary at traffic lights. A common tactic is to force minor collisions and then to ambush motorists when they approach them to exchange insurance information. The most public case happened when Gloria Hamilton, a 41-year-old mother of three, was knocked unconscious by a gang of thieves who stole her vehicle in south London. While all motorists who are involved in accidents should report and pass on their details to the police, this kind of crime has prompted the RAC Foundation, on whose policy committee I sit, to encourage motorists to go directly to a police station if they are uncomfortable about a minor collision.
Because the crime is classed as robbery under UK law, few statistics exist on the extent of the phenomenon. Metropolitan police figures suggest that 1,200 car-jacking style crimes took place in London last year.
Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend aware of an incident in Cardiff earlier this week in which a young man who stopped to answer his mobile phone was set upon by a gang of youths, who kidnapped him and took him for a hair-raising drive before stealing all the money that he had on him and taking his CD player? Car-jacking is often seen as a London crime—it is not; it is spreading to all parts of the country and we must address it in that light.
Mr. Watson: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to my attention. Car-jacking is not countrywide but, like street crime, it has hot spots. There are certainly some in my region, the west midlands, and there are others in Salford, Bradford and West Yorkshire. Last

117WH
week, a particularly savage attack on a young driver that took place just outside my constituency made the front page of the Great Barr Observer. In that case, the man was violently pulled over to the kerbside and attacked by two men who punched him to the ground and then stole his vehicle.
Many examples of such attacks in the west midlands illustrate the growing problem. In one case, a female motorist—female motorists are often targeted—was parking her BMW in her front drive. A man approached the car to ask her the time and she was assaulted with an iron bar and viciously dragged from her car. Luckily, the car was fitted with a tracker device and, although she was injured, the police were able to retrieve the car about eight miles from the incident and arrest the man. Will my hon. Friend consider how new technology might combat that crime? Will he tell the House how the Home Office pilot scheme in Northampton—the automatic number plate identification scheme—is progressing? It might deter further developments in that crime.
Although car-jacking is a relatively new phenomenon in the United Kingdom, it is far from new in other parts of the world. South Africa has suffered the crime since the mid-1970s. Until 1986, car-jackings were recorded as robberies, but the South African Government changed the law in 1986 to allow the specific offence of car-jacking. I am not saying that the problem is as bad in the UK as it is in South Africa, but a number of lessons could be learned from the way in which other countries deal with the crime. The number of violent car-jackings in South Africa has escalated to a horrific extent. Two years ago, more than 12,000 incidents took place; through the greater use of hit squads to target crime hot spots, that number has been reduced by 1,000 during the past 12 months.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider introducing a new specific offence of car-jacking. It is my strong view that harsh and stern penalties should be imposed that truly reflect the terrifying and violent nature of the crime. We need to send to those dangerous and violent criminals the clear message that, when caught, they will go to jail for a long time. Introducing a specific crime of car-jacking with harsh minimum tariffs would also ensure that criminals who took part in that activity would not be let off as a result of legal ambiguities.
I refer my hon. Friend to some rather contradictory statements made by Lord Woolf during the past few months. In early January, he said that mobile phone muggers should be sent to prison for up to five years—I strongly agree with that sentiment, as do many of my constituents. Only two months later, on 6 March, The Guardian reported him as saying that the courts should think twice about sending criminals to jail. I want to make sure that when car-jackers are found guilty, the judges have no choice but to send them to jail. If the Government decide that that is not appropriate now, will they at least put pressure on police forces throughout the United Kingdom to record car-jackings and smash-and-grab attacks separately from robberies? With accurate statistics, we can properly assess the true extent of the crime.
The RAC Foundation is concerned that insurance companies have refused, or tried to refuse, to pay out money to motorists involved in car-jackings when the vehicle is stolen. Clearly, we cannot let that continue. The majority of car insurance policies say in the small
118WH
print that claims are invalid if the key was left in the ignition or if the car was not locked. The Association of British Insurers said that insurance companies should always pay out on claims made as a result of car-jacking attacks, and I sincerely hope that all insurance companies will follow that sensitive approach. It will add insult to injury if those companies use the small print to shirk their responsibilities. In his deliberations with the insurance industry, could the Minister ask insurers to make a public statement to reassure car drivers that they will be able to achieve at least some recompense if they are victims of attacks?
In the Minister's discussions with police authorities, will he consider the possibility of issuing guidelines to drivers on how to avoid becoming victims of car-jacking attacks? The RAC Foundation has responded to this public information issue in its PR and marketing. It has issued helpful guidelines to its members and motorists in general, saying that thieves will be more tempted to target a vehicle if goods are visible, so drivers should ensure that valuables are not left on the passenger seat or dashboard when travelling. The RAC Foundation also says that car-jacking gangs are more likely to target motorists who seem unsure where they are going—when they look at maps at traffic lights, for example.
Such guidelines as planning a route before travelling should be handed down by a police authority. They should be a police force responsibility, not simply left to the motoring organisations, because they are an important part of crime prevention. I hope that the Chancellor's Budget will include greater funding for police forces, and I know that the Minister will be negotiating behind the scenes on that matter. When the Budget is known, some money should be spared for public campaigns, as they do so much to reduce crime. As everyone knows, crime prevention is better than law enforcement.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter in the House for the first time. It is of great concern to my constituents and of increasing national concern. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) on securing the debate on an issue that relates to not only his constituents but people throughout the country. The Government share his concerns about this despicable crime. We need to be as tough and effective on car-jacking as we have been on tackling other vehicle crime offences.
Some terrible incidents have been reported in recent weeks, and we extend our sympathies to the victims of those crimes. The incident in Cardiff has been mentioned, but others have occurred throughout the country. The victims are not only the people involved in the incidents, but those who are instilled with the fear that the same thing might happen to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is right in saying that the issue is not simply London based, as it is a problem in areas such as the west midlands and most other conurbations. We are determined to reduce violent crime by pursuing a concerted strategy of targeted policing, effective

119WH
punishment and tackling the underlying conditions that breed violence. I welcome the opportunity to describe our strategies. The increase in violent theft of cars and burglaries in which car keys are stolen is possibly a result of the increased security for new vehicles that follows Government pressure on manufacturers to make cars more difficult to steal. The publication of the Home Office car theft index has helped to raise awareness of car security issues among motorists and encouraged manufacturers to raise standards continually. It is massively unfortunate that so-called "car-jacking" stems in part from our success, in that criminals have been forced to resort to more violent means of stealing vehicles. I do not underestimate the task ahead. We must deal with the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East made clear, and we shall certainly do so.
My hon. Friend raised the subject of personal safety and some action that motorists could take. The Home Office has published a leaflet, "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention", which we intend to make available on our website. I shall ask officials to check that some of the advice that my hon. Friend mentioned is covered adequately in that guidance, as he was right to say that we could not class the issue simply with motoring offences. There is a role for the Government and the Home Office in ensuring that guidance is as comprehensive and effective as possible.
We support the use of tracking devices in high-performance and expensive vehicles, but recognise that in some cases those are beyond the means of the majority of motorists, especially those who drive older models of cars. An average price for the installation of a tracking device is about £400, and then an annual subscription must be paid. However, they are playing a part in discouraging vehicle crime.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that the police do not record car-jacking as a separate offence, nor is there a legal offence category of car-jacking. When there is a threat or use of actual violence, the offence is robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of life. He said that, in terms of the criminal justice system and sentencing, a separate offence of car-jacking was necessary. I am not convinced of that, as the problem has so many manifestations and different levels, as in other cases of robbery. I am broadly satisfied that the framework is adequate for the purposes of sentencing.
The other issue to which my hon. Friend alluded was that of reporting and whether, without a specific sentence, we have an adequate and accurate method of measuring the size and geographical spread of the problem. That point is well worth considering, so I give him a commitment that I shall consider it. Although we have statistics, we are not confident that they properly cover the size of the problem or measure the severity of individual instances. Sentencing capability is covered, but the issue of reporting is worth further examination.
It is important that the courts then treat the offences with the seriousness that they deserve. The Lord Chief Justice recently emphasised their seriousness when he gave a judgment on several cases that involved robbery of mobile phones from young people. One such offender
120WH
received a six-year custodial sentence, and three young men convicted of car-jacking recently received custodial sentences of up to four and a half years.
The Lord Chief Justice's view accords with that of the Government, which is that those who prey on the vulnerable using violence or the threat of violence should expect a commensurate sentence. He is perfectly capable of defending himself. My hon. Friend said that there were contradictions in what he said, but I do not think that the Lord Chief Justice tried to suggest that custodial sentences were inappropriate in cases of robbery, especially the aggravated robberies and more serious car-jacking offences that have been highlighted in the press of late, to which my hon. Friend referred. We believe that the sentencing framework needs to be adequate and the courts need to take the matter seriously and respond appropriately to the severity of the crime. I hope that the comments of the Lord Chief Justice encourage that; we agree with them.
My hon. Friend alluded to the announcement by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary this morning. We have made it clear that the whole of Government as well as other agencies should give the highest priority to tackling robbery and dealing quickly and effectively with offenders. Additional funds of £20 million have already been committed to tackling the robbery problem in the five forces with the greatest problem, including the West Midlands police force, which received an additional £3.3 million and has set a target of reducing robbery by 34.1 per cent. by March 2004.
The subject discussed this morning was stepping up action to deal with robbery. The robbery reduction initiative announced by the Home Secretary over the weekend involves a clampdown on all street crime, which of course includes the specific issue of car-jacking that my hon. Friend has raised. My hon. Friend will probably agree that knowing that one will be caught must be the biggest deterrent, particularly if that prospect is supported by an appropriate punishment regime. We must reclaim our streets for decent, law-abiding citizens, who want no more than to be able to walk or drive safely, to live peacefully and to go about their business freely and untroubled by the fear of attack.
The Prime Minister chaired the first meeting of the new cross-departmental street crime action group this morning. It is drawing together all the resources, expertise and initiative of Government Departments and all the relevant agencies, in a concerted effort to attack the problem. This morning's announcement contained five main strands relating to the police and criminal justice system. The police should step up operations against robbery by targeting hot spots—an issue on which I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said—making more arrests and ensuring that evidence is brought to bear swiftly and systematically to enable early charges to be laid; the Crown Prosecution Service should step up the priority that it gives to robbery case preparation, fast-tracking cases, deploying top-quality lawyers and working closely with the police.
The courts need to give priority to robbery cases, if necessary introducing extra sittings to deal with the increased work load that will arise from the initiative. Youth offending teams need to give priority to the work on robbery cases, including the preparation of pre-sentencing reports. The Prison Service and probation

121WH
service will need plans to deal with what we hope, sadly, will be an increase in the number of robbery offenders to be brought to justice, who could be given prison sentences.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the matter needs to be tackled more widely than by the police and criminal justice systems, so I think that he will be happy to learn that a leading contribution to this morning's announcement was made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who has been considering what schools can do to help to identify problems and to take early action. An example might be supporting the police in truancy sweeps. My hon. Friend mentioned the way in which young people become involved in minor criminality, which, if left unchecked, leads inevitably to the more serious consequences that he has identified.
We intend that the initiative announced this morning will at first apply to the 10 police areas with the greatest robbery problem. That includes the West Midlands police because, as I have said, the increase in robbery and the problem of car-jacking is sadly not just a London issue, but exists far outside the capital. Then we intend to try to spread the good practice that is learned in the initiatives to other forces beyond the 10 that are initially targeted. Furthermore, we shall bring together the other agencies across government who can work together to support the police in tackling the problem and its causes. We must not forget that the whole community has a responsibility to work with the police and help them in their task.
West Midlands police are well aware of the public's concerns about car-jacking. In common with other forces, they are dealing with it as part of their wider anti-robbery strategy, to which the robbery reduction initiative provides added stimulus. The problem is being given the high priority that it deserves. I am told that West Midlands police intend to enhance their strategy by adopting intelligence-led policing, which targets the offenders in all robberies. I hope that that means that the national intelligence model will be introduced throughout the West Midlands police service. West midlands Members will want to make sure that it is introduced, because there is much to be gained from encouraging all our police services to adopt the national intelligence model, although I know that many police forces have not been able to do so to date.
My hon. Friend talked about how technology can assist us in that regard. I know that, as a result of his association with motoring organisations, he is aware of
122WH
the pilot scheme in Northampton on automatic number plate recognition. We need to look into the benefits of such a scheme. Criminals of all kinds need to use the roads and their vehicles to go about their criminal activities, so there are great benefits to be gained from automatic number plate recognition in dealing with car-jacking as well as other crime. That information needs to be fed into the robbery initiative, and I shall ensure that that happens.
We must do better at learning from international lessons. Some of the ideas that we try to put to good effect in this country have been learnt from other jurisdictions. We must do better in learning from the problems of other countries.
Crucially, we must not forget, especially if we want the community to support the police, that there is a victim in every car-jacking. We are fully committed to providing a better deal for victims of crime and ensuring that they receive the support that they deserve. A major plank of our programme to support victims is provided by the voluntary organisation Victim Support. Since May 1997, we have doubled our grant to Victim Support, and I am pleased to say that, as part of the robbery reduction initiative, we will see whether we can do even more to support victims and witnesses in those terrible crimes. It is not only important to support victims because their circumstances mean that they need support; victims are often the best people to help us to bring criminals to justice by acting as witnesses. The British public will help the police to do their job and help the criminal justice system to bring people to book only if their confidence in the police enables them to come forward to act as witnesses without fear of further victimisation. Therefore, there is a double benefit to any assistance that we can give victims, because not only do we help vulnerable people who have been victimised by crime—an end in itself—but we build the confidence of the community so that people will work with the police to reduce crime levels.
I welcome the opportunity that this debate has given us to talk about car-jacking. It is a problem that is closely associated with the recent increase in robbery and street crime. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government are taking the issue seriously. We are doing everything that we can to support the police and the courts in bringing the situation under control and to ensure that people are again confident to walk the streets in safety.

Solihull Hospital
1 pm
Mr. John Taylor: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health for taking this debate. I respect her and her office. I come with an all-party mandate from Solihull and, whereas there may be the odd political remark in what I am going to say, I have no party political axe to grind either now or in any subsequent developments. If she can help my constituents we will all be grateful to her. That is the spirit in which I approach this debate. At a recent meeting in Solihull involving all political parties we agreed that we are all in this together. In the same spirit, I acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who has wished me well in this debate.
The great, and so far unhappy, saga of Solihull hospital began for me in my earliest years in the House when, with many others, I pressed the case for what we then hoped would be a new district general hospital for Solihull. The regional health authority, as it then was, proved receptive and a splendid new hospital building costing £38 million was ultimately erected and opened in June 1994. We rejoiced—but later in 1994 the hospital applied unsuccessfully for trust status. That was not in itself a decisive alarm, but by the end of 1994 I was privately alerted to the fact that all was not well.
The origin of whatever miscalculations had been made may well lie in the NHS planning of the 1980s, which had anticipated that one of the five principal hospitals in Birmingham would close and a district general hospital in Solihull, to the east of the city, could well be justified, not least in the light of Solihull's expanding population and expanding economy. In the event, there was no such hospital closure in Birmingham.
I have documented the litany of events between 1995 and March 1997, but I will not recite it here in the limited time available to me in an Adjournment debate. March 1997 is, however, a significant date in that it was marked by a statement by the then Minister for Health pledging the future security of services at Solihull hospital, in particular accident and emergency services. I have given the current Minister a copy of that pledge.
Two months later I was to become, involuntarily, a member of the Opposition, following an election in which the Minister's party promised that it would do much better in health matters than my party had managed to do. It may surprise the House to know that I was prepared to believe that it might indeed do so. The economy was strong and it was in a position to make a fresh start with an overwhelming majority and an unchallengeable mandate. There was also a feeling, or mood, that health services might become more consumer led and less consultant or administrator led, and—a welcome thought—that decision making would be more local.
However, the uncertainties at Solihull hospital would not go away, although for a time they were counterbalanced by optimism, and there was a period of abeyance that seemed to me to persist, though uneasily, until last year. There were recurrent assertions in accident and emergency that throughput figures in
124WH
Solihull did not justify a comprehensive 24-hour service. However, many of us found those contentions bogus and unconvincing, as ambulance crews were instructed to exercise a preference to take accident and emergency patients to Birmingham Heartlands hospital. In that case, the statistics would be inevitable and self-fulfilling.
I could waste the whole half hour if I repeated all the questions that I raised during the period—1995 to the present—that I am reviewing. However, neither the Library nor I can find the date of one question that I raised. It may not have passed muster with the Table Office. The question was about accident and emergency provision and is still pertinent. Should difficulties in staff recruitment be a valid determinant in establishing levels of service?
Whether or not that question was included on the Order Paper, it addressed another seemingly bogus argument with which we had to deal—that one could not provide the service because one could not get the staff. That too was self-fulfilling in its own way. We argued that it was surely the job of those in charge to address that argument the other way round. It should be their responsibility to ensure that the staff provide the service.
The next vexingly unconvincing argument was similar. Some greatly respected consultant would take a critical view of facilities or the level of staffing and pronounce that the situation was clinically unsafe. No one would quarrel with that, for understandable reasons. That judgment is potentially final. Our frustrated response to that would be, "Make it safe."
That is the background. I have endeavoured in this small compass to try at least to depict, if not re-create, the mood of uncertainty that attended the discussion of the security, or insecurity, of services at Solihull hospital, and the sort of arguments with which we had to contend, with mixed feelings of hope and exasperation.
Some things are clear. The population of Solihull is 205,000, but the daytime population is much greater. Solihull ceased to be a commuter town long ago. Approximately 9,000 people work at Land Rover. Solihull is a huge retail attraction, not least following its new Touchwood shopping centre with its many employees and its many shoppers from outside Solihull. It is estimated that on average, 60,000 shoppers visit it each day, and that 8 million have visited it since last September. Such is the prestige of Touchwood that Her Majesty the Queen will formally open it later this year.
Solihull's population growth is generated by new housing development mainly in the south of the borough, the area that is most naturally served by the hospital. There is an enormous amount of traffic on the M42 within a mile of the hospital. The M42 in Solihull is, in effect, a confluence of the M6, M40, M5, M45 and M69 motorways and the Birmingham northern relief road. Although I do not want to depict it as a hazard, I must add that Solihull also has a rapidly expanding airport—Birmingham International airport. It employs 6,500 people on site and had a throughput of 7.6 million passengers last calendar year, despite the events of 11 September. The National Exhibition Centre is also in Solihull and attracts further large numbers to the borough—to visit Cruft's dog show, for example, or the motor show. All that is visible, patent and obvious.

125WH
Furthermore, Solihull expects 30,000 new jobs to be created in the south of the borough in the next eight years.
I hinted that I did not wish to tempt providence by anticipating a disaster in Solihull, but it could happen. Could Solihull cope? It is obvious to me, as their parliamentary representative, that my constituents should demand an appropriate hospital that includes a comprehensive accident and emergency service. They feel that they have earned and paid for one.
A new strategic health authority will be in place from 1 April, although it may not be fully fledged until October. That much we know, but real and poignant uncertainties surround the future. We are told that there will be a consultation on the range of services to be provided at Solihull hospital, with an emphasis on examining A and E provision. We are told that there would have been little point in the outgoing health authority setting that consultation in train, and that the new strategic health authority will start the consultation process when it is in place—but will it also assess the results?
Who makes decisions about the consultation process—the Minister, or someone, some body or some institution that has the Minister's authority? What is the role of the primary care trust in that context? We need clarity. What will be the terms of the consultation? By what criteria will its findings be measured and judged? Who will decide? Is it ultimately a matter for the Secretary of State? Above all, what is the future of accident and emergency provision in Solihull?
At the moment, we have patients waiting in ambulances and plenty of first-hand accounts of utterly unacceptable waiting times. The overwhelming majority of people in Solihull are law-abiding taxpayers who have normal fears and apprehensions about illness and injury. They want certainty that a good efficient hospital will be there for them in Solihull should they need it. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about that, and I will give her the credit if she does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden will now share the debate with me.
1.13 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for giving me a small share of his time, and I will confine myself to asking specific questions. Does the Minister accept that any downgrading of accident and emergency provision at Solihull hospital will be seen by the people of Solihull as a broken promise? If the previous hospital management secured an agreement with the royal colleges that doctors could safely be rotated between Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull hospitals, what has changed?
I endorse my hon. Friend's view that an inability to staff the A and E department is a poor reason to close it. That is a supply-driven argument that does not reflect the true demand or wishes of the people. The Minister may say that the matter is local and should be decided locally, but does she accept that a perfectly reasonable local solution is under threat? It takes 38 minutes to get from the border of my constituency to Heartlands A and E at off-peak times. Does the Minister regard that as an acceptable journey time in the event of an emergency?
126WH
What is the Government's overall strategy for national accident and emergency services? Solihull hospital, together with five other hospitals throughout the country, faces the closure of its accident and emergency department.
Is the Minister aware of the editorial in the British Medical Journal of 4 August last year? It said that the Royal College of Physicians and the NHS Confederation had together announced a working group to rethink accident and emergency provisions. The editor wrote that the preferred model would place accident and emergency departments within 10 minutes reach of those who need them.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on securing this important debate. Primarily, it raises issues about Solihull, but it also touches on broader issues about accident and emergency departments. I thank him personally for giving me notice of the issues that he intended to raise. If Ministers can respond to specific points rather than talking generally, it makes for a more focused debate.
The hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in the services that Solihull hospital provides. He has tabled parliamentary questions about it on several occasions, and he is keen to ensure that the highest possible standard of health service is available to his constituents. I assure him that the Government, too, are committed to ensuring that local people get services of the highest possible quality, and we want to provide services that are as close to people's homes as possible. Obviously, that is consequent on safety and viability, but striking the right balance between local access and high-quality services has always been a tension in the national health service, and we all continue to grapple with it.
At the outset, I acknowledge that local people want accident and emergency services to be as close to their homes as possible. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) quoted a journey time of 38 minutes, and the working group is examining a period of 10 minutes. People want access, but we must acknowledge that they also want extremely high quality. It is not easy to achieve consensus; that requires much local consultation and discussion on the detail of local services.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for permitting me to intervene. She knows that my constituents use some of the facilities at Solihull hospital, and they want two assurances from her. First, will she give a categorical assurance that there is no threat to Solihull hospital? Secondly, will she assure me that any changes that the trust contemplates will be subject to a full, transparent and above-board consultation process?
Ms Blears: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend those assurances. The Government, the health authority and the community see a vibrant future for Solihull hospital. Any changes to the services will be subject to the same rigour that has always been required. If there is a requirement for public consultation, it will be open, transparent and inclusive.

127WH
We want to make the consultation process more real to local people. Instead of presenting local people with a fait accompli, we want to get them involved in drawing up options at the outset. That will allow them to be part of the decision-making process. In the past, local people felt that they entered the process right at the end, and if they had not had the chance to influence policy making at the outset, they were often forced into a position of opposition and defending a situation. We want that change to be introduced.
The hon. Member for Solihull set out the background of the hospital and trust. He was right that the merger with Birmingham Heartlands hospital in April 1996 brought financial and managerial stability to Solihull hospital. Savings were made at that time, such as efficiency savings that managed to turn the financial situation around, and the merger was beneficial. Since then, there have been several dramatic new service developments in areas such as renal dialysis, ophthalmology, oncology and dermatology. Activity levels at the hospital have increased year on year. The trust is performing very well with regard to waiting times. It has been successful with the fourth wave booked admissions bid, which means that patients will be able to book their admissions at a time that is convenient to them. I hope that that will lead to a significant reduction in appointments that are not kept, which means that we will save money, which can be invested in services.
There have been several improvements to the physical environment, including better facilities for obstetrics, gynaecology, day surgery and endoscopy, as well as MRI and CT scanning, dermatology, the out-patients department, pre-operative assessment, and the mortuary facility. That goes to show that there has been significant investment in the hospital, so that it can provide a wide range of services for local people.
Some of the investments resulted from Government expenditure, some from efficiencies as a consequence of the merger, and some from publicly raised funds. It is also the case that much of the progress has been made because of the hard work of the trust's staff, and we should acknowledge their contribution.
Since the merger, there has been no major change to the A and E service but the trust has long expressed concerns about the clinical safety of maintaining a 24-hour A&E department at the hospital. The removal of training accreditation from certain posts has contributed to recruitment difficulties, and concern has also been expressed about the case mix of patients who are presenting at the hospital, which is of relevance to the training of doctors. The relevant factors include the supply of doctors, their training needs and their working practices. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that all of those are essential to the delivery of high-quality health care.
Clinical quality requires a minimum work load, so that doctors can build up experience. In an acute hospital without a minimum work load, doctors cannot be properly trained and senior doctors cannot maintain the expertise that they need to ensure the best treatment and care for patients. That situation has been developing for a long time, and it involves two issues:
128WH
accessibility, which local people greatly value, and the pressure towards greater specialisation, which is advocated in particular by some of the royal colleges.
Therefore, there is tension in that situation, and I am delighted that extra attention is now being paid to looking at the future of A and E services, by examining, for instance, whether we can use new technology such as tele-medicine. It is important to take a fresh look at how we provide A and E services, to see whether we can provide as much as possible in local communities, while maintaining a balance by continuing to provide excellence. Most people accept that it is not possible to have top-quality specialist care on everybody's doorstep; that is common sense. Therefore, getting that balance right is a key issue. We must look afresh at emergency care.
As hon. Members may be aware, in November 2001, we published a document called "Reforming Emergency Care: First Steps to a New Approach". It was worked on by all of the royal colleges, nurses, consultants, paramedics, the ambulance service—by everyone who is employed in emergency care. The document sets out a new strategy for joining up all of the elements of emergency care, because the issue is not only about A and E departments; it is about primary care. It is about whether people who currently come to A and E departments could be dealt with more appropriately, and faster and better, by primary care, community mental health units and a range of other partners. It is also about whether we can use the ambulance service more effectively. One ambulance service is sending consultants out in their vehicles, which enables them to make rapid decisions about diagnosis and admissions in patients' homes. As a result, emergency admissions to A and E departments are falling dramatically.
The issue is also about joining up walk-in centres, and joining up NHS Direct so that it can take some of the telephone calls that are currently made to A and E departments. We are planning for every health community to appoint an emergency care leader, who can try to join together all of the parts of the network. A great deal of innovation is going on in terms of looking at the future of A and E departments, and I urge hon. Members to get involved in that endeavour.
The issue is also about reform and changing the way that we do things. The Government intend to put in extra investment to change the way that services are delivered so that patients receive a better standard of care.
Mrs. Spelman: The Minister encourages us to look at innovation. Does she accept that it was an innovative solution to rotate doctors through the two hospital sites, to satisfy the criteria of the colleges for their training? Is she also aware that, although A and E services might not have significantly altered since the merger, the loss of an emergency surgeon at Solihull was crucial with regard to what could be done in the A and E department?
Ms Blears: I am delighted that people have come up with different ways of providing services and training doctors. There is no single solution to all such matters, which is why I have advised the hon. Lady to get involved in all that is contained in "Reforming Emergency Care". I urge her to read the document and

129WH
take an active, participative role in ensuring that its proposals happen in her local community. I am sure that she will.
The hon. Member for Solihull asked important questions about whose responsibility it is to make decisions and what the process is for that. I shall not say simply that that is a matter for local consideration, but, primarily, it is. We should aim to achieve consensus in a local community if we can. The primary care trusts, which will have a major role in examining reconfigurations in their communities, will be key to the process. They are the bodies with which local people will be involved and they will be able to look at the local community's needs. The primary care trusts will be able to decide what services are appropriate for the people that they represent. That is what I mean by getting people involved right at the start of the process. The primary care trust, which will have the majority of the budget and be commissioning services for local people, will be the driving force behind changing services locally.
Of course, if a major change is not agreed, it can be referred to Ministers, as at present. That power currently lies with community health councils. If the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, currently in the other place, is enacted, that power will be transferred to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. I have given an undertaking that the power to refer configurations to Ministers will be no less rigorous under the new system than it is under the existing one. There will be that right to refer. It is very important that local government, with democratically elected members, can take a view on such issues right across the community and that there can be the links between local government and the health service that have, perhaps, been lacking in the past.
The Government are in the process of setting up the independent reconfigurations panel, an independent body to offer advice to Ministers on contested and controversial reconfigurations. The panel is likely to be operating by the autumn, but if the matters under discussion were referred to it in advance of that, it might be in a position to offer some advice to Ministers. It is a very good development, which will be able to work up some consistency around configurations. It will examine not hard and fast rules or a rigid framework, but the way in which reconfigurations should go through. At the end of the day, decisions will remain the legal responsibility of Ministers. That situation will not change. I urge all hon. Members to get involved in that process, and I
130WH
know that they will. The hon. Member for Solihull has been very active on that, representing the views of his constituents and ensuring that Ministers are fully aware of the concerns surrounding a matter.
Staffing and training issues are important, but they are not the only issues. Access is incredibly important to local people, and such matters will be weighed in the balance when decisions are being made.
Mr. John Taylor: Will the Minister kindly take into account and acknowledge now the point, which I have made, that the daytime population of Solihull is much more than its residential population, for the reasons that I have given?
Ms Blears: I am delighted to deal with that point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned new homes, the new Touchwood site retail development, the airport and 30,000 new jobs to come. Those are important developments, which are happening as a result of the strong and thriving economy under this Government. I am delighted that his area is doing extremely well and that local people are thriving to such an extent. Clearly, his point is important, as it is in seaside areas that have a great influx of tourists. We must be conscious of such variations in communities.
It would be wrong to speculate on the future because, by the process that I have just explained, decisions might end up being made by Ministers. I am aware of the previous pledge given, as a result of the merger, on maintaining a 24-hour service. I am not in a position to say that the position will never change, because Ministers have a legal duty to take into account any changes in the population, the area and the services provided. However, we are determined to ensure that people have access to high-quality health services in their local communities.
Whatever is decided, the overriding aim should be the delivery of high-quality treatment in a modern, up-to-date setting, in an NHS fit for the 21st century. The hon. Gentleman's constituents are entitled to that, as are people throughout the country. The primary care trusts have a new role, a new responsibility and new powers to drive that system, and I urge them to make sure that they consult local people as widely as they possibly can in drawing up options for the future. It is crucial that local people are able to participate in formulating options as well as deciding on them at the end of the day; if we can get some kind of consensus on that, so much the better.

Mr.Gordon Downie
1.30 pm
David Cairns: Before moving into the substance of my contribution, I hope that you will indulge me, Mr. Taylor, if I make two preliminary and vital comments.
Today, British soldiers once again stand on the brink of active military service. The task that we have asked them to perform is crucial, and we know that it is highly dangerous. From the Balkans to Sierra Leone, from the remote mountains of Afghanistan to Northern Ireland, the men and women of our armed forces have shown without doubt that they are the finest in the world. Nothing that I say today can or will diminish the absolute respect that my constituent, Mr. Gordon Downie, and I feel for our armed forces.
My second preliminary remark is of equal weight. I am fully aware that today's debate comes with a price tag attached, and I am well aware of the pressure on the Ministry of Defence in its tough budgetary negotiations. It is time for the Government—I am happy to make this point in any forum—to increase the defence budget and defence spending if we are to rise to the challenge that the Prime Minister has set for us of fulfilling Britain's historic role as a leading world power.
Justice sometimes has a price tag attached to it, which is the case with my constituent Mr. Gordon Downie. The case is one of justice long denied that must be corrected, and a fair degree of recognition and compensation must be awarded. The case is complex; it went on for a number of years and involved several locations throughout the world. I hope that it will make it easier for you, Mr. Taylor, and the Chamber if I strip the case down to its bare essentials and give a brief chronology.
Mr. Gordon Downie is one of my Greenock constituents. His ambition as a boy was to join the Army, and he fulfilled it at the age of 16 when he joined up. He was given a medical, as is customary, and was passed fit to join the Army. In 1979, three years after he joined the Army, a medical examination revealed that he had a rare congenital deformation of his spine, which was diagnosed by the Army as a very gross congenital deformity of the upper-thoracic and cervical spine. At that time, the Army doctors who had discovered Mr. Downie's condition did not inform him about it. He received further postings and undertook a tour of duty in Northern Ireland.
In 1981, two years after the discovery of his condition had been withheld from him, Mr. Downie was on a tour of duty in Belize, and was injured during physical training exercises. A local doctor examined him and diagnosed a pulled muscle. At no stage were his medical records from the UK sought. Those records would have informed the local doctor that Mr. Downie had a congenital back condition that may have been damaged by the accident. Mr. Downie was told to return to his duty until his tour ended four months later.
Upon returning to Scotland, Mr. Downie collapsed due to the severe pain in his back. A doctor, who knew that Mr. Downie had that congenital condition, examined him and, realising that it had been exacerbated by the accident in Belize, recommended
132WH
that he be discharged from the Army because he was unfit to continue in service. The Army did not comply with that recommendation and for a second time Mr. Downie's congenital deformity was not disclosed to him. The following year, 1982, Mr. Downie was promoted to the rank of corporal and posted to Cyprus where the pain in his spine caused him to collapse again. The local medical officer yet again recommended that Mr. Downie be discharged, but yet again that did not happen and, for the third time, a medical officer did not tell Mr. Downie that he was suffering from a severe congenital ailment that was being exacerbated while he remained in active service. Mr. Downie returned to Scotland and served as a section commander, but his condition deteriorated further and he was eventually discharged in 1983 at the third time of asking. Mr. Downie now has constant pain in his back, neck, left arm, the left side of his chest and his left leg and several doctors have told him that his condition is inoperable.
In summary, the condition was discovered in 1979 but not disclosed to my constituent. In 1982, it was recommended that he be discharged, but that did not happen and the condition was again not disclosed to him. The same thing happened in the following year. Three recommendations for discharge from the Army were required before it happened and during that time, Mr. Downie's condition deteriorated. Mr. Taylor, consultant neurosurgeon at the Southern general hospital, Glasgow, issued a report stating that
"50% of his symptoms could be attributable to his spinal congenital abnormality and 50% could be attributable to the injury"
suffered in Belize.
"It is unlikely that he would have developed symptoms to the current level of severity if he had not sustained such an injury."
As the House knows—and I am sure the Minister will remind us when he replies—because the events occurred before the Armed Forces Act 1986, Mr. Downie, as a serving member of the Army was not legally able to sue the armed forces. He acknowledges and accepts that and there has been helpful correspondence from the Minister. However in recent months, the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced in United Kingdom law and has opened a window of opportunity for people such as Mr. Downie who suffered accidents before they were able to pursue claims against the Crown and the Army as their employer.
Mr. Justice Keith ruled in the High Court that the law barring legal claims by veterans injured through negligence—I contend that that applies in Mr. Downie's case—before service men won the right to sue clashed with the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. It is worth noting that civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence have always had that right and I have personal knowledge of civilian employees being given compensation for asbestosis when such compensation was denied to the men and women of our armed forces.
A declaration of incompatibility has been issued and we await further cases. We must wait for a test case to pursue the matter to its conclusion because my constituent is not a wealthy man. He is not part of a large group such as a veterans association, which might support his case. He simply does not have the financial

133WH
means to pursue a test case through the courts and must rely entirely on those who may be able to pursue such a case and on the outcome of that case.
This is a matter of fundamental justice. This gentleman is suffering because of negligent diagnosis, failure to inform him of his condition, and failure to act on the clear recommendations and medical advice from the Army's own medical officers, which resulted in his condition deteriorating and being exacerbated. In a letter to me about a month ago, Mr. Downie wrote:
"I only wish disabilities could change the way that this Act does, as my disability is as real now as it was in 1983."
That is the point. It does not matter whether someone suffered an injury before or after 1987. The pain and suffering are as real now as they would be if the person had suffered the injury after the Act was amended and they had been allowed to sue for compensation.
Mr. Downie's ability to work and move is limited, and his future earnings are certainly limited. He is entitled, as I believe my hon. Friend the Minister will point out, to an Army pension, but because 50 per cent. of his condition was diagnosed as existing before he joined the Army, the amount of pension to which he is entitled is also limited. That is unfair, as Mr. Downie clearly would not have joined the Army if his condition had been diagnosed or disclosed to him at the time.
We are talking about a man who has served his country well in difficult circumstances, not about one of the usual suspects, a troublemaker or someone who wishes the Army ill. We should listen to the words of Mr. Downie's commanding officer on his certificate of service:
"Cpl Downie has unfortunately had to end a very promising career with the Army as a result of being medically downgraded. During his service he has proved himself to be a loyal, conscientious, trustworthy, cheerful and reliable NCO. He has shown great enthusiasm for his work and has adapted well to the variety of jobs he has been faced with. A likeable young man who has got on well with his contemporaries and who has been an asset to the Regiment."
This man gave the best years of his life to the Army and is suffering as a result. He was a loyal, decent, conscientious and brave soldier and is not asking for the earth or for untold riches; he simply wants a degree of compensation to make up for the gross negligence of which he has been, and continues to be, a victim, and because of the suffering that he endures today.
The Minister may say that he has to discharge the law and that his hands are tied. I understand that, as does Mr. Downie. However, we need a resolution of the matter, not just for Mr. Downie but for those who are in a similar situation. I would be surprised if there were many other cases in which the negligence was so culpable and clear and had resulted so directly in continued suffering for an individual. I hope that this good and loyal soldier will receive the justice that he has long been denied and that, in due course, he will receive the pension to which I believe he is entitled as well as some degree of ex gratia compensation as recognition of his current pain and suffering.
1.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde
134WH
(David Cairns) for securing this debate on the case of his constituent, Mr. Gordon Downie, and the important issues surrounding his claim for compensation against my Department. My hon. Friend will recall that we corresponded on this matter last year. However, other than repeating the advice that I provided in that letter, there is little that I can add at present.
I understand that, in 1981, while serving in Belize with the 1st Battalion, Gordon Highlanders, Mr. Downie injured his back during physical training. He was subsequently, after the events outlined by my hon. Friend, medically discharged from the Army in January 1983. Our records show that he submitted a claim in May 1997, alleging that his medical discharge from the Army was a direct result of his accident in Belize and not a consequence of a congenital abnormality to his spine.
Notwithstanding the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that personal injury claims be made within three years of the date on which the cause of action accrued—the date of the accident—or three years from when the claimant knew, or might reasonably be expected to have known, certain specified facts, Mr. Downie is barred by law from suing the Ministry of Defence by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
Before 1948, no individual could sue the Crown, because of the long-held principle that the Crown could do no wrong. We might discuss that at some stage in another forum, but that was the principle at the time. In 1947, legislation in the guise of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was passed enabling the Crown to be sued for acts of negligence. Section 10 of that legislation prevented service personnel from suing for compensation. Section 10 in turn was subsequently repealed by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. Since then, service personnel have been entitled to sue the Ministry of Defence for compensation as a result of the Department's negligence and have had the same legal rights as any other employee against their employer or organisation.
When the Ministry of Defence receives compensation claims, they are considered on the basis of whether the Department has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability to pay compensation, we do so. The amount varies according to individual circumstances, determined by common law principles. However, in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent, as the injury he sustained while serving in the Army preceded the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, I am prevented by law from paying him compensation.
During the passage of the 1987 Act, the question of retrospection was debated and motions to allow present and past members of the armed forces to pursue claims against my Department for injury or death suffered in incidents since 1947 were moved, but they were defeated or withdrawn. The view that prevailed at the time was that there would have been no logical time to draw a line, short of trying to cover all incidents and all types of injury going back to 1947. To make the Act retrospective would create many new examples of unfairness and injustice.

135WH
My hon. Friend said that he is aware that a former member of the armed forces suffering from an asbestos-related disease recently mounted a legal challenge the case of Matthews v. the Ministry of Defence. However, section 10 of the 1947 Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The claimant alleged a breach of article 2, the right to life, and article 6, the due process right, of the convention. The case under article 2 was that, by exposing him to asbestos dust, the Crown was in breach of its obligation to take positive steps to safeguard his health. The case under article 6 was that, as section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act is a blanket immunity, it deprives the claimant of his right of access to the court. The matter was heard in the High Court on 10 and 11 December 2001. Mr Justice Keith handed down judgment on 22 January 2002 in favour of the claimant.
The Department has secured leave to take this matter expeditiously to the Court of Appeal, where it will be argued strongly that there is a general presumption that legislation does not and should not have a retrospective effect, in the interests of legal certainty and the rule of law. It is also highly arguable that article 6 of the convention does not give new civil rights to claimants. In the case of service personnel who suffered injury or illness prior to the repeal of section 10, they had no rights until 1987, and therefore in relation to the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, claimants would have to argue that the 1987 Act, in giving them a right, was nevertheless deficient. Therefore, until such time as the higher authority has ruled on the case, my Department's position concerning the payment of claims preceding the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 remains unchanged.
My hon. Friend may recall that the question of retrospective legislation was referred to in the Official Report. The Solicitor General said:
"The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998."—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 410W.]
My Department has no way of accurately predicting the number of claims, previously barred by law, that would likely be made if the Court of Appeal and ultimately the House of Lords were to uphold the judgment in Matthews v. the Ministry of Defence. As my hon. Friend will be aware from my correspondence
136WH
of last year on Mr. Downie's case, the War Pensions Agency, which is now part of my rapidly increasing area of responsibility, makes provision for ex-service personnel suffering from injury or illness attributable to their service in the form of a war pension and associated benefits. War pensions are non-discretionary. They are not means-tested and are made on a no-fault, tax-free and retrospective basis. They are also uprated annually. In addition, most pension and related benefit rates vary depending on the degree of physical disability. They do not, however, reflect actual financial losses or hardships.
According to the War Pensions Agency, Mr. Downie has been in receipt of such a pension since the early 1990s and, following a recent successful disability assessment appeal hearing, his level of pension has increased. However, although not relevant in this particular case, my hon. Friend should note that in cases where a recipient of a war pension is subsequently awarded common law compensation, the level of war pension is abated by the War Pensions Agency in line with the principle of a claimant not being compensated twice for the same loss.
My hon. Friend will recall that in our correspondence last year he inquired about the possibility of Mr. Downie being awarded an ex gratia payment by my Department in recognition of his injury. As I explained in my reply then, except for two special categories of claim relating to injuries sustained by criminal activities overseas and accidental injuries sustained by service personnel voluntarily involved in research trials, it is my Department's policy to consider claims for compensation on the basis of legal liability. With the exception of those two categories, I have no discretionary powers to award ex gratia payments. As Mr. Downie's case falls into neither of the above categories, he is prevented also from receiving an ex gratia payment. I have looked at this very carefully and I can see no room for manoeuvre on my part.
I can assure my hon. Friend that his constituent, Mr. Downie, is not being denied any form of compensation to which he is legally entitled. As I have advised today, as well as in correspondence, my Department considers claims for compensation on the basis of legal liability. Mr. Downie is legally prevented from pursuing a common law claim for compensation. I am really sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but compensation legislation is unambiguous and its constraints cannot be set aside, no matter how deserving the case. I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can do at present.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o 'clock.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel Memorial
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the memorial to service personnel killed since the second world war; and if he will make a statement. [44480]

  Mr. Hoon
  A project team was appointed early last year to look at potential sites for the memorial and to consider the qualifying criteria for those to be commemorated. Extensive research was carried out on suitable sites both in and outside London. There has been wide consultation with the services and ex-service organisations on both the siting and eligibility criteria. There is general support for the proposals.

  I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Armed Forces Memorial will be sited at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. The names of those commemorated will either be engraved on the memorial or in Rolls of Honour that will be kept close by in the Millennium Chapel at the Arboretum. The design of the memorial will be decided following an architectural competition that will be held later this year.

  The qualifying criteria for inclusion on the memorial are:
  ?All those Service personnel who were killed on duty whilst performing functions attributable to the special circumstances and requirements of the Armed Forces, or as a result of terrorist attack, and all those who died whilst deployed on designated operations.?

  An additional part of the project will be to erect a memorial plaque in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey to those members of the armed forces killed in conflict since the end of the second world war. Finally, there will be Rolls of Honour recording the names of all members of the Royal Navy and the Army who have died in service during this period. These will be kept in suitable churches in London and will be similar to those for the Royal Air Force that are kept in the Church of St. Clement Danes.

  Trustees of the Armed Forces Memorial trust will now be appointed to take this project forward. They will take on the ownership of the memorial and will be responsible for its funding and construction. Funds will be raised by public subscription.

  This is a very important national project that will also provide a platform to help educate our younger generations about the value of our armed forces.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) TA AMS field hospitals, (b) TA AMS medical squadrons and (c) TA AMS specialist units were required under the terms of the Strategic Defence Review;
  312W
  what plans he has to alter these requirements; what plans he has to ensure each category if fully recruited; and if he will make a statement. [38321]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: There are no plans to alter the number of TA AMS field hospitals, TA AMS medical squadrons and TA AMS specialist units, which are currently as follows:

  TA AMS Field Hospitals

  201 Field Hospital (V)

  202 Field Hospital (V)

  203 Field Hospital (V)

  204 Field Hospital (V)

  205 Field Hospital (V)

  207 Field Hospital (V)

  208 Field Hospital (V)

  212 Field Hospital (V)

  243 Field Hospital (V)

  256 Field Hospital (V)

  306 Field Hospital (V)

  TA AMS Medical Squadrons

  144 Parachute Medical Squadron (V)

  220 Medical Squadron (V)

  222 Medical Squadron (V)

  250 Medical Squadron (V)

  TA AMS Specialist Unit

  Ambulance Training Group (V)

  381 Medical Supply Squadron (V)

  Manpower Pool (V).

  The TA AMS will continue to benefit from a national, targeted, recruitment campaign. Since the campaign was launched in 1999, we have seen the strength of health care professionals in the TA rising by a steady 5 per cent. per annum.

  Depleted Uranium
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the monitoring systems he has put in place to check the levels of depleted uranium entering the ground water and food chain from the use of munitions containing depleted uranium at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright training areas. [43415]

  Dr. Moonie
  Comprehensive environmental monitoring programmes have been in place at both Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright ever since the beginning of the DU munitions trials announced in the House in 1979. These programmes have focused on the collection and analysis of samples of soil, vegetation, freshwater, seawater, seaweed, molluscs and seabed and shoreline sediments. Faecal samples from domestic and wild animals have also been collected on an opportunity basis. This monitoring continues to show that DU does not pose a significant risk to members of the public or site personnel.

  Other Government Departments with statutory health and safety and environmental protection responsibilities were consulted while these programmes were being established, and their successors, principally the Environment Agency and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, continue to be advised of the nature and results of the monitoring activities. The local councils also

  313W
  receive copies of the annual environmental monitoring reports for both sites. The Ministry of Defence also made a commitment on 13 May 1998, Official Report, columns 128-29W, to continue these monitoring activities for as long as the regulatory authorities consider necessary.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what clean up operations he has put in place on the Crown Estate relating to the use of munitions containing depleted uranium. [43422]

  Dr. Moonie
  As Eskmeals, depleted uranium (DU) rounds have been fired against hard targets and the resulting DU fragments and contaminated debris have been collected after each firing. The material has then been sent for disposal at the low-level radioactive waste repository at Drigg. Air filters from the target area have also been disposed of via this route. Some higher activity material, such as DU plate, which is not suitable for disposal at Drigg, remains in storage pending a national decision on future radioactive waste disposal strategies. Some steel targets contaminated with very low levels of DU are still stored at the site and options for the disposal of this material are currently being discussed with the Environment Agency.

  At Kirkudbright, the trials require the DU rounds to be fired through very soft targets (such as hessian sheets) and to travel out to sea. In this case, remediation is required only if an experimental round malfunctions and contaminates the range area. When such impact points have been located, samples of soil and vegetation have been collected to assess the degree of contamination: clean-up is then carried out if pre-set action levels have been exceeded. Specially marked drums have been kept at each firing point for storing contaminated material and the Radiation Protection Adviser has provided disposal advice on a case-by-case basis.

  At West Freugh, a small number of DU projectiles, weighing less than 25kg in total, were fired into the sea 2km below the low-water mark. There are no records of any DU projectiles accidentally striking the land in the region. The small number of DU rounds in the sea were not considered to pose a hazard which would warrant a clean-up operation.

  Foulness had an indoor facility, in which small experimental DU projectiles were fired between 1982 and 1983. The building was designed to prevent any escape of particulate DU into the atmosphere. It is no longer in use and was decontaminated in 1997.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Royal Society report on the health effects of depleted uranium munitions; and if he will make a statement. [44038]

  Dr. Moonie
  We welcome the publication of part II of the Royal Society report which is a valuable addition to the scientific knowledge on the risks from depleted uranium (DU) munitions.

  Overall, the report?s conclusions are very much in line with the Ministry of Defence?s assessment that the risks DU poses to the health of UK Gulf veterans, peacekeepers in the Balkans and UK forces/civilians in current and future conflicts, are very low, in all but extreme cases. This is what we have always believed, and bears out the
  314W
  findings of research carried out by organisations such as the United Nations and World Health Organisation as well as ourselves.

  The extreme circumstances mentioned in the report could affect individuals such as the crew of a vehicle that had been hit by a DU round or personnel who had worked for long periods, unprotected, in a vehicle which had been hit. I am pleased to say that no UK service personnel have been exposed in this way.

  Nevertheless, there are a number of areas where we believe that further research is desirable to enhance the database on which to make judgments weighing the potential loss of life arising from not using DU munitions in battle against any potential longer term impact on human health and the environment resulting from its use. On 14 March 2002, I released details of the MOD research programme which contains elements that address this subject. The full details of our proposals have been placed in the Library of the House. They have also been published on the MOD website.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is regarding the selection of films held in the archive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down to be transferred to the Imperial War Museum for permanent preservation; and what plans he has to change this policy. [43454]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 May 2001, Official Report, column 196W. Films held in the archive at Dstl Porton Down are gradually being transferred to the Imperial War Museum in accordance with Ministry of Defence policy. The final decision on which films should be preserved for permanent preservation rests with the Imperial War Museum. There are currently no plans to change this procedure.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates since 1 January 1999 the Independent Ethics Committee overseeing human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down has discussed the long-term effects of nerve gas on humans during its meetings. [43453]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Independent Ethics Committee overseeing the conduct of the Service Volunteer Programme at Dstl Porton Down has not discussed the possible long term effects of exposure to nerve agents during its meetings since 1 January 1999.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down in 1973 entitled ?The effects of a chemical agent on the eyes of aircrew?. [43444]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many films are held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, of its biological warfare trial known as Operation Ozone which was conducted in 1954 off the Bahamas; and if he will place a list of the titles and dates of these films in the Library. [43456]
  315W
  Dr. Moonie
  Dstl Porton Down holds two canisters of 16 mm film entitled Operation Ozone ?Master? and Operation Ozone ?View? together with a videotape, entitled ?Operation Ozone—1954?, which contains footage extracted from the 16 mm ?Master? shot during the trial.

  However, the titles of the 1,200 films in the archive at Dstl Porton Down have not been catalogued and in many cases are not very informative. It would involve disproportionate cost to collate a compete list of films. It is not, therefore, possible to say if the two canisters of film and the videotape detailed above represents the sum total of Dstl Porton Down?s film holdings in relation to Operation Ozone.

  Overseas Territories/Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when (a) he, (b) a member of the Chief of the Staff and
  (c) a naval vessel last visited each of the (i) British Overseas Territories and (ii) sovereign bases. [44034]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is as follows:My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island in March 2002, Gibraltar in July 2001 and the sovereign base areas (SBAs) on Cyprus in July 2001. He has not visited any other Overseas Territories.
  Chief of the Defence Staff visited the Falkland Islands in January 2001 and Gibraltar in May 2001.
  Chief of the General Staff visited Bermuda in November 2001.
  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff visited the SBA in December 2001.
  We have no records of visits by the Chiefs of Staff to any other Overseas Territories during the last five years.

  The last visits by naval vessels were as follows:

  Anguilla—June 2001

  Bermuda—July 2001

  British Antarctic Territory—March 2002

  British Indian Ocean Territory—November 2001

  British Virgin Islands—November 2001

  Cayman Islands—August 2001

  Falkland Islands—March 2002

  Gibraltar—March 2002

  Montserrat—November 2001

  Pitcairn Islands—September 2000

  St. Helena—December 2001

  Ascension Island—July 2001

  Tristan Da Cunha—January 2002

  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—February 2002

  Turks and Caicos Islands—July 2001

  Sovereign base area, Cyprus—March 2002.

  Incapacitated Personnel
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to facilitate the continuing employment by the armed forces in (a) a military or (b) a civilian capacity of those who become incapacitated to serve in front-line units. [44268]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is pursuing initiatives to reduce the numbers who are temporarily unfit for operational purposes because of injury. These initiatives include measures aimed at prevention of injury,316W
  for example, improvements to the physical fitness training programmes for new entrants. The measures also include swifter assessment and better treatment of those who are injured, especially through the creation of additional rehabilitation facilities. These steps are expected to lead to a reduction in the numbers of personnel who are medically downgraded, including a reduction in the numbers who are invalided as a consequence of injury.

  Any personnel developing a permanent condition which degrades their functional capacity may require to be permanently downgraded or invalided as appropriate. The recommendation will be made in accordance with the service?s medical boarding procedures. A Medical Board may recommend that an individual?s medical condition is compatible with continued service in a permanently reduced medical category but the final decision will be made by the employing authority, taking into account the ability for the service to continue to employ an individual with the relevant restriction. If, despite efforts to the contrary, this turns out not to be practicable, the individual will be invalided.

  In the case of officers invalided from the service, subject to meeting the health requirements laid down, eligible individuals may apply for employment under the MOD Retired Officer scheme. Alternatively, there are no restrictions on disabled people being employed in civilian jobs in the MOD. The Department complies fully with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and was one of the first Departments to achieve the Employment Service two-tick ?Positive about disabled people? symbol in May 1995. The MOD also has its own Disability Fund to pay for specialist equipment and training to help disabled employees develop their full potential at work. The Department is a member of the Employers? Forum on Disability and currently funds three disability bursaries through the Cabinet Office scheme. Around 5 per cent. of the civilian workforce of the MOD has a declared disability. This percentage is broadly in line with the estimated numbers of economically active disabled people in the working population as a whole.

  Finally, the Veterans Agency will run an integrated website and free-phone helpline from 2 April 2002 to provide the first point of contact for veterans and their dependents seeking advice and information.

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment of (a) doctors by specialty, (b) nurses and (c) technicians required by (i) field hospitals of the TA AMS, (ii) medical squadrons of the TA AMS and (iii) TA AMS specialist units, stating in each case the number of (A) doctors by specialty, (B) nurses and (C) technicians serving in each category; and if he will make a statement. [38319]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The answer to this question consists of an extensive set of tables, which I will place in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the operational deployments of each (a) TA AMS field hospital, (b) TA AMS medical squadrons and (c) TA AMS specialist units in each of the last five years,
  317W
  stating in each case the number of (i) doctors by specialty, (ii) nurses and (iii) technicians deployed; and if he will make a statement. [38320]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: We do not have centrally collated records for 1997, but in the four years since 1998 no TA AMS field hospitals, TA AMS medical Squadrons or TA AMS Specialist units have been deployed on operations. Individual members of the TA AMS have, however, been deployed on operations as follows:

  Profession

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  operational theatre

  Anaesthetist

  0

  5

  2

  5

  Balkans

  Surgeon

  0

  3

  6

  2

  All Balkans1

  Nursing Officer

  9

  17

  15

  16

  Balkans

  Medical Officer

  0

  14

  10

  4

  Balkans

  Technicians

  14

  46

  31

  32

  Balkans

  1 Except one to Sierra Leone in
  2001

  Property Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of his Department?s property managers there are; how many have attended fraud awareness training sessions; and if he will make a statement;[43010]

  (2) what fraud awareness has been included in his Department?s housing training sessions; and if he will make a statement. [43011]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) has 20 Property Manager posts, two of which are vacant. Of the 18 staff in post, 17 have attended the DHE?s own Property Managers? course, which includes a fraud awareness module. The remaining individual, a new entrant, will attend the next available course, which all DHE Property Managers are mandated to attend. In addition, there are wider Ministry of Defence fraud awareness seminars for property management and estate and finance staff, at which attendance may include appropriate DHE personnel.

  War Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been of running the war pension scheme appeals process in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [44019]

  Dr. Moonie
  Records are not maintained by the War Pensions Agency of the costs of preparation of war pension appeals.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for war pensions there have been in each of the last five years; how many were successful on their first application; how many have failed and then been agreed on appeal; how many have been refused on appeal; and if he will make a statement. [44021]

  Dr. Moonie
  For each of the last five years, the following numbers of first claims to war disablement pension were made.
  318W

  Claims

  1996–97

  27,660

  1996–98

  17,201

  1998–99

  14,072

  1999–2000

  11,810

  2000–01

  11,015

  However, data on claims for war pension are not recorded in a format which can provide information on the success or failure of those claims or the numbers against which an appeal was lodged.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Department has spent on the Queen"s Jubilee in each of the past three years; how it was allocated; and if he will make a statement. [44584]

  Dr. Moonie
  Her Majesty the Queen requested that additional expenditure on her Golden Jubilee be kept to a minimum. The armed forces are organising a royal visit which will take place in. Portsmouth in late June and the Ministry of Defence will fund the cost of providing a Golden Jubilee medal to eligible service personnel. Wherever possible any expenditure on these two projects will be from its existing financial allocation. There was no identifiable expenditure on the Golden Jubilee in financial year (FY) 1999–2000. In FY 2000–01 there was an estimated£31,500 associated with planning for the Golden Jubilee and thus far in FY 2001–02 a further £1,155,000 has been spent, including the costs of supplying and issuing about 40,500 Golden Jubilee medals. Additional expenditure is anticipated in the coming FY.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. [41098]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 amended the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (the Service discipline Acts), primarily to provide for the judicial supervision of pre-trial custody and to introduce a right of appeal against findings and sentences imposed summarily.

  All discipline procedures are kept under review. We shall be considering whether any changes will be required to the aspects dealt with in the 2000 Act when the Service discipline Acts are replaced by a single piece of discipline legislation covering all the Services. We are also assessing whether any modifications may be necessary as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom, although that judgment was directly concerned with court martial procedures rather than the areas covered by the 2000 Act.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if he has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44072]
  319W
  Dr. Moonie
  Details of those civil servants within the Ministry of Defence with a Reserve Forces liability are not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  An important element of the MOD"s ongoing campaign to strengthen and encourage the Reserve Forces is to highlight the development benefits that Reserve Forces" training and experience can offer to individuals and, consequently, their employers. These benefits are highlighted within my own Department and staff are encouraged to consider a whole range of volunteering activities, including the Reserve Forces, as part of their personal and career development. Managers within the MOD are required to support those with reserve commitments and by so doing we aim to set a positive example to other employers.

  Warship Modernisation Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether funding is available to undertake the transfer of HM naval bases to the three bidding contractors under the Warship Modernisation Project; and if he will make a statement. [44736]

  Mr. Ingram
  Should partnering proceed, we would not be transferring the ownership of the Naval Bases. They would remain within the control and ownership of the Ministry of Defence. We would be transferring only the delivery of certain outputs of the Naval Bases to the potential partners. Any costs arising from this would he funded from existing provision.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2002, Official Report, column 498W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; arid what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42638]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reported cases of theft are held centrally on a summary basis only. They relate to items suspected of being stolen and so it cannot be assumed that theft actually applies in every case. The provision of comprehensive details relating to age, utilisation and nature of data stored in respect of each item of computer equipment suspected of being stolen could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that Iraq does not have the capability to use (a) nuclear, (b) chemical and (c) biological weapons of mass destruction. [44311]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  For 12 years now the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to persuade Iraq to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions by dismantling its weapons of mass destruction capability, under the supervision of UN weapons inspectors. We have taken military action when Iraqi intransigence has left us with no other option. We have made clear that we would be prepared to do so again if necessary.

WALES

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr.Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by (a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27403]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not readily available.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost of his Department"s website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36206]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total cost of the Welsh Office website between 1 April 1998 and 1 July 1999 was £7,867.

  The Wales Office was not charged for the running of its website between 1 July 1999 and 1 September 2000.

  The cost of running the website—including the development of a bilingual site—between 1 September 2000 and 31 August 2001 was £5,699.

  Information relating to the number of hits is not held centrally.

  Cynon Valley
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on levels of multiple social deprivation in the Cynon Valley; and what measures are being taken to provide a co—ordinated response to inequalities. [40534]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with the First Secretary and his Cabinet Colleagues, to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales.

  I recognise that several parts of the Cynon Valley rank relatively highly in the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation.

  The Government and the National Assembly are working in partnership to build a fairer and more inclusive society in which everyone can benefit from rising prosperity. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced several measures aimed at increasing fairness for people and their communities. These include tackling child poverty, providing security in old age, rewarding saving and creating a fair and efficient tax system.

  I understand that a number of projects in the Cynon Valley are being supported by the Assembly through various funding channels, including the Local Regeneration Fund.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh companies with fewer than 0.1 per cent. of their global work force employed in
  321W
  companies in Wales which will be accompanying the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on his forthcoming visit to the Czech Republic. [41432]

  Mr. Touhig
  No companies with fewer than 0.1 per cent. of their global work force employed in Wales, accompanied me on my recent visit to the Czech Republic.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies accompanied by the Under-Secretary of State in his Department on the visit to the Czech Republic in the week commencing 11 March. [41433]

  Mr. Touhig
  The companies that accompanied me were:

  Adams Consulting Engineers Ltd. (Mold, Flintshire);

  Garner Southall Partnership (Llandrindod Wells, Powys);

  HPA Property Ltd. (Gorseinon, Swansea);

  Invest E Ltd.(Welshpool, Powys);

  MIGs (Cardiff);

  RPS Chapman Warren (Cardiff);

  Y Faenol Cyf/The Vaynol Estate (Bangor, Gwynedd).

  Dairy Crest
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance has been given to the Dairy Crest plants in Wales. [41869]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1 July 1999, this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. Available records show no Welsh Office support to Dairy Crest plants prior to that date.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, column 706–07W, on stolen equipment, whether the laptop stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on it. [42652]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that this theft, which dates from the period of the former Welsh Office, was of ancillary cabling equipment for a laptop rather than the laptop itself. There was thus no loss of data.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the functions of his Department that have been (a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42990]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Executive functions previously a matter for the Welsh Office have in general transferred to the National Assembly for Wales and so the Wales Office has undertaken no market testing or outsourcing since it was established in July 1999.

  Between April 1997 and June 1999 the former Welsh Office undertook these exercises:
  market testing of the valuation services being provided by the Valuation Office agency in 1996–97. This led to the award of a three-year contract to DTZ Debenham Tie Leung;
  322W
  outsourcing of the Highways Directorate"s property management function in South Wales in 1997–98. This was achieved by a three-year contract with Messrs. Darlows estate agents of Newport outsourcing on an interim basis;
  outsourcing on an interim basis the work previously undertaken by Government property lawyers following their demise in 1999. This work was undertaken by Bissmire Fudge and Bond Pearce.

  Figures for the savings achieved are not readily available as these contracts are now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Ministerial Visits (National Assembly)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many visits(a) he and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have made to the National Assembly for Wales in each month since July 1999. [43226]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I visit the National Assembly virtually on a weekly basis for meetings with the First Minister, Assembly Ministers and other meetings. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary visits the Assembly on the same basis for meetings with Assembly Ministers and others.

PRIME MINISTER

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [39066]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. on 19 March.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what proportion of the staff of his office are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42418]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Monday 18 March,Official Report, column 74W.

  Manpower
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff have been employed by his office in each of the last 10 years. [42465]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Tuesday 19 March.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number and expected cost to his office of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43277]

  The Prime Minister
  At 13 March, there are 27 special advisers in my office. On cost, I have already announced the introduction of a revised pay system for special
  323W
  advisers based on individual job evaluation. The process of evaluation is currently under way. The cost will be provided once the process is completed.

  US Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the US Administration concerning the review of its policies on the use of nuclear weapons. [43809]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) with Vice President Dick Cheney, on his visit to London on 11 March. We welcome the in-depth review of deterrence and nuclear policy that the review represents and its main conclusion that the US can cut its operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds to 1,700 to 2,200. We note US Administration comments that the NPR represents prudent conceptual thinking, not an operational plan, and that the US does not target any country on a day-to-day basis. We also welcome the US Administration"s statements that there has been no change to US first strike policy.

  Meetings
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Spanish Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement. [43868]

  The Prime Minister
  I talk to the Spanish Prime Minister frequently on a range of EU and foreign policy issues. Our most recent discussions were at the Barcelona European Council.

  Gibraltar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Gibraltar. [43934]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Kyoto
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the issue of climate change and Kyoto with the Australian Prime Minister during the recent Commonwealth talks; and if he will make a statement on climate change negotiations, with particular reference to Kyoto. [44051]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue of climate change was discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting where the final communiqu" stated "Head of Government expressed concern about the consequences of global warming and climate change, especially for the vulnerable small island states arid other low-lying areas".

  I firmly believe that the Kyoto Protocol remains the only workable basis to take forward international action to tackle climate change. We intend to ratify the Protocol in time for it to enter into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development. A European Community decision to ratify Kyoto, which paved the way for the UK and the other EU member states to complete their own ratification procedures, was adopted on 4 March. On 7 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement to the House setting in motion the process of UK ratification of the Protocol,
  324W
  which will be completed on or shortly after 19 April. UK And EU ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will send an important message to the world that we are committed to the Protocol and to tackling climate change.

  Overseas Acquisitions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since May 1997 he, or his office, have(a) assisted and (b) issued an official communication to welcome an overseas acquisition by an individual or company. [44484]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the United States Administration on military action in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [42219]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with President Bush and the US Administration. My most recent discussions were with US Vice-President Cheney in London on 11 March. I will have another opportunity to do so during my visit to the US next month.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that a new and specific mandate from the United Nations Security Council is an essential condition of(a) any international offensive military action against Iraq and (b) the deployment of UK forces in action against Iraq. [44314]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq, and so the question of whether authorisation is needed does not arise.

  Government Loans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish its report on Modernising Government Loans. [37654]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit"s report "Lending Support—Modernising the Government"s Use of Loans" is being published today. The key conclusions of the report are:

  (i) It sets out a new framework with criteria that will help consistent judgments to be made on when loans are more appropriate to use than alternatives such as grants;

  (ii) Most existing Government loans, and similar types of
  support, score well under these criteria;

  (iii) The framework has been demonstrated by applying it to a
  number of illustrative case studies, such as the example of a
  Government loan for unemployed people who wish to set up in
  self-employment;

  (iv) It announces a feasibility study looking into the
  longer-term opportunities offered by greater joining up of
  the administration of all forms of citizens" debts to
  Government and financial transactions more generally. This
  will report to Ministers who will decide whether or not to
  commission further work.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries.

TREASURY

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a disaggregated analysis of how the Office for National Statistics intends to spend the money granted by supplementary estimate for the various purposes listed on page 57 of HC 636. [44085]

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

  Letter from Mr. Len Cook to Mr. David Liddington dated 20 March 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how the Office for National Statistics intends to spend the money granted by supplementary estimate for the various purposes listed on page 57 of HC 636. (44085)
  The requested information is on page 4 of the "Office for National Statistics, Spring Supplementary Estimate 2001–02" (Cm 5399), a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 704W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42651]

  Ruth Kelly
  (a) None.

  (b) All. None of the items capable of storing data will have contained anything but unclassified material.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the payment of salaries to public sector workers which reflect the cost of living in London and the south-east. [44313]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: We are carefully considering pay issues, among others, in the Spending Review now under way with close regard to achievement of the Government"s objectives for public services.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the pay structures in building societies to assist his consideration of public sector pay rates. [44318]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]We have no plans for any specific detailed assessment of pay structures in building societies. However, the Treasury keeps abreast of pay structures in the economy so as to ensure policy remains well informed.

  Informers" Reward
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions, prior to 31 March 2001, the Treasury has withheld consent to an informers" reward awarded by the Inland Revenue under section 32 of the Inland Revenue Act 1890; and on what grounds and statutory authority. [43905]
  326W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: The Inland Revenue is not aware of any case in which the Treasury has withheld consent for it to make a reward payment.

  Contributions Agency (Bills)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the sending out of bills to people below the small earnings threshold by the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement. [43457]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The Department does not normally issue bills to people whose earnings are below the small earnings threshold.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the definition of a green quarry for the purposes of an aggregates tax. [37470]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Government have decided not to pursue a differential rate scheme for so-called "green quarries" at the present time, because of difficulties in assessing environmental performance accurately and the prospect of setting up perverse incentives.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for the introduction of an aggregates tax; and if he will postpone its introduction. [37472]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: As announced in Budget 2000, the aggregates levy will be introduced on 1 April 2002. The General Regulations will be made and laid this week. The draft Finance Bill clauses will be published very shortly.

  The following technical amendments that the Government propose to make in this year"s Finance Bill to facilitate the smooth functioning of the aggregates levy, and which were announced in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 12 March 2002, will be effective immediately from the introduction of the levy:
  To amend the definition of aggregate to include rock that has not been subject to an industrial crushing process
  To clarify the definition of dimension stone
  To extend the exemption for processing waste arising from the extraction of coal to the processing waste of all industrial minerals
  To clarify that for all mineral extraction, any aggregate contained in the overburden is taxable
  To extend the exemption for aggregate won from forest or farm land and used in adjacent land, to its use in land occupied with that forest or farm
  To extend the exemption for drill cuttings to include onshore drill cuttings
  To introduce a number of minor technical amendments which clarify policy intention, close a potential loophole or bring the legislation into line with other taxes. These were detailed in Customs and Excise Business Brief number 17/2001 issued on 28 November 2001.
  327W
  The proposed relief for aggregates used in processed products in Northern Ireland, will be backdated to 1 April 2002, on approval under European Community state aid rules, to ensure that no levy is paid on aggregate used to make these products in 2002–03.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to introduce a deminimis level for those affected by the aggregates tax. [37471]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: The Government have no such plans.

  Lead partner

  Title

  Central Government

  Cabinet Office

  Embedding cross sector partnership working

  Cabinet Office

  Electronic free school means administration

  DCMS Science Museum

  Making the modern world online

  DCMS English Tourist Council

  RESTOUR (creation of an online tourism community to aid recovery of English tourism)

  DEFRA

  Online UK fishing vessel registration system

  DEFRA

  DEFRA fisheries—fishing portal

  DEFRA

  National grain sampling and analysis system

  DEFRA

  Severe weather and flooding warnings—informing the public

  DEFRA

  Electronic data delivery for the plant breeding and seed industry

  DFES

  Construction and engineering industry training board online levy returns

  DFES

  Early detection of dyslexia

  DFES

  Social Bank (savings gateway pilots)

  DFES

  Support for enterprising communities

  DFES Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit

  National technical IT skills linked to a prisoner resettlement programme

  DFES/LA GM Connexions Partnership

  E-Pal (Electronic or virtual personal adviser)

  DTI

  Redundancy payments service—e-business project

  DTLR

  Transmit fire database electronically

  DTLR

  Electronic systems for highways (central notification of works project)

  DTLR Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Electronic links between DVLA and local authorities

  DTLR Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Electronic reporting of fitness to drive

  DTLR Health and Safety Executive

  Electronic health and safety tools for the business support network

  DTLR Health and Safety Executive

  Electronic risk assessment system for farmers

  DTLR Northumberland County Council Fire Authority

  Citizens' fire, safety and health academy

  DWP

  Performance framework for administering housing benefit and council tax benefit

  DWP

  Performance improvement action teams administering housing benefit and council tax benefit

  DWP

  Flexible employment service delivery—prisons pilot

  DWP

  Encouraging ex-NHS workers back to the NHS

  DWP

  Training older jobseekers as IT technicians in secondary schools

  DWP

  Assisting in processing claims and backlogs of work

  Forestry Commission

  IT/administration systems to deliver forestry grants and licences

  Home Office Police

  Creation of a national centre for applied learning technology in the police

  Home Office Police

  Abandoned vehicles and citizen information database

  Home Office

  Volunteering and training (joint project between the Prison Service and West Yorkshire Police

  Home Office

  Showcase hospitals (security/safety)

  Home Office

  Showcase schools (security/safety)

  Home Office

  Missing persons database and strategy

  Home Office

  Parenting involvement study

  Home Office

  Community merit awards

  Home Office Passport Office

  Direct electronic passports project

  Home Office Passport Office

  Key passport information access for staff in the UK and abroad

  Home Office ACU

  Online application and database of funding opportunities for voluntary and community sector bodies

  Inland Revenue

  Tax helpline for charities

  Land Registry

  Electronic conveyancing

  LCD Legal Service Commission

  Live and interactive expert system in west midlands

  UK Hydrographic Office

  Integrated coastal hydrography scheme

  Health and local authorities

  Health Birmingham HA

  Housing web for people with learning disabilities with forensic needs

  Health North Cumbria HA

  Online delivery of BSc (Hons) nurse practitioner course

  Health North Notts HA

  Re-engineering youth services in Bassetlaw

  Basildon District Council

  In your place (access to housing benefit claims)

  Bradford

  "ADL Smartcare" (re-engineering the provision of aids to daily living to elderly people)

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  Database for online accessing of direct payments for care and support

  Cumbria County Council

  Single information and ICT platform

  Gateshead Council

  E-power for Gateshead's third sector

  Kent County Council

  Kent Connects (comprehensive ICT-based infrastructure)

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Development of E-procurement system

  Invest to Save Budget
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the Government"s Invest to Save Budget. [45392]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that 75 bids from across the public sector have been successful in round 4 of the Invest to Save Budget, at a cost of £47 million in 2002–03, including consequential funding for the devolved Administrations, and £79 million in total over both years to 2002–04. The table describes the winners of this round.
  329W

  lead partner

  title

  Knowsley MBC

  Business to council to community

  Liverpool City Council

  Intelligence-led Government (electronic service for all licences and permissions within local government)

  London Borough of Barnet

  Hand-held communications devices in community care and health services

  London Borough of Bromley

  Electronic booking portal

  Manchester City Council

  Eastserv.com (community portal)

  Melton Borough Council

  Welland contact centre

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  Online revenues and benefits system

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Establish electronic access points to the Connexions Service

  Salisbury District Council

  Online Salisbury development portal

  Somerset County Council

  SomersetOnline virtual contact points

  Southampton City Council

  Data sharing between social landlords and welfare advice agencies

  Warwickshire County Council

  UTOPIA: Using technology for older people: information and action

  West Sussex County Council

  Drug action exchange

  Wigan Council

  Preventing crime and poor health by early intervention

  Wokingham Council

  School admissions online trial

  Voluntary and community bodies

  City and Guilds

  Delivery of online assessments, delivery of e-learning materials

  Galleries of Justice

  A website for young offenders (partially designed by ex-offenders with video-streamed advice)

  Thames Valley Partnership

  Socially-inclusive approaches to community safety

  Sheffield Advice Centres Group

  Single access point to Sheffield's excluded communities

  The Asphaleia Project

  Mentoring project for young asylum seekers

  Valuation Office Agency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have worked on secondment to the Valuation Office Agency since 1 January 1999; how long each individual worked on

  Start

  End

  Organisation

  Division appointed to

  Duties

  25 April 2000

  24 June 2000

  Hong Kong Rating and Valuation Department

  Rating

  Inspections and rating of non-domestic properties. Performed all duties of a valuer.

  17 April 2001

  17 August 2001

  UKAEA

  Land Service Team

  Inspections, measurement and valuation of properties. Highway and health authority cases.

  I do not have the permission of the secondees to release their personal details.

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will introduce to reduce child poverty in the next four years. [43921]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As part of this commitment, we recently published a strategy document entitled "Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life" which will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002. As a result of tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been.

  During this Parliament, the Government will continue to make progress towards its goals with the introduction of two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit. The Government are also making substantial new investments in services for children. Over the four years to 2004, average real-terms annual growth in spending on education and training in England will be over 5½ per cent. In addition, extra funds have been made available for SureStart, Neighbourhood Renewal and the Children"s Fund.
  330W
  secondment; from which organisation each individual was seconded; what the names of each were; and what the responsibilities were of each individual while they worked at the Valuation Office Agency. [43469]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Tax Allowances (Pensioners)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges there have been in(a) cash and (b) real terms in the age-related tax allowances for pensioners between 1998–99 and 2002–03. [44029]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Age-related personal allowances have been increased between 1998–99 and 2002–03 by £689 and £770 in cash terms, and by £150 and £210 more than statutory indexation over this period for those aged 65–74 and 75+ respectively.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many National Insurance records are incomplete as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer; and how many records that were incomplete have been completed. [44092]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not readily available and could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives are in place to encourage individuals to invest for their retirement directly. [40249]
  331W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Contributions which individuals make to tax approved pension schemes, and the build up of those contributions, attract tax reliefs. Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) may also be used to help provide for retirement and offer tax-free income and capital gains on the investments held in them.

  Expenditure
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies from which his Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43405]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury"s main supplier of timber and wood products in Kinnarps (UK) Ltd who provide office furniture. The total spend for the past five years is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  67,462

  1998–99

  102,845

  1999–2000

  207,670

  2000–01

  36,689

  2001–02

  107,138

  This represents the major procurement of timber and wood products by the Department. There may have been other items purchased containing timber or wood but the information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Consolidated Fund of employing a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was in 2001. [41844]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The full cost to the Consolidated Fund of employing a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 2001 was £219,757. The full consolidated fund costs are as outlined:

  Salary—£158,004

  Emic—£17,502.

  In addition notional pension contributions are assessed at 28 per cent. of salary which equates to £44,251.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44815]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Treasury"s 2002 departmental report.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002, ref. 42949, on public services productivity, which units within the Treasury are working on the paper; and if he will make a statement. [44396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 13 March 2002.

  Women"s Organisations
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which women"s organisations have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during the(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 parliamentary sessions; and if their responses have been published. [42917]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: As is normal in the run-up to the Budget, the Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations. The Government"s consultations generate a large number of representations. We are grateful to the many organisations that have taken the trouble to let us know their views. These ideas feed into the reforms that the Government have made to the tax system since 1997.

  Secondment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials from the Bank of England are on secondment to the Treasury; what work they are engaged in; and if he will make a statement. [40114]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The Treasury has for decades had regular exchanges of staff with the Bank of England. Currently there are three Bank of England officials working in the Treasury. They are engaged in:
  Permanent Secretary support in PERM directorate;
  Policy advice in Budget and Public Finance directorate;
  Policy advice in Macroeconomic Policy and International Finance directorate.

  Communications Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39911]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for the annual budgets for the communications team at the Treasury are presented in the table.

  £

  Financial year

  Total communication budget

  1997–98

  869,956

  1998–99

  961,358

  1999–2000

  1,281,295

  2000–01

  1,569,494

  2001–02

  1,945,294

  In addition, in 2001–02 there was a one-off spend on updating the Treasury"s website. The cost of this one-off project is given in my answer to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 321W.

  Staff (Special Leave)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial Forces; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces; [44065]
  333W
  (2) how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44557]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on whether staff are members of the Territorial Forces or are justices of the peace is not held centrally. Staff are eligible for special leave with pay for attendance at annual training camps for Reserve Forces training. Where additional training is required unpaid special leave may be authorised. Staff who are justices of the peace are allowed paid special leave to undertake their duties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drug Dealing
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of republican and loyalist terrorist organizations(a) involved in and (b) benefiting financially from illegal drug dealing in Northern Ireland. [42008]

  Jane Kennedy
  From his adjournment debate in December the member for South Antrim will be aware that those involved in both paramilitary activity and dealing directly in drugs are predominantly loyalists, but it is not their exclusive preserve. Organised crime gangs with no paramilitary links are also involved. We are responding firmly and robustly to the drugs problem through the organised crime task force. The hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in congratulating PSNI for their recent successes.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to implement all aspects of the Belfast Agreement. [42009]

  Dr. John Reid
  Enormous progress has been made. We have fully functioning institutions; a fundamental reform of policing is under way; we have rights protection arrangements that are second to none; and the normalisation of life continues as the conflict is put behind us, a transformation symbolised by the significant act of decommissioning last year. All those involved need to maintain their efforts in order to complete implementation of the Agreement, in a way that engages the commitment of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Fugitives From Justice
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of fugitives from justice who are being sought in Northern Ireland. [42010]

  Dr. John Reid
  The figures requested are not readily available. I will write as soon as possible.

  Police Service
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recruits to the police service of Northern Ireland are in training. [42011]
  334W
  Jane Kennedy
  Over 200 new recruits, appointed on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis, have now taken up training posts with the police service of Northern Ireland, and appointments are continuing. The first tranche of recruits will be attested as constables on 5 April 2002.

  Amnesty
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on an amnesty for those who have committed acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. [42012]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Government have made in combating trade in counterfeit goods in Northern Ireland. [42013]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Government have made in combating trade in counterfeit goods in Northern Ireland. [42028]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress the Government have made in combating trade in counterfeit goods in Northern Ireland. [42030]

  Jane Kennedy
  In Northern Ireland we are seeking to tackle and confront the trade in counterfeit goods through the co-ordinated efforts of the Organised Crime Task Force which I chair.

  The task force provides a multi-agency approach to tackling the range of organised criminal activity that exists in Northern Ireland and to optimise our approach members are drawn from HM Customs and Excise, PSNI and N10, as well as others.

  Specifically to highlight and bring to the forefront of the Northern Ireland public"s attention the major wrong of supporting those who trade illegally, Sir Reg Empey (Minister for Enterprise in the Northern Ireland Executive) and I paid a visit to shops and businesses in Belfast city centre before Christmas to visibly encourage the support of legitimate trade. We sought to highlight further the wrongdoing of supporting those who trade in counterfeit goods through articles by Sir Reg and myself in the task force"s news-sheet entitled "Response", which receives a wide distribution within Northern Ireland.

  I would pay particular tribute to the work of the police and other agencies who have recorded a number of successes in recent months against those trading in counterfeit goods. One such example relates to police operations at Nutts Corner market where in October 2001 £80,000 was seized and on 23 December 2001 £18,000 worth of counterfeit CDs and Playstation games were seized. Other recent successful seizures include £40,000 worth of counterfeit clothing at Kilkeel market and £60,000 worth of counterfeit CDs etc. following a house search in Jonesborough.
  335W
  At the end of January I co-hosted with Sir Reg Empey an event at Hillsborough Castle which brought together leading Northern Ireland business leaders representing such organisations as the CBI, Institute of Directors, small businesses, the construction industry and banking, to name but some. The event was part of our on-going attempts to engage with the business community and enlist their support in the fight against organised criminal activity in its many forms. I will be continuing with this process of engagement in the months ahead.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of criminal activity undertaken by paramilitary groups. [42014]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force, which I chair, is continuing to tackle head on organised criminal activity in all its forms. In last year"s threat assessment, published in March 2001, the Organised Crime Task Force identified 78 organised crime groups, involving around 400 individuals. About half of the groups have links to paramilitary groups.

  However, the lines between terrorism and organised crime are blurred. Approaching terrorism as just terrorism, or organised crime as just organised crime, will inevitably overlook the common ground between the two. Both depend on a group of individuals operating together in secrecy with the same need to launder proceeds from racketeering, drugs, armed robberies etc. regardless of whether this is for personal gain or paramilitary purposes.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is being provided from the United States to assist in combating organised crime and gangsterism in Northern Ireland. [42017]

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is being provided from the United States to assist in combating organised crime and gangsterism in Northern Ireland. [42031]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).

  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the links between paramilitary organisations and organised crime gangs in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [42023]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force published a threat assessment in March 2001, which identified 78 organised crime groups in Northern Ireland involving some 400 individuals. About half of the groups have links to the paramilitaries.

  The next threat assessment and strategy will be published in May 2002.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress was made in increasing the number of integrated schools in the period 1998 to 2001. [42015]
  336W
  Dr. John Reid
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Victims Liaison Unit
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Victims Liaison Unit. [42016]

  Mr. Browne
  The Victims Liaison Unit, established in 1998 to implement the recommendations of the Bloomfield Report is responsible for: the provision of core funding to victims support groups; management and provision of grant aid to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund; prioritisation and allocation of central Government funding for victims; and ensuring that all victims" issues which fall within the excepted and reserved fields in Northern Ireland are addressed.

  The unit works in close partnership with the devolved Administration"s Victims Unit. This co-ordinated approach ensures the most effective support to victims of the troubles.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to use national insurance numbers as a means of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. [42018]

  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to use national insurance numbers as a means of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. [42021]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland on measures to combat electoral fraud. [42024]

  Mr. Browne
  Government amendments to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill in the House of Lords enable national insurance numbers to be used in the electoral process in Northern Ireland.

  A person applying to the electoral register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland will be required to give their national insurance number (or to make a statement that they do not have one). A person"s name will be removed from the register in respect of any address if they return an application for registration in respect of that address without their national insurance number (or without a statement that they do not have one). Any person who provides false information on registration shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale, or to both.

  An application for an absent vote will be granted only if it states the applicant"s national insurance number (or states that the applicant does not have one) and if the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the national insurance number or statement on the application corresponds with the number or statement which the applicant gave on their application for registration.
  337W
  The Chief Electoral Officer will be able to check the information given to him concerning an elector"s national insurance number with the authority responsible for them (currently the Department for Work and Pensions).

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to reduce the incidents of punishment beatings and harassment of citizens by paramilitary organisations. [42019]

  Jane Kennedy
  These attacks are completely the opposite of what the Belfast Agreement was about. Those who sanction them and carry them out are the enemies of a transition to a peaceful society in Northern Ireland. Police investigate all such attacks but their investigations into these offences are often hampered, as the victims generally decline to make a formal complaint. Regrettably therefore prosecutions are therefore extremely rare.

  The Government continue to support the police providing them with the resource they require, but it is also important that members of communities from which the perpetrators of these attacks emanate pass on relevant information to the police. This can be done in strict confidence using the Crimestoppers line.

  Anti-drugs Campaigns
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what anti-drugs campaigns the police service in Northern Ireland runs in schools; and if he will make a statement. [42020]

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what anti-drugs campaigns the police service of Northern Ireland runs in schools; and if he will make a statement. [42026]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI has developed the Citizen and Safety Education Programme (CASE), in an attempt to establish close links between the police and school community. Health education, which is one of the five elements of the CASE Programme, is delivered to Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 pupils, and focuses specifically on alcohol and the law, drugs and the law and solvent abuse.

  In relation to the area of drugs and the law, students are provided with information on the various names that are given to drugs, the appearance of drugs through the use of a "Drugs Toolkit", which drugs are legal and illegal, the different categories of drugs, the effects that certain drugs can have on the body and which drugs are addictive. Students are also made aware of the penalties incurred for possession, production and/or trafficking of drugs.

  Victims
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [42022]

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland on Government support for them; and if he will make a statement. [42025]
  338W
  Mr. Browne
  Since taking up my post as Northern Ireland Victims Minister I have met victims" groups on average twice a month. I am continuing my programme of visits to groups and I also meet regularly with practitioners and academics in the field.

  Terrorism (Financing)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions there have been with the Irish Government on tackling the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. [42027]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with their counterparts in the Irish Government to discuss issues of mutual concern including the financing of terrorist organisations.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the process of decommissioning of illegal weapons and explosives to be completed. [42029]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported, on 23 October 2001, that it had witnessed an event, which it regarded as significant, in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use.

  We now want to see further decommissioning by the IRA, and decommissioning by all other terrorist groups. The timing of any future decommissioning events is a matter for the IICD.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the manpower strength is of police in Northern Ireland. [42032]

  Jane Kennedy
  At 15 February the full-time manpower strength was 9,296 officers. This includes 7,004 regular officers (plus 87 seconded to UN duty in Kosovo etc.) and 2,205 full-time reserve officers. In addition there were 1,014 part-time reservists.

  Castlereagh Police Complex
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take in relation to the breach of security at Castlereagh police complex. [45326]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in reply to the private notice question earlier today.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Unauthorised Pupil Absences
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unauthorised absences there were(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of all absences, in (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools, broken down by local authority since 1997–98. [43301]
  339W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Tables showing the half days missed due to unauthorised absences in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of all absences in (i) maintained secondary schools and (ii) maintained primary schools by each local education authority in England since 1997–98 have been placed in the Library.

  Pupil Information
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether her Department obtained the agreement of the Data Protection Commissioner for(a) the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census and (b) the Connexions Service"s information gathering; [42132]

  (2) under what powers the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census seeks to record the thnicity of each pupil; and for how long that information may be recorded other than in aggregated form; [42141]

  (3) to which (a) Government and (b) other agencies information in the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census may be passed (i) with and (ii) without the agreement of the individual data subject or his parents; [42142]

  (4) what right individual pupils and parents have to decline to provide information to schools which may be passed on through the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census; and whether sanctions may be taken by (a) her Department and (b) local education authorities against schools which failed to obtain information from parents; [42144]

  (5) which organisations she consulted on the introduction of PLASC; [42331]

  (6) to what extent data subjects, their parents, have the right (a) to access to their information, (b) to correct that information and (c) to control access to that information on (i) PLASC and (ii) the Connexions databases; [42333]

  (7) what information on (a) PLASC and (b) the Connexions national database is intended only for use by technical staff; [42335]

  (8) if she will give instructions that ethnicity data on PLASC-originated database for all those whose ethnicity is identified as Jewish will be deleted on those pupils leaving school. [43350]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 11 March and 14 March 2002]:

  Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC)

  All information in PLASC about individual pupils, including their ethnicity, is collected from schools under Regulations laid under section 537A of the Education Act 1996, as amended by section 140(1), paragraph 153 of Schedule 30 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

  PLASC information will be used by the Department solely for statistical purposes. It remains of statistical value after pupils have left school—for example to monitor patterns of progression from school into further education and training, higher education and the labour market, and how these patterns vary between different groups of pupils, including different ethnic groups. In order to be able to derive such statistics PLASC information will be retained indefinitely on an individual pupil basis, as allowed by section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
  340W
  With respect to pupils" ethnicity, the ethnic groups used for PLASC in January 2002 were based on those from the 1991 national population Census, and from January 2003 will be based on those from the 2001 Census. In neither case is Jewish identified as a separate ethnic group, nor is there any other information in PLASC that identifies pupils as Jewish.

  Relatively little of the information in PLASC is provided by pupils or parents—much of it will be known by the school from its own interactions with pupils, or will be received from other sources. The main items that are provided by pupils or parents (in addition to name, date of birth and home postcode) are ethnic group and first language. Schools should seek this information, but pupils or parents have the right to withhold it. Most schools already obtain this information routinely.

  The White Paper "Excellence in Schools", published in July 1997, highlighted the need for much better pupil level information to be available throughout the schools sector in order to support the drive to raise standards, and also for a national system of "unique pupil numbers" (UPNs) to enable this information to be collated accurately on a pupil by pupil basis. A consultation document was issued in December 1997 with detailed proposals (including PLASC, UPNs and a central pupil database) addressing the issues raised by the White Paper. This document was sent to LEAs, teacher associations, church and religious organisations, governors" and parents" organisations, the Data Protection Registrar (as she was then), leading civil liberties organisations (Liberty and Charter 88), and a range of other interested organisations (including the Commission for Racial Equality). A summary of the document was also sent to all schools.

  Before and after this consultation exercise the Department had meetings with the Data Protection Registrar and her officials, and a series of measures were agreed in respect of the issuing of UPNs, and their use in the collection and collation of pupil level data. These measures aimed to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act, and minimise any possible threat to the privacy of pupils. The Department continues to discuss the use of UPNs and pupil level information with the Information Commissioner"s Office as and when issues arise, and is also planning to discuss with her Office security arrangements for the forthcoming central pupil database.

  The Department has no interest in the identity of individual pupils as such. Pupil names and UPNs are collected to enable PLASC information to be linked, pupil by pupil, with Key Stage and examination results which are collected separately, and from one year to the next. Technical staff engaged in this data linking will, for that purpose, need to have access to pupil names and UPNs. The linked data (without pupil names and UPNs) will then be used to carry out statistical analyses of attainment levels, and how these vary according to the various pupil attributes identified in PLASC.

  Pupils, or in certain circumstances their parents or guardians, will be able to see the information held about them in the central database, and to ask for correction of any inaccurate data. Details of other organisations or individuals who may, subject to certain conditions, have access to data with pupil names were provided

  341W
  in my answer on 28 January 2002, Official Report, columns 109–11W to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). Pupils and parents will not be able to control such access except in the case of the Connexions Service, where access will not be allowed if the pupil or their parent (depending on the pupil"s age) has instructed that they do not wish it to happen, and in certain circumstances in the case of access by research organisations.

  Connexions

  The Department is in discussion with the Office of the Information Commissioner about the collection of information for Connexions.

  There is as yet no national Connexions database containing information about individual young people. Connexions is delivered through local Connexions partnerships, of which 15 are operating at present. Each of these is responsible for the information it holds about young people in its area, and provides information to the Connexions Service National Unit in aggregate form only. We are examining what national approaches will be appropriate to support the work of local Connexions partnerships. Feasibility testing is at an early stage.

  Young people have the right to see all information held about them by Connexions, and are able to request correction of any inaccurate data. They are not able to control access to Connexions partnerships" databases, but partnerships must ensure that all processing of information about young people complies with data protection principles.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 818–19W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from her Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42641]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Of the computer equipment stolen from the Department for Education and Skills since 1997, all but two were used. The remaining two new and unused were laptops stolen from a storeroom and were awaiting issue. None of the data on the computers was of a sensitive or personal nature.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce the schools which have been successful in their bids for specialist school status in the bidding round which involves bids being submitted before the 15 March deadline; and if she will make a statement. [43992]

  Mr. Timms
  We expect to announce the names of successful applicants in each of the eight specialisms from the March 2002 specialist school competition in early July.

  Congestion Charging
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate has been made of the effects of 342W
  congestion charging on the recruitment of teachers in schools within the congestion charging zone in London. [44373]

  Mr. Timms
  No estimate has been made. We do not collect any information about the number of teachers who travel to work by car.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the cost to a teacher over a year of the extra costs of congestion charging in London if they use a car to drive to work. [44374]

  Mr. Timms
  If a teacher were subject to congestion charging, the total cost over a full academic year would he £975.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will allow teachers affected by congestion charges to be reimbursed the extra costs. [44375]

  Mr. Timms
  The School Teachers" Pay and Conditions document already allows schools and LEAs to make payments to teachers for travel expenses incurred in connection with their journey to and from work.

  Public Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had, and representations she has received from Members of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Executive regarding the increased use of private sector funding in delivering public services, broken down by date and subject. [43228]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has not met with representations from the Welsh Assembly Executive or Members of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the increased use of private sector funding in delivering public services.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Public Service Agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43264]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  None of our Public Service Agreement targets have been revised, nor further ones introduced, since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. However, employment related targets have passed to the Department for Work and Pensions following machinery of Government changes last year.

  Employment and Social Policy Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 7 March; what the Government"s stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [42706]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.
  343W
  I represented the UK at the Employment and Social Policy Council in Brussels on 7 March, together with the Minister of State for Employment Relations and the regions, my hon. Friend, the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson).

  The main business of this council was a debate in preparation for the forthcoming European Council in Barcelona. The Spanish Presidency issued its own conclusions. The UK supported the key themes of improved co-ordination of economic and employment policy and the importance of aligning the new European employment strategy with the Lisbon goal of full employment. Member states recognised the need to integrate disadvantaged groups, particularly older workers, into the labour market to achieve this goal and acknowledged the vital role played by life long learning in achieving the Lisbon targets.

  Council also held an open debate on violence against women which formed the basis of Presidency conclusions for Barcelona. There was consensus on the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to this issue with broad agreement on the use of good practice guides and annual awareness raising campaigns at a European level. The forthcoming Danish Presidency will take forward this work in the context of the council"s annual follow-up of the member states" implementation of their commitments under the Beijing Platform for Action, including discussions on the necessity for, and potential scope of, indicators in this field.

  The Presidency sought an outline position on the proposal for a directive updating the existing directive on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos, pending the adoption by the European Parliament of its First Reading opinion. After a debate, which hinged on a proposal to include a general ban on asbestos within the directive, the dossier was remitted to COREPER for further work.

  The Council also heard a progress report on negotiations for the draft directive supplementing the proposed regulation for a Statute on a European Co-operative Society in respect of employee involvement. Work will continue on this dossier in COREPER.

  Among the other agenda items discussed, the Council approved the work programmes for the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee for 2002.

  The Presidency noted that the UN 2nd World Conference on Aging would be held in Madrid in April. A Commission communication will be produced as a contribution shortly.

  The Presidency reported on a series of seminars and events that have taken place since the beginning of their Presidency.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Gipsy Sites
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for 344W
  Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the results of the latest round of the gipsy site refurbishment grant. [45475]

  Ms Keeble
  86 bids were submitted by local authorities for round 2 of the gipsy site refurbishment grant. I can today announce approval for the 57 bids. Funding for the successful bids totals £6.1 million.

  The existing network of local authority owned gipsy sites represents a valuable resource for gipsies. This injection of funding, following on from round 1 of the programme, will further help local authorities extend the useful life of sites, bring them into full use and improve the quality of life for residents.

  I have arranged for a list showing the successful and unsuccessful bids to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to exempt disabled facilities grants for children from the test of resources. [43944]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements where the disabled facilities grant test of resources is applied to the person or persons responsible for a child or young person.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the average cost is in the UK of a liquid petroleum gas conversion kit for vehicles; [43092]

  (2) how many vehicles registered in the UK run on liquid petroleum gas; [43091]

  (3) what training is (a) available and (b) required for people wishing to convert their cars to run on liquid petroleum gas using LPG conversion kits. [43093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All vehicles converted to run on LPG must comply with the requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Conversions which result in significantly reduced emissions are eligible for Government grants under the Powershift programme, which is administered by the Energy Saving Trust. To be eligible for a grant, conversions must be done by Powershift approved converters, whose competence is tested by the trust. The DTI has recently announced a new £1 million programme, called "LPG Boost", to further enhance the uptake of LPG, including grants to help additional conversion specialists undertake the technical training and meet the competencies for becoming Powershift approved converters, and so increase the network of approved converters.

  The additional cost of converting a vehicle to run on LPG is typically between £1,500 and £2,000.

  DVLA statistics record 26,694 vehicles as running on gaseous fuels. DVLA statistics do not distinguish between liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas vehicles, but most of the vehicles are LPG-fuelled cars—natural gas is used mainly in heavy goods vehicles, and the numbers are smaller. The DVLA figure is also an underestimate, since not all motorists notify DVLA of

  345W
  their vehicle"s conversion. There are currently estimated to be around 65,000 LPG vehicles in the UK. Motorists are converting to LPG at an increasing rate, with the number expected to increase by about 35,000 for 2002 and 50,000 in 2003, prompted by the Government grants available, and the fact that low-cost LPG fuel is now available in all areas of the country.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, columns 182 and 184W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42648]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is the policy of the Department that thefts of computer equipment should be reported to the police. The Department also records such thefts in the Incident Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS) at the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC) and encourages its agencies to do likewise.

  Management Consultants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was to his Department and its predecessor of management consultants in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2000–01. [43629]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: My Department does not hold information specifically on management consultants. To do so would incur disproportionate costs.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his Department"s policy is towards age discrimination. [42579]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Discrimination on the grounds of age is not permitted under the Department"s equal opportunities policy.

  British Seafarers
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact(a) the Support for Maritime Training Scheme and (b) the Tonnage Tax have had on the training and employment of British seafarers, and by what performance indicators that impact is measured. [44053]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the introduction of the Support for Maritime Training scheme (SMarT) in 1998, approximately 480 cadets a year have received training under the scheme. The forecast for the financial year 2001–02 is 500. In addition a significant of seafarers were also involved in gaining second Certificates of Competency or revalidations.

  To date, 58 groups of companies, including the 50 approved by the Inland Revenue for entry into tonnage tax, have received approval by the DTLR of their training commitments. This equates to about 508 training places.

  Harbour Boards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means nominations were sought for places on harbour boards on the Isle of Wight; how many appointments he has made to such bodies since 1997; who the appointees were; and what were their terms of office. [43353]

  Ms Keeble
  [pursuant to her reply, 14 March 2002, c. 1203W]: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not responsible for any appointments to harbour boards on the Isle of Wight. Vacancies on the boards of trust ports are advertised in the local and regional press.

  Tonnage Tax Scheme
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the terms and conditions of foreign seafarers being switched to the red ensign under the tonnage tax scheme. [44401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For ships joining the UK Shipping Register the Maritime and Coastguard Agency checks crew agreements to ensure that they comply with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention on articles of agreement, and also comply with relevant UK Merchant Shipping legislation. Guidance is set out in Marine Guidance Note 148.

  Maritime Assets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many national maritime assets have been sold since 1997. [43964]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has disposed of 28 properties, including cottages, redundant garages and small parcels of land since 1997. The total receipts from the sales came to £500,000.

  Fishing Boat Accidents
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investigations his Department has carried out following the two fishing boat accidents in the Irish sea on 31 January and 14 February; what the results have been of those investigations; and what further action will be taken to ensure that action plans are in place in fishing ports to address similar accidents in the future. [44478]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) was informed that the first fishing vessel had had an accident on 30 January and initiated an investigation the following day. The branch became aware that the second fishing vessel was missing on 15 February and, using an inspector who happened to be in Northern Ireland at the time progressing the first investigation, initiated inquiries the same day.

  Both investigations are on-going. The MAIB aims to publish accident reports within nine months of the event. There is every expectation this will be achieved in the first accident but may well be longer in the second as there has been no sign of the missing vessel since she sailed. Without any direct evidence to explain what occurred, the investigation is likely to take longer.
  347W
  The MAIB investigates about 3 per cent. of all accidents reported to it. When the decision has been taken to carry one out, inspectors will take whatever action they consider most suitable in the circumstances. This process has stood the test of time and there are no plans to make any substantial changes to the existing arrangements. All investigations result in a report being made publicly available.

  It is not be possible to predict what recommendations will arise from the two investigations, but they will be made public.

  EU State Aid
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the operation of EU state aid rules on the encouragement of national flag shipping and seafarer employment. [43594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have made an assessment which will shortly be submitted to the European Commission as part of their consultation on revising the state aid guidelines.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how EC state aid can be released to benefit regeneration initiatives in renewal areas. [43488]

  Ms Keeble
  Nearly £130 million of European funding has this week been awarded to large scale regeneration projects in the West Midlands with a further £33 million earmarked for projects in Staffordshire and the north Black Country, once proposals can be worked up.

  Regeneration projects—drawn up by local authorities, Advantage West Midlands and various local partners—have been clustered together into "packages", to ensure a
  co-ordinated, strategic approach to the regeneration of the West Midlands.

  Two of the packages—for the north Black Country/south Staffordshire and for north Staffordshire—have had £16.5 million and £16.9 million earmarked for them respectively, while RDA Advantage West Midlands and consultants working on behalf of GOWM help the partnerships get the proposals into final shape.

  Additionally, some £30 million of European funding has been approved outside the regeneration packages. This is currently under offer to enable projects to get under way.

  Short Sea Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department plans to take to support the United Kingdom short sea shipping sector. [43592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that operators in the short sea trades are at a disadvantage compared with those in the deep sea sector. They are, therefore, considering a proposal by the industry for a short sea shipping employment grant to encourage employment in the short sea sector.
  348W
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of the effects of introducing a short sea shipping employment grant. [43591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have considered a proposal for the introduction of short sea shipping employment grant. The parties involved have been requested to forward more information on how such a grant would help to generate more UK seafarer employment.

  Crew Relief Costs
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to extend the crew relief costs scheme. [43593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are committed to extending the crew relief costs scheme to cover European ports. This will be implemented by legislation when parliamentary time is available.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need to extend seafarer income tax concessions and the crew relief cash scheme. [43648]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Seafarer income tax concessions are a matter for the Chancellor. We are committed to extending the crew relief costs scheme to cover European ports. This will be implemented by legislation when parliamentary time is available.

  Transport Grant
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what level of transport grant he had set for the Greater London Authority for 2001–02. [45268]

  Mr. Spellar
  GLA transport grant is determined annually, and may be varied from time to time, after consultation with the Mayor of London under section 101 of the GLA Act 1999. The Secretary of State has today redetermined the level of grant for 2001–02 at £720,053,000. This represents an increase of £5,665,000.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of individual PTAs" effectiveness in consulting local communities and key stakeholders on development of the objectives and strategies of their LTPs. [44376]

  Ms Keeble
  Local transport plans (LTPs) for the metropolitan areas in England outside London are produced jointly between the Passenger Transport Authority and the relevant metropolitan district authorities.

  Our guidance to authorities on LTPs sets out a range of detailed criteria against which each LTP is assessed. Within the detailed criteria on objective setting and strategy development, we asked authorities for evidence that the public were fully involved in the development of the plans objectives and strategies. We also make clear in

  349W
  our guidance on LTP annual progress reports that authorities should report on their proposals for consultation on the detailed implementation of their LTPs.

  We are satisfied that the LTPs for all the metropolitan areas have followed the requirements of our guidance and have involved the public in both the development and implementation of their plans.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what initiatives he will take to influence the public to travel via mass transit into London during Her Majesty the Queen"s Golden Jubilee weekend; and if he will make a statement; [44601]

  (2) what steps will be taken to increase the operation of (a) buses, (b) trains and (c) other forms of mass transport in the week of Her Majesty the Queen"s Golden Jubilee; and if he will make a statement. [44600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are currently discussing with public transport providers, including those providing services into London, their plans for Her Majesty the Queen"s Golden Jubilee weekend. Further information will be announced nearer the time, including any advice to travellers that may be appropriate.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress London Underground Ltd. has made in addressing the safety issues the Health and Safety Executive has raised with LUL concerning their proposed railway safety case for the running of London Underground under the proposed public private partnership. [44603]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive has received London Underground Ltd."s formal response on the issues raised. Under the safety case regime, which is an iterative process, HSE will take the time it needs to determine whether the issues have been satisfactorily closed out.

  Rail Tracks
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what information

  UK TENS allocations

  euro million

  1997 award

  1998 award

  1999 award

  2000 award

  2001 award

  Total

  Rail projects

  Channel tunnel rail link

  24.000

  25.000

  29.500

  30.000

  15.000

  123.500

  West coast main line

  9.000

  10.000

  13.000

  16.000

  7.000

  55.000

  Felixstowe to Nuneaton upgrade study and works

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  1.000

  Trans-Pennine and north Wales—improved links to Manchester airport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.500

  1.500

  Improved rail links to Stansted airport study

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  1.000

  Kings Cross—Heathrow airport new rail links

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  1.000

  Cross London routes study

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  1.000

  350W
  the DTLR holds on the fault and repair reporting procedures in place for the various grades of rail track; [44357]

  (2) what information the DTLR holds on the inspection procedures currently followed for the various grades of rail track. [44356]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for Railtrack plc in Railway Administration, which remains subject to regulation by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of health and safety; and by the Rail Regulator in respect of its network operation, maintenance and renewal practices.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government"s responsibilities are with regard to ensuring rail track safety; and if he will make a statement. [44604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack plc (in Railway Administration), as the infrastructure dutyholder, has responsibility for ensuring track safety. The Health and Safety Executive"s Railway Inspectorate secures compliance with health and safety legislation. Railtrack"s network licence, issued by the Office of the Rail Regulator, requires it to use best practice in its maintenance of track safety on the network.

  Railway Research
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who is responsible for initiating railway research programmes. [44354]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority issued in draft by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State in June 2001 would require the authority to "encourage and as appropriate commission research related to its purposes and objectives." We expect to issue the final version of the Directions and Guidance very shortly.

  Trans European Network
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the bids, and their value submitted from Britain to the European Union since 1997 for funding as part of the Trans European Network for (a) road and (b) rail projects. [43048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on UK bids for funding under the trans-European Network grants regime is commercially sensitive. The attached table shows the amount of grant that has been allocated to the UK since 1997, for the improvement of road and rail infrastructure.
  351W

  UK TENS allocation

  euro million

  1997 award

  1998 award

  1999 award

  2000 award

  2001 award

  Total

  Trans-Pennine freight upgrade study

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.500

  3.500

  Total

  33.000

  35.000

  42.500

  46.000

  31.000

  187.500

  Road projects

  Ireland-UK-Benelux road link (Studies in England)

  1.700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.700

  Traffic management studies—Wales

  0.400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.400

  A75 The Glen improvement

  1.300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.300

  Trans-Pennine strategic environmental assessment study

  0.145

  0.100

  —

  —

  —

  0.245

  RDS-TMC1 implementation in the UK

  —

  0.400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Telematics and traffic management on the TERN2

  —

  1.000

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  Stranraer area integrated transport package

  —

  1.000

  —

  —

  —

  1.000

  N. Ireland—Larne to Newry studies

  —

  —

  —

  0.500

  —

  0.500

  A120 Stansted—Braintree upgrade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.000

  5.000

  Total

  3.545

  2.500

  0.000

  0.500

  5.000

  11.145

  1 Radio data system—traffic message channel.

  2 Trans-European road network.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report. column 807W, if he will make a statement on financial support to National Air Traffic Services. [45557]

  Mr. Byers
  A short-term loan facility for National Air Traffic Services has now been agreed. It is for a maximum of £60 million over the period to 30 September 2002, £30 million of which is to be provided by the Government and the other £30 million by a group of four lending banks. Each party will lend on the same commercial terms. Its purpose is to relieve NATS" cash-flow position until arrangements are put in place to secure the long-term financial stability of the company following the unprecedented events of 11 September 2001.

  Air Passenger Flights
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many civil passenger flights have taken place to and from each airport in the United Kingdom in (a) 2001 and (b) each of the preceding four years; and who the (i) owners and (ii) operators of each such airport were. [43863]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of civil passenger flights to and from each airport in the United Kingdom in 2001 and each of the preceding four years is contained in Table A which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Department does not hold information about UK airport owners and operators going back over the previous four years. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Table B, which has also been placed in the Libraries of the House, reflects our understanding of the current position, based on data compiled from a wide variety of sources.

  Airports (Landing Charges)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what landing charges (a) are imposed and (b) have been 352W
  imposed in each of the preceding four years for each civil airport in the United Kingdom operated by (i) BAA and (ii) each of the other airport operators. [43861]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Those airports subject to economic regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority notify CAA of the different airport charges levied at their airport. Landing charges are one of these. However, they vary for different categories of aircraft (eg by aircraft noise); by aircraft weight categories and sometimes by time of day. They may also include airport navigation charges. The resources required to process and collate the information on landing charges data for all airport operators, and in a form which would allow useful comparisons between airports, would be disproportionate and not show the level of the total airport charge.

  The revenue from airport charges is published for about 30 airports by the Centre for the study of Regulated Industries (CRI) in their statistical series "Airport Statistics". This publication also includes passenger number so it would be possible to derive the annual revenue from airport charges per passenger for these airports.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what factors the Civil Aviation Authority is required to take account of when considering applications from airport operators for increases in landing charges. [43864]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are three categories of airport in respect of airport charges.

  Airports with more than one million passengers each year are subject to economic regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and require their permission to levy charges. Below this threshold, airports are able to levy airport charges without permission. For the "designated" airports of BAA"s London airports and for Manchester airport, this permission is also subject to conditions regarding the maximum amounts that may be levied.

  For the non-designated economically regulated airports with permission to levy charges, CAA are notified of the airport charges to be levied by the airport operator but they do not play a part in determining these.
  353W
  For the designated airports of BAA"s London airports and of Manchester airport, the conditions imposed by CAA are the result of an extensive process every five years to set the maximum annual airport charge for the following five years. In doing this, CAA take account of their statutory objectives listed in Section 39 of the 1986 Airports Act. This price cap has been expressed in terms of the average revenue from airport charges per passenger (revenue yield). Provided the annual airport charges set each year by the airport operator would not be expected to result in the price cap being exceeded, CAA are not involved in their determination.

  English Partnerships Review
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he proposes to announce the outcome of stage one of the review of English Partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [45052]

  Ms Keeble
  Today we are announcing the outcome of the first stage of the current review of English Partnerships (EP), together with appointment of the new chair of the organisation.

  The new chair of English Partnerships is to be Margaret Ford. She has extensive experience in economic development and of working with Government organisations within the UK and internationally. She has particular experience of leading organisations though periods of considerable change. We are confident that Margaret Ford is the right person to lead EP into its new role.

  EP will become the Secretary of State"s expert adviser on brownfield regeneration, managing a national portfolio of strategic sites, and managing demonstration projects. EP will work with national, regional and local partners, especially the RDAs, and the private sector, to identify strategic brownfield land, prioritise and facilitate its development. There is a continuing remit for EP as a national public sector body and as a vital component of the Government"s programme for achieving an Urban Renaissance.

  To sharpen the organisation"s focus on brownfield regeneration, we intend EP progressively to transfer their non-strategic Commission for the New Towns (CNT) landholdings to other appropriate bodies, for example the local authority.

  In the spirit of the two Green Papers we published last year setting out fundamental changes to local government and the planning system, EP will relinquish the use of their planning powers in the former new town areas, bringing control over the development of these areas under the democratic control of their local councils. This will be a staged process.

  As part of stage two of review, we want to resolve the problems that have arisen in the past from the dual statutory function of the former Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns. This will give EP a common purpose and help them in taking forward their changed agenda.

  I am today placing in the Library of the House the report on stage one of the review, including the KPMG consultation report and key areas to be addressed in stage
  354W
  two. There is still important work to be done and we will continue to listen to and work with the widest range of interested organisations.

  Brownfield Sites
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to promote the development of brownfield sites. [40355]

  Ms Keeble
  The development of brownfield sites is a key priority for my Department. It underpins our policy for the revival of our towns and cities and for achieving more sustainable patterns of development.

  We are radically overhauling the planning system so it helps promote economic prosperity by delivering land for development in the right place at the right time. Our planning policy guidance for housing (PPG3) sets out an "urban brownfields first policy" as we want to conserve greenfield land.

  Planning Policy is directing private sector development towards brownfield land, and measures are in place within the development control and local plan system to ensure this. For instance, local authorities must reassess greenfield sites that have been previously identified in their local plans for development, and they must thoroughly re-appraise applications for the renewal of planning permission on such sites. Regional and local planning strategies are expected to focus new housing development where brownfield sites are available. The Department is also promoting a greater use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to assemble brownfield sites that are in multiple ownership.

  The public sector also has a direct role to play, and in this respect the Department has a Public Service Agreement target under which it aims to:
  ".. Ensure that brownfield land will be reclaimed at a rate of over 1,100 hectares per annum by 2004 (reclaiming 5 per cent. of current brownfield land by 2004 and 17 per cent. by 2010)"

  The reclamation of over 1,100 hectares is specifically for the Regional Development Agencies and English Partnerships to achieve. With a forecast output of 1,200 ha for this year, they are on course to exceed it.

  Within the Corporate Planning process, an annual target for brownfield land reclamation is being agreed with each RDA. DTLR officials will be monitoring and encouraging progress.

  There are many examples of RDA involvement in the successful redevelopment of brownfield sites. For instance, the South East RDA is continuing the earlier work of English Partnerships in redeveloping the former Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham Maritime in Kent, with a sustainable mixed development at this 140 ha site. The North West Development Agency is to develop a high quality business park in North Manchester, thereby bringing 25 ha of brownfield land back into use. Dursley and Gloucester Docks are sustainable mixed-use developments being undertaken by the South West of England RDA.

  The Government are aware that the withdrawal of the Partnership Investment Programme, and its replacement with schemes of a more limited application, has restricted RDAs and EP in their ability to use the private sector in

  355W
  delivering brownfield land regeneration. To improve the flexibility of Government agencies in this regard, the Government:
  Have made significant extra resources available to RDAs to take sites into public ownership and develop them directly
  Have recently notified to the European Commission a new scheme for involving the private sector in housing schemes
  Is engaged in discussions with the Commission and other member states about brownfield regeneration within the context to State Aid rules.

  Housing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report,column 1082W, on housing, what assessment he has made of whether Birmingham city council"s assessment of likely future demand, the rate at which properties will be re-let and proposals for new build is sufficiently robust to ensure that homelessness in the city will not rise as a result of proposed demolitions. [44423]

  Ms Keeble
  This formed part of the assessment of Birmingham city council"s application for a place on the housing transfer programme.

  Subsidence (London)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the threat to buildings and subterranean structures in London posed by sinking ground levels. [43811]

  Ms Keeble
  The intensity of subsidence reported in the press is very minor and is unlikely to cause damage. It is several orders of magnitude less than that experienced in the coalfields and damage is much more likely to occur from shrinking and swelling of clay subsoils in London than from subsidence at the level reported.

  Subsidence from tunnelling operations is well known and it is taken into account in the design of tunnelling operations. Where necessary, such operations include mitigation measures to reduce the effects of subsidence to below the level likely to cause damage. The levels

  Local Authority dwellings repurchased by local authorities—Buyback scheme

  1998–99

  April to June 1999

  July to September 1999

  October to December 1999

  January to March 2000

  Government office region

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  8

  5

  2

  1

  0

  North West

  9

  4

  1

  0

  5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  26

  2

  1

  12

  4

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  3

  0

  0

  0

  5

  East

  10

  3

  0

  0

  8

  London

  15

  4

  3

  3

  5

  South East

  15

  5

  1

  13

  2

  South West

  14

  0

  2

  3

  7

  England

  100

  23

  10

  32

  36

  356W
  reported from the Jubilee Line extension are consistent with those recorded by monitoring subsidence during and after construction.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the responses to the Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home For All" that made reference to the right to buy. [44452]

  Ms Keeble
  Details of responses to the Housing Green Paper are set out in "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all. Summary of Responses". This is already available in the Library or can be freely downloaded from the DTLR website at the following address: http://www housing.dt1r.gov.uk/information/consult/responses/ summary/pdf/greenpap.pdf.

  168 responses made reference to the right to buy. Arrangements are being made for copies of these responses to be collated and placed in the Library, except where the authors requested that their comments should not be released.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many former local authority properties sold to tenants under the right to buy scheme have subsequently been bought back by those local authorities in each Government Office region (a) in each year since 1980 and (b) in each quarter since April 1999. [44454]

  Ms Keeble
  Information reported to the Department on the repurchase of ex-council properties is presented as follows. Information prior to 1995-96 was not collected centrally.

  Local authority dwellings repurchased by local authorities— Exchange sales scheme

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Government office region

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London

  0

  2

  7

  1

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  0

  2

  7

  1

  357W

  Local Authority dwellings repurchased by local authorities

  April to June 2000

  July to September 2000

  October to December 2000

  January to March 2001

  April to June 2001

  July to September 2001

  Government office region

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North East

  0

  0

  1

  20

  1

  1

  North West

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  28

  9

  37

  20

  1

  13

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  0

  14

  0

  4

  East

  1

  24

  2

  2

  0

  0

  London

  3

  4

  7

  9

  8

  15

  South East

  3

  10

  5

  5

  7

  3

  South West

  0

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  England

  36

  51

  61

  73

  19

  39

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (S.I. No. 501) in encouraging local authorities to buy back properties previously sold to tenants under the right to buy scheme. [44455]

  Ms Keeble
  The incentive is voluntary, and involves agreement being reached between landlords and owners/leaseholders. We are monitoring the use made by local authorities of the incentive offered by these regulations. Our figures indicate that last year (2000-01) local authorities in England bought back just over 200 properties.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated on the number of ex-local authority properties in London in which the leaseholder is a tenant who originally purchased the lease under the right to buy scheme. [44453]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not collect this information on its regular statistical returns. However, results derived from the 2000–01 Survey of English Housing indicate that some 62,000 householders in flats in London had purchased their present property since 1981 under the right to buy scheme from the local authority.

  A303
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the timetable is for the laying of orders, planning procedures and construction in respect of the A303 (T) relating to (a) Winterbourne Stoke Bypass, (b) the Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement scheme, (c) the Countess Roundabout flyover and Stonehenge Visitors Centre access and (d) the Folly Bottom interchange. [44429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is planning to publish draft orders for the A303 Stonehenge Improvement in December 2002. This scheme, formerly known as the Amesbury to Berwick Down Improvement, incorporates a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke and a flyover at Countess Roundabout. Subject to the making of statutory orders, it is intended that construction will start in the spring of 2005.

  The agency proposes to publish the made orders for the Folly Bottom interchange in April 2002. Preliminary works are expected to start in June 2002 and the main works in September 2002.
  358W
  The Stonehenge Visitors Centre is the responsibility of English Heritage who will in due course be discussing access arrangements with the Highways Agency.

  M42
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the concrete sections of the M42 will be covered with low noise road surfacing. [44076]

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

  Letter from Mr. Tim Matthews to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 20 March 2002:
  The Transport Minister. David Jamieson has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about resurfacing the concrete sections of the M42 with low noise material.
  There are three remaining lengths of concrete surfacing on the M42: junctions 2 to 3A, junctions 9 to 10 and junctions 3A to 4.
  The Government"s Ten Year Plan for Transport said that all concrete roads would be resurfaced with quieter surfacing materials by 2010 and in line with that we aim to resurface the road between Junctions 2 and 3A early in 2003 and between 9 and 10 in 2004/05.
  Resurfacing the road between junctions 3A and 4 will be done after we have introduced the Active Traffic Management Project in 2004. I am afraid I cannot give you a precise date.
  If you would like any further information, the Agency"s Route Manager for the M42, David Nock, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at the Agency"s office at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL or by telephone on 0121 678 8362.

  Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what regulations there are on the installation of (a) radio, (b) alarm and (c) CCTV systems into buses; [43963]

  (2)what steps is he taking to prevent assaults against bus
  crews on public services; and if he will make a statement;
  [43960]

  (3)what guidance is given to bus operators on offering
  employees professional counselling after they have suffered
  work-related violence; [43957]

  (4)what requirements are placed on bus operators to keep in
  good order bus radio and alarm systems; [43962]

  (5)what guidance he has issued on risk assessments to be
  carried out by bus operators on the risk of violence to bus
  crews. [43955]
  359W
  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State will shortly issue guidance to bus operators and other interested parties on reducing crime against passengers and crew, on buses and at stops and interchanges. This will update existing guidance on protecting bus crews and guidelines to operators on personal security on public transport. The new guidance will include advice on the installation, maintenance and repair of on-board equipment, which could help prevent crime. Professional counselling of employees is a matter for the operating companies.

  Mobile Phones
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he plans to take to encourage greater awareness among the motoring public of the dangers of using mobile phones when driving. [44609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To reinforce the message in the Highway Code, the Department is currently preparing new publicity to be launched this spring, as part of its "Think!" campaign, to raise awareness of the dangers of using mobile phones when driving.

  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to review the legislative framework regarding the use of mobile phones when driving. [44608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are satisfied that current legislation provides the police with sufficient powers to enable them to prosecute irresponsible drivers. However, in accordance with our Road Safety Strategy "Tomorrow"s roads—safer for everyone", we will keep the need for new legislation under review.

  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the dangers relating to driving when using (a) hand-held and (b) hands-free mobile phones;[44614]
  360W
  (2) what research his Department is undertaking into the dangers relating to the use of mobile phones when driving. [44615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is satisfied that there is clear evidence of an increased risk of an accident when using any type of mobile phone while driving. International research has established that the increased risk of an accident arises from the distracting effects of holding a telephone conversation rather than from just driving with one hand on the wheel. Further research, commissioned within the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme towards the end of last year, is under way to measure the distraction from hands-free phones in comparison to other common driver distractions such as talking with passengers or tuning the radio.

  BAC Limit
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the legal BAC limit for motorists. [45267]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to make a change in the foreseeable future. The limit will stay at 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The Government consulted on this in 1998 and waited upon proposals from Europe before considering the matter further. No firm legislation was forthcoming from the European Union although the European Commission produced a Recommendation which, among other measures, recommended community wide harmonisation of the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for motorists at 50mg. We have now considered whether it would be desirable to make such a change and concluded that we should maintain emphasis on enforcement and publicity. In reaching this decision the Government were mindful of the fact that our penalties are among the toughest in Europe. But we remain committed to combating drink-driving and support more research and collaboration at a European level.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department"s buildings in each of the last four years. [44833]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not keep a separate record of the cost of criminal damage to its buildings. The information requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met(a) the President and (b) the UK Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [40375]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no meetings with the President or UK Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to extend the Postcomm consultation on the opening of bulk mail delivery to competition beyond 15 March; and what the policies of other European Union member states are on the opening of bulk mail delivery to competition. [40554]

  Mr. Alexander
  The timetable for Postcomm"s consultation on its document proposals for effective competition in UK postal services is a matter for Postcomm. On 13 March Postcomm announced that it had decided to extend—to Friday 12 April—the date for comments on its proposals.

  The policies of other EU member states on market opening are a matter for them, providing they are acting in accordance with EU legislation.

  Small Business Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following the recommendation of the Small Business Council report, what plans the Government have for the reallocation of resources(a) to and (b) within the Small Business Service. [36978]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government, in their 2002 Spending Review will consider the level of resources, and broad internal allocation, for the SBS for the period from April 2003 to March 2006. The Spending Review will be informed by the Government"s review of services for small business. The allocation of resources within the SBS for 2002–03 is being considered as the Business Plan for this year is developed.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the companies from which her Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43410]
  362W
  Ms Hewitt
  All Departmental furniture is currently purchased through suppliers approved by the Office of Government Commerce. As part of their service level agreement with my Department the OGC undertake that all their approved suppliers comply with all relevant public procurement regulations and directives. More detailed information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 592W, what information she collates on the funding of non-Governmental organisations by her Department, with particular reference to those operating on a regional basis; and if she will make a statement. [43917]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not hold information centrally on the amount of funding it provides to the charitable or voluntary sectors by region.

  Overall information on Government funding of the voluntary sector can be found in the Home Office research publication "Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. This includes information on the proportion of that funding provided by my Department.

  Patent Office
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set the Patent Office, for 2002–03. [45051]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have set the Patent Office the following targets for 2002–03:

  Patents

  1. To increase performance year on year so that 90 per
  cent. of search reports are issued within six months of request by 2005–06.

  2. To grant 90 per cent. of patents within three years
  of request.

  Designs

  3. To register 90 per cent. of correctly filed design applications, to which no substantive objections have been raised, within three months of the date of application.

  Trade Marks

  4. To register 90 per cent, of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within nine months of application.

  5. To reduce to an average of 39 weeks the time taken to issue a decision in trade mark inter panes cases once the case is ready.

  Policy

  6. To publish details of progress towards key milestones in UK and international policy development in the annual report and on our website.

  Efficiency Targets

  7. To increase output in relation to current expenditure by an average of at least 2 per cent, per annum over the period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  In addition to these key targets:

  Customer Service Standards
  To meet our customer service standards as shown in the annual report and on our website at www.patent.gov.uk
  363W
  Finance
  The Office will pay 100 per cent, of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive will reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of

  Date

  Description

  New/used

  Data status

  1997

  20 May

  Laptop

  Used

  Powerpoint presentation

  22 May

  Laptop

  Used

  Notes of meetings

  6 June

  Laptop

  Used

  Routine data

  16 June

  Laptop

  Used

  Routine notes

  21 August

  Modem

  Used

  Device does not store data

  2 September

  Modem

  Used

  Device does not store data

  27 September

  Laptop

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  14 November

  Network analyser

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  8 December

  Laptop

  Used

  Routine data

  18 December

  Psion

  Used

  Routine data

  1998

  9 January

  Monitor

  Used

  Device does not store data

  19 January

  PC base unit

  Used

  No DTI data

  10 February

  Laptop

  New

  Unused—no DTI data

  31 March

  PC base unit

  Used

  No DTI data

  1 May

  Server1

  Used

  Device does not store data; merely holds list of IP addresses in volatile memory

  13 May

  2 printers

  Used

  Devices do not store data

  9 June

  Laptop, printer

  Used

  No DTI data on laptop—printer does not store data

  9 October

  Laptop

  used

  Restricted data

  13 November

  Laptop

  Used

  No DTI data

  1999

  23 February

  Laptop

  Used

  No DTI data

  16 March

  Laptop

  New

  Unused—no DTI data

  22 March

  Printer

  Used

  Device does not store data

  24 June

  PC

  Used

  No protectively marked data

  8 July

  Psion

  Used

  Name and address

  10 August

  PC

  New

  Unused—no DTI data

  21 October

  Laptop

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  1 November

  Laptop

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  3 November

  Modem

  Used

  Device does not store data

  29 November

  Ethernet hub

  Used

  Device does not store data

  13 December

  PC

  New

  Unused—no DTI data

  2000

  10 January

  Laptop

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  26 July

  2 laptops

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  14 March

  Laptop

  Used

  Non DTI equipment

  10 December

  Flat screen

  Used

  Device does not store data

  21 December

  Flat screen

  Used

  Device does not store data

  27 December

  Flat screen

  Used

  Device does not store data

  1 The "server" was a PAC server. This device acts as an interface for web based browsing and held a look-up list of users who were permitted Internet access in non-permanent memory (with a 24 hour back-up battery).

  364W
  24 January 2002, Official Report, column 1071W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from her Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42639]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table identifies whether the IT equipment identified as stolen from my Department in my previous answer was new or used. In addition and where known, the table also shows the nature of the data held on the stolen equipment.
  365W

  Unitas report for 1 April 2001 to January 2002

  New/used

  Data status

  5 MURA laptops

  3 new

  No DTI data

  1 used

  Test system; no live data present

  1 used

  Data encrypted including temporary work areas

  1 other laptop

  —

  Non DTI equipment

  3 PCs

  2 new

  No DTI data

  1 used

  No DTI data stored locally; all held on servers

  Flat screen

  Used

  Device does not store data

  Where the equipment is shown as not belonging to DTI, it would have held software and data belonging to the owning company rather than DTI.

  Scientific and Engineering Institutions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review her Department"s funding support to the scientific and engineering learned institutions; and if she will make a statement. [43580]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]My Department provides an annual grant in aid to both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering from the science budget, mainly for fellowships and international exchanges. This funding is reviewed, together with the other components of the science budget, at each Government Spending Review.

  My officials also meet the Executive Secretaries and other members of staff of each body approximately quarterly to review progress in respect of grant in aid funded programmes, and to discuss other matters of common interest.

  Broadly comparable arrangements cover funding to other learned societies from the Research Councils. However, the sums involved are small, and do not come directly through the science budget. Examples of these would include the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry, which receive funds from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for workshops, summer schools, and conferences.

  My Department is also considering a programme of support for funding projects to be undertaken by the Engineering and Technology Board.

  Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chartered engineers there are in her Department; and what grade they hold. [43578]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The number of chartered engineers recorded on the Department"s personnel database is listed by grade in the table.
  366W

  Range

  Number

  Senior civil service

  1

  Range 11

  3

  Range 10

  10

  Range 9

  3

  The figures do not include any chartered engineers who may be working in the Department who are not currently in the database. This includes staff in the Construction Industry Directorate whose full records have yet to be transferred from their previous Department.

  UK Exporters (North and Central America
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries were dealt with from potential United Kingdom exporters by the trade desks at United Kingdom embassies in(a) the USA, (b) Canada and (c) Mexico in the last 12 months. [41923]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Overseas posts in the USA, Canada and Mexico do not record information on the number of initial inquiries for their markets from potential British exporters. However a new information system will record such information in future.

  Individual Voluntary Arrangements
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individual voluntary arrangements commenced in 2001. [43647]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: There were 6,298 individual voluntary arrangements commenced in 2001.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total external spending by her Department was on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [43198]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has engaged consultants to help on the public-private partnership with the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Annual spending and the number of consultancy firms are given in the table. The other information requested is not obtainable without disproportionate effort.
  367W

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  Legal advice (two firms)

  9,867

  650,029

  169,398

  210,348

  81,542

  1,121,184

  Financial advice (one firm)

  —

  702,851

  452,050

  354,681

  152,750

  1,662,332

  Tax advice (one firm)

  —

  75,788

  93,888

  121,495

  86,833

  378,004

  Accountancy advice (one firm)

  —

  —

  —

  100,815

  —

  100,815

  Totals (five firms)

  9,867

  1,428,668

  715,336

  787,339

  321,125

  3,262,335

  1 Provisional

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons she has decided not to grant debt relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative to Belize; when this decision was taken; for what reasons Belize has not met the criteria under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative; if she has scheduled further discussions between her Department and the Government of Belize on this issue; and if she will make a statement. [43472]

  Hilary Benn
  Belize was considered for CDI under the three basic CDI criteria—commitment to pro-poor policies, promotion of responsive and accountable government; and application of macro-economic policies to encourage sustainable development. Although some progress had been made in implementing commitments in relation to the first two criteria, on the third criterion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development shared the concerns set out in the IMF Article IV report from April 2001, particularly in terms of significant increases in external commercial debt levels and the widening public sector deficit. Against this background she concluded that Belize had not fulfilled the CDI criteria. There is provision for a further review later this year.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence sent by her Department on 26 June 2001 to KPMG on its study commissioned by her Department of the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the reply from KPMG. [43470]

  Hilary Benn
  There was no correspondence. The exchange between DFID and KPMG referred to in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development"s earlier answer took place on the telephone.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates since 3 August 2001 officials from her Department have held meetings with the Government of Belize to discuss the issue of Commonwealth Debt Initiative and the effect of tax exemptions and public investment companies on pro-poor programmes. [43471]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met with Prime Minister Musa in October 2001 as referred to in her reply to question 29276. DFID officials also met with Prime Minister Musa and Minister Fonesca in November 2001. A range of issues, including CDI, were discussed on both occasions.

  HIV/AIDS (Africa)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase spending on tackling HIV/AIDS in Africa. [40663]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID spent over £55 million in Africa on HIV/AIDS programmes and related health systems strengthening in the financial year 2000–01.

  So far this year (2001–02), we have committed an additional £180 million to tackle HIV/AIDS in Africa. A further $200 million (£140 million approximately) has been pledged by the UK to the Global Health Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, of which half is expected to be spent on HIV/AIDS work.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department is spending on tackling HIV/AIDS in each country in Africa. [40664]

  Hilary Benn
  The table shows the amount of money spent by DFID on HIV/AIDS in Africa in 2000–01, and the level of additional commitment for 2001–02, broken down by country.

  HIV/AIDS spend (pounds sterling)—includes health systems strengthening and reproductive health programme spend

  £000

  country

  Total spent 2000–01

  Additional projects 2001–02

  Africa regional

  1,782

  23,898

  Angola

  106

  —

  Central Africa regional

  62

  —

  Congo, Democratic Republic

  —

  379

  Ethiopia

  183

  300

  Ghana

  112

  25,000

  Kenya

  678

  3,509

  Malawi

  4,609

  29,835

  Mali

  25

  —

  Mozambique

  6,395

  12,739

  Namibia

  31

  —

  Nigeria

  653

  52,959

  Rwanda

  —

  3,000

  Senegal

  —

  250

  Sierra Leone

  306

  1,850

  Somali Democratic Republic

  5

  —

  South Africa, Republic of

  2,803

  15,218

  Southern Africa

  15

  —

  Southern Africa Development Coordination Committee

  594

  600

  Swaziland

  72

  —

  Tanzania

  4,647

  —

  Togo

  173

  —

  Uganda

  324

  686

  Zambia

  28,219

  169

  Zimbabwe

  3,298

  12,915

  Total

  55,092

  183,307

  369W
  These figures represent direct project/programme costs and do not include our financial support to NGOs and international institutions such as UNA1DS and WHO, in support of HIV/AIDS work across Africa.

  Health Strategies
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of intervention strategies in reducing maternal mortality and morbidity in developing countries. [43998]

  Hilary Benn
  Making an effective contribution to the Millennium Development Goal of reducing maternal mortality by three quarters between 1990 and 2015 is a key objective in my Department"s Public Service Agreement.

  WHO are the lead international agency and we are supporting their work to determine the most successful and cost-effective safe motherhood packages. DFID is funding research designed to identify the most effective interventions to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity in the developing world, including trials of vitamin A supplementation and magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia. We are also looking to draw lessons from the large safer motherhood programmes we support in Nepal, Malawi, Kenya, Pakistan and Bolivia.

  Evidence to date indicates that increasing and sustaining the quality of midwifery and obstetric services is very likely to result in reduced maternal mortality. Evidence also shows that strengthening health systems is also a key prerequisite for improving safe motherhood. DFID has committed over £1 billion to this work since 1997.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she takes to (a) analyse the methods and policies by which low income countries achieve good health outcomes in life expectancy and child mortality and (b) use these countries and the methodology they apply to health policy when formulating health strategies for other developing countries. [43999]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID attaches great importance to learning and sharing lessons form successful strategies in developing countries to improve health, particularly of the poor. DFID"s ability to feed country experience into international policy making, using our network of in-country health experts, is widely recognised as one of its institutional strengths. We are further contributing to the international effort by:strengthening WHO"s capacity to draw upon country level experience, in order to set standards and disseminate best practice;
  supporting knowledge programmes which examine the effectiveness of interventions and disseminate best practice; and
  supporting the recent work of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, which has assessed the global evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve health.

  Lessons learned as a result of these efforts are used to help developing countries develop and refine their own multi-sectoral national programmes and plans for better health and poverty reduction. This is increasingly done in the context of Sector Wide Approaches and Poverty Reduction Strategies.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  CERRIE
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the members of the Working Group established to take forward the Consultative Exercise on Radiation Risk from Interval Emitters; what the remit of CERRIE is; what resources are available to support CERRIE"s work; and whether CERRIE meetings are held in public; [15575]

  (2) when she expects to reply to written question 15575 on the establishment of CERRIE. [34541]

  Mr. Meacher
  The membership of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE), set up under the auspices of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), has recently been finalized and is:

  Chairman:

  Professor Dudley Goodhead, MRC Radiation and Genome Stability Unit

  Members:

  Mr. Richard Brarnha11, The Low Level Radiation Campaign

  Dr. Chris Busby, Green Audit

  Dr. Roger Cox, National Radiological Protection Board

  Dr. Philip Day, University of Manchester

  Professor Sarah Darby, ICRF Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford

  Dr. John Harrison, National Radiological Protection Board

  Dr. Colin Muirhead, National Radiological Protection Board

  Mr. Pete Roche, Greenpeace UK

  Professor Jack Simmons, University of Westminster

  Dr. Richard Wakeford, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Professor Eric Wright, Ninewells Medical School, Dundee.

  The Chairman of COMARE, Professor Bryn Bridges, will attend the meetings as an observer, as will officials from the Department of Health and DEFRA.

  The remit of CERRIE is, "To consider the present risk models for radiation and health that apply to exposure to radiation from internal radionuclides in the light of recent studies and any further research that might be needed."

  Consultants have been appointed to provide CERRIE with an independent secretariat. Other resources, such as accommodation etc, will be provided by the two sponsoring Departments, DEFRA and DH.

  CERRIE"s meetings are not held in public.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards the completion of the first five-yearly Financial, Management and Policy Review of the Environment Agency. [45324]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce that the Department is today publishing the second and final stage of this review.

  The findings of the review establish a basis for a new and strategic relationship between the Agency and its Sponsors; more effective business planning and performance review;

  371W
  a sharpening of efficiency; and a wide range of actions by both the Agency and its Sponsors towards the improved delivery of environmental functions.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Easter Eggs
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the confectionery manufacturing industry regarding the amount of packaging waste generated by Easter eggs; and if she will make a statement. [43214]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: None. The requirements of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) apply to all packaging. The incentives to minimise and reuse packaging and the targets set for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste apply throughout the year.

  Sellafield
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates, and where,(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have met the Irish Government to discuss the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield since 5 October 2001; and which Ministers and which Irish Government departments were involved in each meeting. [43473]

  Margaret Beckett
  Ministers and officials have been involved in a number of meetings since 5 October with Irish Ministers and officials at which the British Nuclear Fuel Plant at Sellafield was discussed, either as the main subject of the meeting, or as part of a wider agenda. The meetings, venues, and participants, were as follows:

  Ministers
  25 February 2002–British Irish Council meeting (Edinburgh, Scotland)—Michael Meacher, (Minister for the Environment) (Chair), Noel Dempsey TD (Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Ireland), and Joe Jacob TD (Minister of State. Department of Public Enterprise, Ireland)—plus Ministers from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. 4 March 2002—Environment Council (Brussels, Belgium)—Margaret Beckett, (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Michael Meacher, (Minister for the Environment), Noel Dempsey TD (Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Ireland).

  Officials
  5 October 2001—0SPAR Arbitration meeting (London)— DEFRA, Other Government Departments, and Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland)
  19 and 20 November—International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Hearing (Hamburg, Germany)—DEFRA, Other Government Departments, Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland) and Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (Ireland)
  11 December 2001—with ITLOS Provisional Measures (Dublin, Ireland)—DEFRA, Other Government Departments, and Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland) and Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.
  7 February 2002—British Irish Council pre—meeting (London)—DEFRA, Devolved Administrations, Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland), Isle of Man Government
  15 February 2002—UK Ireland Contact Group on Radioactivity (London)—DEFRA, Other Government Departments, Devolved Administrations, Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland),
  372W
  Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (Ireland), and the Isle of Man Government. This particular group of officials meets every six months.
  15 February 2002—Discussion of draft Irish/Isle of Man paper on "Sellafield and Radioactive Waste" (London)—DEFRA, Other Government Departments, Devolved Administrations, Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland), Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, and the Isle of Man Government.

  Radioactive Waste (Irish Sea)
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what amount of radioactive waste was discharged into the Irish Sea, broken down between each radionuclide, in each year since 1979. [29244]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Annual radioactive discharge data, for nuclear sites in the UK, for the years in question, are contained in the following Government reports:
  Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report, Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles, MAFF. Annual Report, 1977–94
  Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, Food Standards Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Annual publication, 1995–2001.

  Copies of these publications can be found in the Library of the House.

  Data, in the form requested, from these reports (updated and amplified from other sources for certain years and radionuclides) are reproduced in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The timespans over which radionuclides have been measured at different contributory nuclear sites varies depending upon the discharge authorisations issued by the relevant UK regulator.

  Copies of these publications can be found in the Library of the House.

  Data, in the form requested, from these reports (updated and amplified from other sources for certain years and radionuclides) are reproduced in the tables. The timespans over which radionuclides have been measured at different contributory nuclear sites varies depending upon the discharge authorisations issued by the relevant UK regulator.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from which countries the UK imports fluoride. [42975]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to information compiled by HM Customs and Excise, UK imported fluorides" from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, France, Japan, Italy, China, Netherlands, Brazil, India, Hong Kong, Irish Republic, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Norway and South Korea.

  Note:

  1 Fluorides are defined by codes 282611,282612 and 282619 of the Harmonised System.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the role of her Department in checks on illegal meat imports at coastal ports in the last two years. [44212]

  Margaret Beckett
  The responsibility for sea ports lies with the local/port-health authority and not with DEFRA. Although we do have a presence in most ports and offer advice and support to the local authorities, it is their function to quality assure legitimate trade and to identify illegal imports.

  I am chairing a high level forum on Thursday 21 March 2002 involving all stakeholders, to consider the next steps for intensifying our efforts and to agree further priorities and action. A number of other Government Departments and agencies plus the enforcement bodies will be participating.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 12 March, ref. 38842, on which dates members of the State Veterinary Service were involved in Joint exercises at Heathrow. [44230]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Since April 2001, members of the State Veterinary Service have been involved in nine joint exercises at Heathrow. Dates include the 8, 15 and 29 April, 24 June, 30 October, 9 November 2001 and 12, 14 and 17 February 2002.

  Winter Wheat/Winter Barley
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the total amount of sowings of (a) winter wheat and (b) winter barley for the year ending 2001; and what the comparable figures were for 2000. [44103]

  Mr. Morley
  The December 2001 survey of agriculture results for England were published on 7 March 2002 in DEFRA Statistics News Release 11/02 and are available on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk. Estimates for the areas of wheat and barley sown by 3 December 2001 are detailed in the table together with comparable figures for December 2000.

  thousand hectares

  1 December 2000

  3 December 2001

  percentage change1 December 2001– December 2000

  wheat sown by survey date

  1,271

  1,868

  +47.0

  Barley sown by survey date

  390

  486

  +24.4

  1 Based on unrounded figures.

  Note:

  1. Includes estimates for minor holdings.

  2. For 2000, areas sown by 1 December were affected by poor drilling conditions caused by wet weather.

  * Based on unrounded figures

  Fish Quotas (Shetland and Orkney)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total 374W
  amount expended by the Shetland and Orkney Islands councils annually for the purchase of fish quotas was from 1995 to 2002. [44099]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand no moneys have been expended by the Shetland Islands council on the purchase of fish quotas but that£2 million was spent on quota purchase in 1998 by Shetland Leasing and Property Ltd. (SLAP), using moneys lent by Shetland Development Trust, and the Orkney Islands council spent £1.5 million in 1999.

  Beam Trawling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the restrictions are on the frequency with which a seabed may be beam trawled; and how such restrictions are enforced. [43880]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no restrictions on the frequency with which a seabed may be beam trawled.

  Large beam trawls are prohibited within 12 miles of the coasts of the United Kingdom and Ireland under EC Fisheries Technical Regulations. Further restrictions have been placed on the use of beam trawlers by some of the 12 Sea Fisheries Committees who are responsible for managing fishing in the 0-six mile zone around England and Wales.

  Quarantine Kennels
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will introduce statutory standards for animal quarantine kennels. [44258]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 (as amended) animal quarantine kennels are regulated with regard to disease security and isolation. There are standard requirements for the design, construction, operation and management of authorised quarantine premises, and it is the responsibility of the Veterinary Superintendent of the premises to ensure that these standards are met, and also to ensure the safe custody and strict isolation of each animal throughout its period of quarantine.

  Currently, all approved quarantine premises have undertaken to abide by a Voluntary Code of Practice on the Welfare of Dogs and Cats in Quarantine Premises. But we are determined to improve the welfare standards of animals in quarantine. The Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998 gives us the power to set statutory welfare standards in quarantine premises. In 2000 we consulted on a draft order which contained, among other things, such statutory welfare standards.

  Work on the draft order was suspended during 2001 due to foot and mouth disease. We hope to introduce the legislation later this year.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002, Official Report, column 741W, on

  375W
  agrimonetary compensation. how much compensation has been paid to each county in each year since 1997. [43320]

  £

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon

  46,582.90

  613,088.12

  422,405.20

  1,830.896.78

  1,924,263.55

  Bedfordshire

  25,290.49

  293,235.94

  206,457.71

  3,839,765.31

  1,259,794.09

  Berkshire

  28,809.38

  400,592.56

  260,462.17

  2,511,894.50

  1,178,826.26

  Buckinghamshire

  100,094.62

  1,255,101.58

  853,874.65

  4,388,599.35

  2,092,800.55

  Cambridgeshire

  23,892.00

  551,524.65

  246,919.03

  10,820,475.59

  3,058,492.15

  Cheshire

  103,980.30

  593,821.65

  442,161.92

  3,384,855.17

  5,352,276.59

  Cleveland

  19,357.65

  240,278.79

  179,040.27

  1,048,734.42

  631,118.43

  Cornwall

  312,282.84

  4,295,307.33

  2,742,830.25

  6,739,851.65

  6,119,660.05

  Cumbria

  1,581,523.72

  11,521,556.80

  11,466,448.01

  12,384,974.29

  12,339,555.73

  Derbyshire

  254,718.03

  2,502,485.44

  1,905,839.31

  4,463,025.68

  4,020,015.53

  Devonshire

  962,388.98

  9,361,751.91

  7,646,831.69

  13,638,895.19

  12,607,153.67

  Dorset

  104,554.91

  1,135,612.92

  911,914.98

  5,044,705.36

  4,203,644.04

  Durham

  365,091.13

  3,383,218.90

  2,707,639.08

  5,051,444.27

  3,048,254.02

  East Sussex

  137,904.52

  1,252,188.03

  1,093,737.33

  3,068,280.67

  1,777,719.86

  Essex

  33,215.82

  478,784.80

  279,345.86

  10,755,207.25

  3,281,451.08

  Gloucestershire

  178,772.97

  1,873,157.21

  1,501,465.61

  6,659,059.08

  3,600,129.59

  Greater London

  704.01

  73,983.78

  13,022.03

  288,208.92

  125,517.66

  Greater Manchester

  41,634.29

  356,106.11

  163,950.72

  630,903.23

  531,791.45

  Hampshire

  70,985.24

  1,146,950.89

  579,784.76

  7,306,807.10

  2,956,214.06

  Hereford and Worcester

  568,266.71

  4,796,637.65

  4,390,840.36

  9,734,386.41

  5,869,263.64

  Hertfordshire

  19,930.95

  408,442.43

  175,598.11

  4,001,736.34

  1,354,289.14

  Humberside

  59,690.26

  1,105,624.06

  560,294.56

  11,029,835.20

  3,054,684.10

  Isle of Wight

  15,821.16

  228,109.70

  130,355.30

  720,196.43

  405,029.93

  Kent

  241,348.70

  1,902,805.26

  1,730,036.63

  8,406,074.77

  3,094,404.04

  Lancashire

  447,736.02

  3,228,481.79

  3,326,149.41

  4,744,869.02

  5,548,309.02

  Leicestershire

  167,956.70

  1,632,267.42

  1,391,865.92

  7,598,278.46

  3,927,548.61

  Lincolnshire

  101,037.07

  1,775,789.62

  892,910.26

  19,312,091.10

  6,052,915.42

  Merseyside

  2,935.16

  51,534.61

  23,059.98

  549,660.68

  287,127.35

  Norfolk

  70,955.48

  1,510,377.40

  656,988.66

  12,750,388.93

  4,465,805.66

  North Yorkshire

  1,098,985.24

  8,681,985.38

  8,255,463.12

  19,806,227.51

  11,203,839.86

  Northamptonshire

  170,684.41

  1,600,108.65

  1,385,136.16

  8,059,386.46

  3,058,931.74

  Northumberland

  879,434.05

  8,336,908.10

  6,586,422.68

  10,900,145.61

  6,227,342.15

  Nottinghamshire

  43,231.52

  629,141.42

  387,537.85

  5,903,619.88

  1,537,998.45

  Oxfordshire

  94,797.97

  1,162,121.82

  800,669.71

  8,022,062.71

  3,250,752.69

  Scilly Isles

  0.00

  1,508.47

  238.26

  632.36

  712.97

  Shropshire

  450,045.29

  2,589,329.24

  2,091,822.20

  8,370,680.73

  6,652,592.24

  Somerset

  331,143.35

  3,305,963.81

  2,585,044.47

  6,620,751.59

  6,560,058.18

  South Yorkshire

  40,175.04

  595,423.53

  344,468.63

  2,849,217.26

  1,361,540.11

  Staffordshire

  134,429.01

  1,140,809.91

  752,202.20

  4,594,325.61

  4,218,938.86

  Suffolk

  33,567.51

  695,129.84

  344,544.71

  10,444,578.42

  3,379,338.28

  Surrey

  30,549.37

  543,349.49

  259,523.94

  1,245,831.43

  815,929.17

  Tyne and Wear

  3,740.64

  152,949.68

  64,707.76

  609,647.24

  298,146.66

  Warwickshire

  147,950.13

  1,318,825.80

  1,199,911.67

  5,662,022.73

  2,480,183.29

  West Midlands

  10,550.20

  184,153.27

  89,202.93

  511,241.44

  495,061.73

  West Sussex

  56,625.96

  755,687.75

  444,876.68

  3,375,760.17

  1,787,853.01

  West Yorkshire

  123,095.24

  1,403,953.16

  956,780.51

  2,460,213.00

  1,899,087.59

  Wiltshire

  95,682.95

  1,516,854.72

  871,506.70

  8,270,806.18

  4,829,054.65

  Total

  9,832.149.89

  92,583.021.39

  74,322,289.95

  290,411,251.48

  164,225,416.90

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she received (a) the report of the Rural Task Force and (b) Lord Haskins" report on rural recovery after foot and mouth disease. [9919]

  Margaret Beckett
  I saw the report of the Rural Task Force which was chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Rural Affairs on 15 October immediately after the report had been completed. My noble Friend, the Lord Haskins, sent me a near-final draft of his report on 2 October, but he made some subsequent amendments; the report as printed was also completed on 15 October. The earliest mutually acceptable date for publication was 18 October.
  376W
  Mr. Morley
  The table sets out agrimonetary expenditure between 1997 and 2001, at country level.

  Bio-security
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been taken to improve bio-security at ports to ensure that foot and mouth disease cannot enter the UK. [43458]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Since April last year initiatives on illegal imports have been co-ordinated by officials in DEFRA, working closely with other Departments such as HM Customs and Excise and Food Standards Agency, as well as the local authorities and port health authorities who are responsible for controls at ports and airports. This joint approach had led to more effective information sharing and improved targeting of activity at ports and airports.
  377W
  DEFRA is also holding a high level forum on 21 March 2002 involving all stakeholders, to consider the next steps for intensifying our efforts and to agree further priorities and action.

  Responsibility for checks on imports of meat and meat products (which might be coming from countries with FMD) are the responsibility of the local or port health authority and it is for the appropriate local authority to deploy staff according to the volume and nature of products imported.

  Herd Size
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the size of the national(a) dairy herd, (b) beef herd, (c) pig breeding herd, (d) fattening pig herd, (e) sheep flock and (f) lamb flock under one year old for the year ending 2001; and what the figures were for 2000. [44102]

  Mr. Morley
  The December 2001 Survey of Agriculture Results for England were published on 7 March 2002 in Statistics News Release 11/02 and are available on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk. Estimates for the dairy and beef herd, the pig breeding and fattening herds and the sheep and lamb flocks are detailed in the table with comparable figures for 2000.

  Thousand head

  Herd1

  December 2000

  December 2001

  percentage change2 December 2001/December 2000

  Dairy herd

  1,581

  1,439

  -9.0

  Beef herd

  753

  666

  -11.5

  Pig breeding herd

  475

  440

  -7.4

  Fattening pig herd

  4,398

  4,129

  -6.1

  Sheep breeding flock

  8,188

  6,698

  -18.2

  Lamb flock under 1 year3

  3,790

  3,241

  -14.5

  1 Includes estimates for minor holdings.

  2 Based on unrounded figures.

  3 Excludes ewe lambs already put to the lamb which are already included in the figures for the breeding flock.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she and her Ministers have to visit agricultural shows in 2002. [34109]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and the DEFRA ministerial team will be visiting a range of agricultural shows during 2002 and a programme of visits is being drawn up.

  Common Land
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will implement regulations governing rights of vehicular access over common land and limiting the amount a common land freeholder can charge for access rights. [43881]
  378W
  Alun Michael
  The Government are currently considering the many responses made during the public consultation exercise on the regulations undertaken last year. We hope to be in a position to lay draft regulations for England before Parliament soon.

  Right of Access Maps
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the draft Right of Access maps for the lower north-west and the south-east of England as they are completed. [43462]

  Alun Michael
  Draft maps of open country and registered common land for land in the south-east and lower-north west mapping regions were issued by the Countryside Agency in November 2001, with a deadline for comments of 11 February 2002. The Agency will consider the representations which it has received about the draft maps before publishing provisional maps later this year. When the provisional maps are published, anyone with an interest in land may appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against its inclusion on a provisional map. When any appeals have been dealt with the Countryside Agency will issue a conclusive map. I have indicated that we will consider the case for bringing the right of access into force on a regional basis in the light of progress in the first two regions. I shall make an announcement soon.

  Rural Affairs
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost is of the "Your Countryside, You"re Welcome"(a) launch and (b) campaign. [43082]

  Alun Michael
  Rather than a Government advertising campaign, the "Your Countryside, You"re Welcome" campaign was owned by some 50 organisations who worked as partners with DEFRA, DCMS, the Countryside Agency and the English Tourism Council. Over 100 other organisations were supportive or involved in a variety of ways. No costs can be ascribed to their time and effort, nor to the high level of activity at local and regional level around the country which has helped to re-engage urban and rural interest in a positive way.

  The total cost for the PR activity to support the "Your Countryside, You"re Welcome" campaign was £209,000 plus VAT.

  This covered all fees and expenses incurred on the campaign including the launch event on 28 January, the public event in Leicester Square on 10 March, and the Daily Mirror promotion in the week commencing 11 March.

  Sustainability
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government"s definition of sustainability. [43575]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: There are a number of definitions of sustainable development. The Government"s sustainable development strategy—"A

  379W
  better quality of life" (Cm 4345)—defines it as "ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come".

  Like other definitions of sustainable development, the Government"s approach emphasises the need to try to reconcile economic, social and environmental objectives and look for the best alternative that achieves this.

  The Government"s latest report on sustainable development—"Achieving a better quality of life 2001"—was published on 13 March 2002, and can be found via http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 926–27W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from her Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42645]

  Mr. Morley
  Further to the details I gave the right hon. Member on 23 January 2002, the Department"s records show details of the following items of stolen computer equipment that were either new and unused or used.

  Data stored on the stolen computer equipment relates to MAFF/DEFRA"s business. It is not possible to be more precise.

  Thefts of IT equipment since 1 May 1997

  Thefts

  Number

  Items stolen

  Category

  1997

  3 May

  20

  PC

  Used

  6 May

  1

  PC

  Used

  9 June

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  1 August

  2

  PC

  New and unused

  11 August

  1

  Laptop

  New and unused

  9 September

  1

  PC

  New and unused

  30 September

  1

  PC

  Used

  2 October

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  1998

  12 January

  2

  Laptops

  Used

  21 June

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  5 September

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  21 September

  2

  Laptops

  Used

  1999

  1 February

  1

  Laptop, zip and mouse

  Used

  23 February

  2

  Central processing units

  Used

  26 March

  2

  PCs, 8 copies of software and 2 ethernet cards

  used

  14 April

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  19 April

  1

  Psion organiser

  Used

  18 August

  1

  Laptop

  New and unused

  20 September

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  28 October

  1

  PC and printer

  Used

  15 November

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  22 November

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  20 December

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  2000

  28 January

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  13 February

  1

  PC and printer

  Used

  27 February

  1

  Laptop and floppy disk drive

  Used

  21 March

  1

  Psion organiser

  New and unused

  28 March

  1

  Psion 5 MX

  Used

  05 April

  1

  Laptop and mobile printer

  Used

  16 May

  29

  Processors (microchips) and 1 Laptop

  Used

  24 May

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  380W

  Thefts of IT equipment since 1 May 1997

  Thefts

  Number

  Items stolen

  Category

  26 May

  1

  Laptop, Printer and Accessories

  Used

  7 July

  3

  2 PCs and 1 laptop

  Used

  19 July

  4

  Processors (microchips)

  Used

  20 July

  1

  PC and modem

  Used

  2 August

  1

  Laptop, 1 printer and 1 printer lead

  Used

  7 August

  3

  PCs

  Used

  17 August

  1

  Processor (microchips)

  Used

  11 September

  1

  Laptop, mouse and connections

  Used

  12 October

  1

  Modem card

  Used

  30 October

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  20 November

  1

  Laptop, 1 floppy disc and CD drive

  Used

  29 November

  3

  Processors (microchips)

  Used

  2001

  1 February

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  6 February

  2

  Laptops

  Used

  8 February

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  12 February

  2

  Laptops

  New and unused

  12 March

  2

  PC and printer

  Used

  21March

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  2 April

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  9 May

  2

  DIM chips

  New and unused

  20 May

  1

  Keyboard

  Used

  2 July

  1

  PC

  Used

  2 August

  1

  Chips (microchips)

  Used

  16 August

  1

  Laptop plus 1 modem and carry case

  Used

  14 September

  1

  Lapton

  Used

  28 September

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  1 October

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  5 October

  1

  Laptop

  Used

  21 November

  1

  Laptop and 1 Projector

  Used

  19 December

  2

  Printers

  Used

  2002

  8 January

  12

  PCs

  Used

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last used the railway service in connection with her official duties; what station she left from and what was the destination; and whether it is her intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28100]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State last used the railway service in connection with her official duties on 22 January, travelling on the Eurostar service from Brussels to Waterloo. My right hon. Friend will continue to use the railway service where appropriate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Article 13 Action Programme
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the (a) composition and (b) mission of the article 13 action programme; when it will meet; and what parliamentary scrutiny there will be of its activities. [39646]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Article 13 action programme is an activity of the European Community. It was agreed under Article 13 of the European Community Treaty on 27 November 2000, and will run until 2006.
  381W
  The Programme supports the development of practical solutions to combat discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin, disability, age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. The programme encourages the exchange of best practice on policies and practices which have been shown to work well in combating discrimination across Europe.

  The day to day running of the programme is the responsibility of the European Commission under the direction of a Management Committee comprising of representatives of all member states including the United Kingdom. The Committee meets three or four times a year to provide the necessary guidance to the Commission. An evaluation of the programme will be reported to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A copy of the evaluation report will be placed in the Libraries of the House once available.

  Public Bodies (Chairman)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33882]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  (a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office has 10 Non departmental public bodies. Chairpersons appointed since 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  Sir Frank Berman, Chairman, Diplomatic Service Appeals Board

  (i) Term of office: three years (appointed November
  2001)

  (ii) Salary: nil

  Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Chair, British Council

  (i) Term of office: three years (Appointed one term August 1999 to July 2001 re-appointed for a second term August 2001–July 04)

  (ii) Salary: honorarium 35,000 perannum (agreed by order of the Charity Commissioners)

  Sir Andrew Wood KCMG, Chairman, Britain-Russia Centre

  (i) Term of office: three years (Appointed November
  2000)

  (ii) Salary: nil

  Mr. Ernie Ross MP, Chairman, Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  (i) Term of office: one year (July 1997 and yearly
  reappointment thereafter)

  (ii) Salary: nil

  Lady Suzanne Warner, Chair, Wilton Park Academic Council

  (i) Term of office: two years (first appointment December 1999 reappointed December 2001).

  (ii) Salary: nil

  Mr. Jonathan Taylor, Chairman, Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  (i) Term of office: three years (appointed April
  2000)

  (ii) Salary: nil

  Right hon. Lord Radice, Chairman, British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  (i) Term of office: three years (reappointed October
  2000)

  (ii) Salary: nil

  382W
  Sir Ewen Fergusson, Chairman, Government Hospitality
  Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  (i)Term of office: five years (appointed April 1998)

  (ii)Salary: nil

  Mr. David Brewer, Chairman, Great Britain China Centre

  (i)Term of office: three years (first appointment October 1997, reappointed October 2000)

  (ii)Salary: nil

  (b) Commissions

  Mr. Arthur Wheeler Chairman, Foreign Compensation Commission

  (i)Term of office: one year (last appointed December
  2001)

  (ii)Salary: nil.

  Information on Political affiliation is not available.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if he has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44068]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of staff in the FCO who are members of the territorial forces is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The FCO supports staff who wish to serve in the reserve forces and allows them paid time off work to take part in these activities.

  Civil Servants (Education)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of recruits to his Department came from Oxford and Cambridge in(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) for the 10 preceding years. [43857]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last published figures for 2000 are in the 2001 Departmental report. The table shows the percentage recruited from Oxbridge for 2000–1990.

  Policy

  Operational

  2000

  57

  4

  1999

  44

  4

  1998

  65

  7

  1997

  48

  6

  1996

  72

  12

  1995

  57

  1—

  1994

  71

  1—

  1993

  71

  1—

  1992

  79

  1—

  1991

  52

  1—

  1990

  67

  1—

  1 Not collected pre-1996

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out for each Civil Service grade within his(a) Department and (b) Department"s executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39148]
  383W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 13 March 2002 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office,Official Report, column 1071W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37980]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 27 February, 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, special advisers in my Department travelled abroad in an official capacity on eight occasions, at an average cost of £3,039.04 per trip. 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.

  Council Proposal 569
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legal basis for Council proposal Coin (2001) 569. [39648]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The legal base of proposal 569 was article 308 of the EU treaty. The proposal was adopted as a regulation (2580–2001) on 27 December 2001. The legal basis of the regulation was articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EU treaty.

  The Government welcome this regulation as an integral part of the EU"s measures to implement UNSCR 1373(2001). The UK strongly supported the timely adoption of UNSCR 1373 (2001) as a vital measure in the global campaign against terrorism. The regulation will assist in ensuring full compliance within the EU with the provisions of UNSCR 1373(2001). The Government consider the immediate freezing of assets to prevent their dissipation an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. The regulation does not limit the UK"s ability to take autonomous measures against other individuals that we deem to be linked to terrorism.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (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; [38749]

  (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. [38748]
  384W
  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 28 February, 2002]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42478]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No central records are kept of parental leave taken and so no estimates are readily available of the likely financial costs to the FCO of the introduction of the Parental Leave Directive. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to assisting its employees to achieve a better balance between home and work life. The entitlement to parental leave is another element of this.

  West Bank
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid will be given to help rebuild settlements destroyed on the West Bank; and if he will make a statement. [43220]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Through our bilateral aid programme, the European Union and UNWRA we support the short term needs of the Palestinian Authority. It is also critical to address our long-term goal of Palestinian nation building in parallel. The aim of our development assistance programme in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is to help develop the building blocks which will support the creation of a viable Palestinian state. We aim to provide a broad range of technical assistance designed to promote peace, stability and economic and social development. UK bilateral assistance is planned at £14 million this year. In 2001 the UK contributed £25 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to support vulnerable Palestinian refugee communities. The Government have no specific plans to give aid to rebuild Palestinian towns in the West Bank.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel about Palestinian child detainees held in Israeli prisons and detention centres. [43484]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our embassy in Tel Aviv has raised with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs the case of Sausan Abu Turki, a 14-year-old Palestinian girl arrested in late 2001 for allegedly attacking an Israel Defence Force officer, whom we understand the Israeli authorities continue to hold without charge. The embassy also supports the efforts of human rights NGOs and the EU in raising specific cases of alleged abuse against minors by the Israeli authorities.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the United Nations in securing peace in Israel. [43554]
  385W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  United Nations Security Resolutions 242 and 338 remain the basis for a just and lasting settlement in the middle east. We welcome the adoption of UNSCR 1397 on 12 March which sets out the vision of two states within secure and recognised borders. It demands an immediate cessation of all acts of violence and calls on both leaders to co-operate in the implementation of the Tenet plan and Mitchell Committee recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.

  We support the efforts of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Special Co-ordinator Terje Rod Larsen.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times officials from his Department have had contact with Iraqi Government officials in(a) the last month, (b) the last three months and (c) the last six months.[44292]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During the periods specified, there have been(a)(b) 3 and (c) 5 meetings between officials from my Department and Iraqi Government officials.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has received linking Iraq to the New York terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. [44293]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As we have consistently made clear, we have no reason to believe Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, we share the concern of all responsible members of the international community about Iraq"s support for terrorism and its development of weapons of mass destruction.

  Belize and Guatemala
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations between Belize and Guatemala to resolve their territorial dispute. [45325]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Governments of Belize and Guatemala are working closely under the auspices of the Organisation of American States (OAS), to negotiate a settlement to their long standing territorial dispute. Two facilitators appointed by Belize and Guatemala, aim to present recommendations for an agreed settlement to both Governments shortly.

  We firmly support the OAS-facilitated process. We very much hope that Belize and Guatemala will be able to agree a settlement this year. Such an agreement would have great significance for both countries and the region more widely. We are in close touch with both countries and are actively helping the facilitators to secure a final and lasting settlement to the dispute.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 776-77W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was >(a) new and unused and >(b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42640]
  386W
  Mr. Straw
  Further to the answer of 22 January, I can confirm that, with the exception of the boxed PC, monitor and keyboard stolen on 22 May 2001, and the seven monitors stolen on 10 January 2002, which were all new and unused items, the remaining items were all used.

  As stated in the answer on 6 February 2002 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, >Official Report, column 948W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), data held on the used equipment was of an unclassified nature, and no security breaches occurred as a result of the thefts.

  Jamal Uddin
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions British officials had with Jamal Uddin in Kabul prior to his detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by the US military authorities. [44320]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Embassy in Kabul spoke to Jamal Uddin in Kandahar by telephone on 16 January about his movement from Kandahar to Kabul. In the event, before Mr. Uddin could travel to Kabul, he was detained by US forces in Kandahar on approximately 25 January and subsequently moved to Guantanamo Bay on 11 February where he was seen by British officials on 26 February.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when>(a) he, (b) other Ministers and (c) a member of the Royal Family last officially visited each of the British Overseas Territories. [44049]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has not visited any of the Overseas Territories. Visits to the Overseas Territories by other Foreign Office Ministers and by members of the Royal Family over the last two years were as follows:

  Visits by Ministers

  Territory

  Visitor

  Date of visit

  Visits by Ministers

  Cayman Islands

  Baroness Scotland

  July/August 2000

  Anguilla

  Baroness Scotland

  September 2000

  British Virgin Islands

  Baroness Scotland

  September 2000

  British Antarctic Territory

  Baroness Scotland

  January 2001

  Falkland Islands

  John Battle

  February 2001

  Gibraltar

  Peter Main

  September 2001

  Montserrat

  Baroness Amos

  December 2001

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Baroness Amos

  December 2001

  Visits by members of the Royal Family

  British Virgin Islands

  Duke of York

  March 2000

  Montserrat

  Duke of York

  March 2000

  Anguilla

  Duke of York

  March 2000

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Duke of York

  March 2000

  Cayman Islands

  Duke of York

  March 2000

  Bermuda

  Princess Royal

  April 2001

  For visits prior to this I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 7 June 2000, Official Report, columns 293-94W.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held between the Government and(a) the EU and (b) individual member states of the EU, on the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain. [43431]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the Presidency Conclusions from the Barcelona European Council on 15–16 March (copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House) in which the European Council:welcomes the decision of the UK and Spain to relaunch the Brussels Process on Gibraltar. established in November 1984;
  underlines the EU"s support for both Governments" commitment to overcome their differences over Gibraltar, and to conclude a comprehensive agreement before the summer;
  invites the Commission to explore possible ways in which the EU could underpin any agreement reached.

  St. Helena (Celebrations)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent Her Majesty"s Government at the 500 Anniversary celebrations on the island of St. Helena. [44197]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Governor will represent Her Majesty"s Government at the 500 anniversary celebrations on 21 May.

SCOTLAND

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, column 698W, on stolen equipment, whether the laptop stolen from her Department was(a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on it. [42637]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The laptop stolen from my Department was used and it contained non-classified information relating to the work of the Department.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in her Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 and over. [36497]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: The information is set out in the following table.

  Entrants

  Aged 50 years and over

  1997–98

  22

  1

  1998–99

  16

  3

  1999–2000

  35

  1

  2000–01

  27

  2

  2001–02

  34

  1

  Hyde Park
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the paying concerts and other events planned for(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004 in Hyde Park are contractually committed. [37880]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1531–32W.

  Export Bars
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much money has been spent by(a) her Department and (b) other Government Departments for the purpose of preventing an item being exported, following the placing of an export bar, since 1997; [39409]

  (2) for each item that has had an export bar placed on it by the Department since 1997, how long the export bar has remained in place and how many of these items were (a) allowed to remain in the country indefinitely and (b) eventually exported; [39408]

  (3) how many export bars have been carried out by
  her Department for each year since 1997; and if she will list
  the items and their value. [39407]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is also contained in the last five annual reports of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. Information relating to cases considered in the current committee year (from 1 July 2001 onwards) will be available after the year ends on 30 June 2002, in the annual report for that period.

  There have been 71 temporary export bars since 1997. Details of the items and their value are provided in the first three columns of the table that has been placed in the Library.

  Information the length of temporary export bars and the issue of export licences is set out in the fourth, fifth and sixth columns of the table. Temporary export bars usually take the form of a split period; the first to allow expressions of interest in purchasing the item to be made, and the second to allow the funds to be raised and the invoice paid. If there is no expression of interest by the end of the first period a licence is usually granted. If there is an expression of interest, then the deferral usually continues into the second period.

  Items which have been under temporary export bar are usually purchased by UK institutions or private individuals, not by Government Departments. Decisions to purchase are usually made by the trustees of these institutions and they are often assisted by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Art Fund and the Resource/Victoria and Albert Museum Purchase Grant Fund. Purchase information is shown in the final column of the table, and details of contributions made each year by grant-giving bodies can be found in Appendix G of the Reviewing Committee"s annual reports.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41052]
  389W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a range of policies intended to help staff to better manage work-life balance, including support for part-time and job-share opportunities. All posts are open to those wishing to work part-time or job-share although there are currently no posts being filled on a job-share basis.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42428]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a range of policies intended to help staff to better manage work-life balance, including support for part-time, job-share and other flexible work patterns. All posts are open to those wishing to work part-time or job-share although there are currently no posts being filled on a job-share or term working basis.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if surplus funds have been returned by the New Millennium Experience Company to(a) English Partnerships and (b) other parts of Government. [41741]

  Dr. Howells
  (a) No. (b) No. Funding for the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has been provided by the Millennium Commission. NMEC is now in voluntary liquidation and a trust holding money that was available to NMEC has returned £883,000 to the commission, relating to expenditure that will not, now, be required. Of the additional £47 million set aside by the Millennium Commission for NMEC in September 2000, £25 million has not been required.

  BBC
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government"s policy is on the future relationship of the BBC with Ofcom. [39628]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government"s policy on the BBC and OFCOM is set out in the White Paper "A New Future for Communications". Our aim, within the proposed three tiers of regulation, is to create a more level playing field for the BBC and the commercial public service broadcasters, while recognising the distinctive role of the BBC. At tier one (covering for example standards and subtitling but with impartiality requirements excepted) and tier two (measurable quotas, news in peak time) the BBC will be regulated by OFCOM alongside other public service broadcasters. At tier three, the Governors will continue to regulate the delivery of the BBC"s remit, while the commercial public service broadcasters will be given greater freedom in the delivery of their remits.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will set out the past and present party political affiliations of those members of the British Broadcasting Corporation whom the Government are responsible for appointing. [43951]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department does not collect details of the political affiliation of people appointed to public bodies.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members her Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if she will make a statement. [42934]

  Dr. Howells
  In the Department, regulatory impact issues fall to the Policy, Innovation and Delivery Unit. The Unit currently has 6.5 full time posts.

  Public-Private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total external spending by her Department was on public private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [43203]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has only engaged PFI consultants, I therefore refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 February 2002, Official Report, column 985W.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the functions of her Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42992]

  Dr. Howells
  The DCMS is a mainly policy Department and has few activities capable of being outsourced. Some support services functions are able to be outsourced and during the last five years the provision of facilities management services have been contracted out after competitive tendering. The facilities services budget in total amounts to 0.15 per cent. of the total departmental budget and 5 per cent. of the administration budget. The saving of £60,000 annually represents a 4 per cent. saving of the facilities services budget but has also brought unquantifiable quality savings and industrial know-how. No market testing has taken place.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the Public Service Agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43258]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has not revised or introduced any new Public Service Agreement targets since the publication of the 2001 departmental annual report.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the number and expected cost to her Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43272]
  391W
  Dr. Howells

  (a)Details of special advisers employed in the
  Department 2000–02 are shown in the table.

  Special advisers: Full time

  Part time

  Total

  2000

  2

  0

  2

  2001

  12

  0

  12

  2002

  2

  0

  2

  1 We employed three special advisers to cover the two posts throughout the year.

  (b) We expect to employ two special advisers for 2002–3.

  The salaries of special advisers are negotiated individually within the stated pay range (£28,328"£82,867). Details of salaries remain confidential in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the companies from which her Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43408]

  Dr. Howells
  The only timber related products purchased in the last five years have been workstations. These are laminate over recycled timber chipboard in construction. The supplier has been Herman Miller Office Systems at a total cost of £105,000 over the five year period.

  Film Industry
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom"s contribution to the international film industry. [43500]

  Dr. Howells
  Between 1997 and September 2001 four British films, "The Full Monty", "Notting Hill", "Chicken Run" and "Bridget Jones"s Diary", together grossed around £700 million at the worldwide box office. Recent major budget productions attracted to these shores such as "Tomb Raider", "Harry Potter and the Philosopher"s Stone", "Chocolat", "Killing me Softly" and "The Mummy Returns" have contributed to the overall inward investment figure of approximately £539 million in 2000. The Film Council"s Premiere Fund has a budget of £30 million of Lottery money over three years for the production of theatrical feature films that have the potential to attract significant audiences at home and abroad. The Film Council"s most recent release, Gosford Park, has already won a Golden Globe and has been nominated for seven "Oscars". The UK was one of the earliest signatories of the European Co-Production Convention and has seven bilateral co-production agreements with other countries. The UK also has a massive talent base, providing a major contribution to the world"s feature film industry.

  Restoration
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those publicly funded and grant aided(a) art galleries and (b) museums
  392W
  where items in their collections have been damaged as a result of inappropriate and poorly executed restoration work since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [43497]

  Dr. Howells
  None of my Department"s grant aided museums or art galleries have items in their collections that have been damaged as a result of restoration work carried out since 1990. The science of conservation and restoration is continually improving to ensure that best practices are employed. All conservation and restoration work is carried out by expert conservators.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) between I May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40029]

  Dr. Howells

  (a) My Department issued 248 press releases between 1 May and 31 December 1997.

  (b) In 1998 we issued 319

  In 1999 we issued 315

  in 2000 we issued 331

  in 2001 we issued 325.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of staff of her Department are members of the Territorial Forces; and if she has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial Forces. [44071]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not hold information on which members of staff are members of the Territorial Forces. We encourage staff to become members of the Territorial Forces by allowing up to eight days paid special leave per year for training plus an additional five for special courses or exercises. We also look favourably upon requests for unpaid special leave in connection with these activities.

  Radio Broadcasts
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what languages other than English radio programmes are broadcast in the United Kingdom; and for how many hours each month in each case. [43860]

  Dr. Howells
  The following is a list of languages (other than English) which are broadcast on radio in the United Kingdom. Detailed information on how many hours each month, for each language are available only for BBC radio broadcasts.
  393W
  Languages which are broadcast on independent radio in the UK:
  Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Croatian, French, Gaelic, German, Greek. Gujarati, Hindi, Hindko, Italian. Kashmir, Malaysian, Mirpuri, Pahari, Pathwari, Patois, Punjabi, Pashto, Russian, Serbian, Sinhalese, Somali, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu and Welsh.
  Stichting Transworld Radio Europe and WRN Euromax are broadcast in multi-lingual European.

  The BBC also broadcast a number of languages on radio in the UK. These are:
  Radio Nan Gaidheal broadcasts in Gaelic for around 155 hours per month;
  Radio Cymru broadcasts in Welsh for around 535 hours per month;
  The Asian Network broadcasts in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi and Mirpuri for around 272 hours per month;
  Local radio stations offer some broadcasts in languages other than English including over 160 hours per month in Asian languages, four hours of Italian and 12 hours of Cantonese.
  A special version of the World Service is currently available via Digital Satellite in Arabic, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Pashto and Persian and broadcasts 24 hours a day. Some listeners may also be able to receive foreign language programmes from the main World Service but this service is not of course directed at licence payers in the UK.

  Tourism
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourism visits there were to(a) the UK, (b) England, (c) west midlands and (d) Staffordshire in each of the last four years to the latest available date. [43959]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers of visits by overseas residents and visits with overnight stays by UK residents are given in the table for the latest available four years.

  Data for 2001 are not yet available, with the exception of total visits to the UK by overseas residents, of which there were 23.4 million.

  Million

  Visits by overseas residents

  Visits by UK residents

  Total visits

  UK

  1997

  25.5

  162.2

  187.7

  1998

  25.7

  148.8

  174.5

  1999

  25.4

  173.1

  198.5

  2000

  25.2

  175.4

  200.6

  England

  1997

  19.6

  125.6

  145.2

  1998

  19.9

  115.4

  135.3

  1999

  21.5

  137.7

  159.2

  2000

  21.5

  140.1

  161.9

  West Midlands

  1997

  1.27

  1—

  1—

  1998

  1.36

  1—

  1—

  1999

  1.43

  1—

  1—

  2000

  1.46

  5.2

  6.7

  Staffordshire

  1997

  0.11

  1—

  1—

  1998

  0.14

  1—

  1—

  1999

  0.13

  1—

  1—

  2000

  0.13

  1.5

  1.6

  1Not available.

  394W
  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey—Office for National Statistics; UK Tourism Survey—English Tourism Council; Welsh Tourist Board; Visit Scotland; Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review legislation governing hours of licensing for public houses. [42410]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: This issue was thoroughly reviewed between 1997 and 1999. Following our review, the White Paper "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws (Cm 4696"), published on 10 April 2000, set out our plans for reforming the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws, including the hours during which alcohol may be sold or supplied to the public. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, we intend to introduce flexible opening hours as a condition of the licences of each venue, with the potential for some to operate up to 24 hour opening on each day of the week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. We intend to introduce primary legislation to implement these proposals as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many non-domestic visitors she estimates will visit London during the week of the Queen"s Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statemen. [44590]

  Tessa Jowell
  No estimate has been made of the number of non-domestic visitors likely to visit London during the week of the Queen"s Golden Jubilee.

  The Queen"s Golden Jubilee is a great opportunity to encourage more people to visit the UK this year and it is central to the British Tourist Authority"s current overseas promotional campaigns.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps have been taken to publicise the Queen"s Jubilee internationally; and if she will make a statement. [44587]

  Tessa Jowell
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) is a member of the Golden Jubilee Communications Group and is working closely with other members to promote the Jubilee abroad.

  The Jubilee is central to the BTA"s campaigns this year with all its main publications carrying features on the Jubilee. The BTA is undertaking a range of otherpromotional activities, such as producing a Royal Heritage map highlighting 50 locations throughout the country with royal connections; running a competition with BBC World Service in the US with winners securing tickets for the two Buckingham Palace concerts and bringing travel journalists and tour organisers to the UK to showcase Royal Heritage.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, column 727W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from her Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42653]

  Dr. Howells
  The personal computer base units and personal computer monitor were new and unused and contained no departmental data.

  The laptop was a recent procurement and contained only a small amount of correspondence, none of which was protectively marked.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42413]

  Angela Eagle
  Home Office staff are able to take advantage of a variety of flexible and non-traditional working patterns, including job sharing and term working. The working pattern is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individual"s preferences and the requirements of their work.

  We estimate that 11 per cent. of staff work part-time in a range of ways, for example reduced days per week, working alternate weeks and term time working, but we do not hold central records of the details of these arrangements. Many other staff work full time, but have flexible hours. 38 staff are currently recorded as being job sharers in the Home Office, United Kingdom Passport and Records Service and Forensic Science Service. Information on staff in the Prison Service who are job sharers is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate costs.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f)2002. [39941]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Number of press officers at 1 January

  1997

  114

  1998

  14

  1999

  14

  2000

  13

  2001

  23

  2002

  31

  1 At April—the nearest figure available.

  396W
  This includes eight people employed as press officers for the Prison Service whose media relations operation moved to the Home Office in August 2001.

  In addition at various times chief immigration officers and policy officials were on six-month attachments to the press office.

  No one was employed in a general public relations function.

  However as has been explained in previous answers, the expansion of the Home Office press office followed an external consultant"s review of its staffing and operation and recommended the increases. Staff levels in the press office had been static for some years despite the enormous changes in the media and their increasing demands for a 24 hours service.

  The figures for 1997 through to 2000 of 13 or 14 press officers do not reflect vacancies and the complement would have been nearer 17 or 18. The office was in fact supplemented by secondments, loans and attachments.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to establish a Royal Commission into animal experiments; and if he will make a statement. [43993]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have not ruled out a Royal Commission but strongly believe that resources can best be used to make immediate improvements to the operation of the 1986 Act and to promote the fullest application of the three Rs—replacing the use of animals with alternative methods; reducing the number of animals needed for a particular purpose and refining the procedures to minimise suffering.

  In this context, the Animal Procedures Committee is currently considering the responses to a public consultation paper as part of its review of the cost/benefit assessment of applications for authority to use animals in scientific procedures. As part of this work, the committee plans to produce a statement on the validity of animal experiments. I expect to receive its report in the next few months.

  The House of Lords has also established a Select Committee on the use of animals in scientific procedures and is currently gathering evidence.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a programme of investment involving companies that profit from animal experimentation in the development of non-animal experimentation alternatives. [43995]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government do not believe that setting mandatory requirements for investment into research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures is either desirable or necessary.

  Nonetheless, every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget for research aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (the three Rs). Details of completed

  397W
  research projects are published in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee, which is available from The Stationery Office.

  The amount made available to the Committee for 2001–02 for this specific purpose has increased to £280,000. However, this is not the only money spent by the Government on seeking to develop alternatives, as other Departments also fund such work. It is estimated that the total spent on this by the United Kingdom Government is in the region of £2 million each year. Industry also spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives. To take this further on an international level, the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) through contributions to the European Union.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to regulate the breeding of animals specifically for experiments; and if he will introduce further legislation on this issue. [43996]

  Angela Eagle
  Breeding and supply of animals for use in experimental or other scientific procedures are regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Such animals, as described in Schedule 2 of the Act (which lists the commonly used species), may generally only be obtained from designated breeding and supplying establishments.

  These establishments are only designated if, on the advice of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Blunkett) is satisfied that they meet minimum animal welfare standards. The standards are set out in the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and Supplying Establishments, presented to Parliament in 1995 under section 21 of the Act (HC 125, available—along with a recently published supplement—in the Library).

  There are no plans to introduce further legislation. The Code of Practice will, however, continue to be supplemented and updated as required, to take account of any additions to Schedule 2 of the Act and of any new developments in the field of animal care.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a mandatory control database to stop unnecessary experiments involving animals. [43994]

  Angela Eagle
  To meet the requirements of section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, any application to use protected animals in research must be the subject of a detailed cost/benefit assessment by Home Office inspectors. The likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work. All procedures are strictly regulated and all applications for licenses to use animals are assessed to ensure that the work is necessary.

  For that purpose the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, who offer professional advice and recommendations on licence applications made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, use a range of resources to keep abreast of developments and results in
  398W
  animal research, and the scientific community have established and maintained their own databases to the same end.

  A mandatory central database would be problematic for a number of reasons. There would, in particular, be significant difficulties in ensuring the completeness and quality of the data and in ensuring that intellectual or commercial confidentiality were not compromised. We do, however, believe that there is scope for further reducing the risk of duplication of animal testing by encouraging companies to engage in data sharing. To this end, in August 2000, we announced an inter-Departmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests. Progress in implementing the concordat will be reviewed in the next few months.

  In addition, there are a number of international and national initiatives to encourage data sharing. International assessment programmes have well-established and effective methods for data sharing, ensuring mutual acceptance of data and dissemination of information on chemicals. This also extends to dissemination of data to developing countries.

  Football (Policing Costs)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the annual contribution made to the Metropolitan Police by the Football Association is to cover policing costs at football matches. [35378]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the Football Association does not make an annual contribution toward the policing of domestic football matches within the Metropolitan Police Service area. Individual football clubs however do contribute toward costs for games at their respective home grounds.

  Payments of around £11,000 in each of the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been made by the Football Association in connection with investigations or international matches.

  Police Houses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 686W, on police houses, if it is his policy to withdraw the right to buy from a police officer who will be entitled to buy his property on 1 July. [34645]

  Mr. Denham
  We propose in the Police Reform Bill to remove the Metropolitan Police Authority from the secure tenancy regime: but any secure tenant who has acquired the right to buy at the time of Royal Assent of the Bill will have a three month period of grace to exercise that right.

  This will allow any secure tenant who has acquired the right to buy before the day on which the Act is passed and has either served a notice claiming to exercise that right before the Act is passed, or serves such a notice

  399W
  within three months of the Act being passed, to complete the purchase process within the framework of the Housing Act 1985.

  Police Accident Investigation Officers
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police accident investigation officers were employed in the UK in(a) 1992, (b) 1995,(c) 1998 and (d) 2001. [36549]

  Mr. Denham
  The information set out below is only for England and Wales as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) is not responsible for policing in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Information is collected annually by Her Majesty"s Inspectorate of Constabulary about the deployment of police service personnel.

  I understand from the Inspectorate that it is not possible to identify separately the number of accident investigation officers as they are part of a larger traffic support group within police forces that also undertakes other traffic duties such as speed radar operators, vehicle examiners and hazardous chemical experts.

  Firearms
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances 22 single shot pistols of the type used in the Commonwealth and Olympic games have been used in(a) homicide, (b) robbery and (c) other indictable offences during the period since the passing of the Firearms (Amendment) No. 2 Act 1997 and for the same period prior to the passing of that Act. [38656]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed conditions in prison in England and Wales with the Chief Inspector of Prisons. [43014]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets Her Majesty"s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, normally on a quarterly basis to discuss current concerns. The most recent meeting was held on 31 October with the next taking place shortly.

  Additionally I meet Her Majesty"s Chief Inspector on a regular basis. The last meeting was on 14 February.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the prison population. [42892]

  Beverley Hughes
  We need to ensure that we can perform the basic duty to protect the public by punishing people for the crimes they have committed while ensuring we engage in rehabilitation to reduce re-offending and prevent crime. To this end we are committed to a radical re-think of the sentencing framework so as to give clarity and direction to the courts and avoid the damaging effects of prison overcrowding. Prison must be used as effectively as possible and targeted where it is most necessary. It should be used for incapacitating dangerous,400W
  violent and other serious offenders but prison sentences should be as long as necessary for punishment and public protection, and no longer.

  The reform of the probation service, with its central focus on reducing re-offending means that rigorously enforced community sentences are a real and tough alternative to imprisonment. We want to build on this work to provide sentencers with more than two stark options, imprisonment or a community sentence. We are looking at intermediate disposals such as intermittent custody and a strengthened suspended sentence. On community sentences the courts need to be able to mix and match with a generic sentence so that we can get it right for the individual. As part of the work taking forward the recommendations of the Halliday report on the sentencing framework we are looking at new forms of community penalties that allow the sentencer this flexibility. We aim to encourage greater use of community penalties for some non-violent offenders such as those convicted of theft and handling or fraud.

  Home Detention Curfew and a rigorous assessment process plays an important role by enabling some prisoners to be released from prison, while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty. This facilitates a smoother and more effective integration back into the community and helps offenders to secure employment as soon as possible.

  We are addressing the recent increase in female prison population by taking forward the Government"s strategy for female prisoners. A cross-Government women"s offenders reduction plan is currently being developed by a multi-agency team drawn from across the criminal justice system, which is based in the Home Office. The aim of the programme is to strengthen policy, programme, research and spending partnerships across government to reduce women"s offending. This includes linking criminal justice work with broader Government efforts to tackle social exclusion, particularly as it affects women at risk of offending.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) men and (b) women in prison are lone parents of children under the age of 18 years. [42961]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no centrally collated statistics on this issue.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have escaped from prison are still at large; and on what dates they escaped from custody. [43019]

  Beverley Hughes
  Of the 105 prisoners who have escaped from prison establishments since 1 April 1997 and 8 March this year six remain unlawfully at large. The date of each of these escapes is:

  30 December 1998

  31 January 1999

  26 November 1999

  30 August 2000

  21 May 2001

  7 February 2002.

  Jail Sentences
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are serving a sentence in jail in England and Wales for(a) driving while disqualified and (b) actual bodily harm. [42788]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data are not held centrally on those inmates serving sentences for driving while disqualified.

  The number of persons serving sentences for assault on 31 January 2002:

  Offence

  Number of sentenced prisoners

  Other assault (ABH)1

  190

  Assault occasioning GBH2

  881

  All prisoners sentenced for offences of violence against the person.

  11,933

  1 Actual Bodily Harm

  2 Grievous Bodily Harm

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were committed to custody in 2000 for(a) driving while disqualified and (b) actual bodily harm; and what were the average sentence lengths. [42789]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information taken from the Home Office court proceedings database for 2000 showing the number of persons sentenced to immediate custody and average sentence length imposed for driving while disqualified and assaults occasioning actual bodily harm in England and Wales is given in the table.

  Persons sentenced1 to immediate custody and the average sentence length imposed at all courts for driving while disqualified and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, England & Wales 20002

  Offence

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Average sentence length (months)

  Driving while disqualified

  12,501

  3.5

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  4,404

  8.0

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) young offenders were sentenced to serve non-custodial penalties, (b) offenders were sentenced to serve custodial penalties and (c) offenders were sentenced to serve non-custodial penalties in the last 12 months broken down by the Metropolitan police divisional area in which they were arrested. [42769]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information collected centrally does not allow a breakdown by police division within the Metropolitan police area, nor does it show where an arrest takes place.

  The available information, from the Home Office court proceedings database, relating to 2000 is shown in the table. These data give for each inner London magistrates court and outer London borough (a) young offenders (aged 10-17) sentenced to non-custodial sentences,
  402W
  (b) adult offenders (aged 18 or over) sentenced to custodial sentences, and (c) adult offenders sentenced to non-custodial sentences.

  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Young offenders sentenced to non-custodial penalties and adult offenders sentenced to custodial and non-custodial penalties in the Metropolitan police area, 2000.

  Sentencing court (Committing court in Crown Court cases)

  Young offenders Non-custodial sentences

  Adult offenders

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Inner London magistrates courts1

  Bow Street

  3

  745

  4,757

  Camberwell Green/Tower Bridge

  31

  1,576

  10,730

  Greenwich / Woolwich

  19

  1,407

  7,362

  Highbury Corner

  10

  1,268

  8,833

  Horseferry Road

  15

  1,419

  10,808

  Marylebone

  5

  261

  11,528

  South Western

  18

  607

  10,730

  Thames

  59

  1,105

  5,291

  West London

  29

  830

  5,198

  Camberwell youth court

  1,097

  —

  —

  South-western youth court

  501

  —

  —

  Thames youth court

  1,052

  —

  —

  West London youth court

  1,155

  —

  —

  Outer London boroughs

  Barking and Dagenham

  269

  262

  2,536

  Havering

  204

  223

  3,238

  Redbridge

  244

  253

  3,778

  Newham

  467

  577

  7,114

  Waltham Forest

  318

  372

  3,948

  Bexley

  233

  203

  1,445

  Bromley

  389

  271

  3,360

  Croydon

  578

  330

  5,528

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  204

  203

  2,490

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  183

  155

  2,074

  Sutton

  261

  149

  1,818

  Merton

  276

  233

  3,341

  Ealing

  321

  325

  2,920

  Barnet

  247

  312

  6,390

  Brent

  478

  453

  6,408

  Enfield

  299

  341

  4,829

  Haringey

  421

  378

  6,328

  Harrow

  198

  177

  2,975

  Hillingdon

  323

  876

  3,924

  Hounslow

  436

  333

  4,951

  Other (not recorded)

  16

  174

  175

  Total

  10,359

  15,818

  154,807

  1 Information held centrally does not allow a breakdown of cases by borough in the inner London area.

  Legal Proceedings
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken between arrest and sentencing of(a) young offenders and (b) adult offenders was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [42505]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply. Information is not available in the exact form requested. Figures are available on the average time between arrest and sentence for "persistent" young offenders in England and Wales, as used to monitor the Youth Justice Pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence. The latest data available shows that for those sentenced in magistrates courts and the Crown court in the 12 months ending 30 November 2001, the latest month available, the average arrest to sentence time was 77 days. For those
  403W
  sentenced in November 2001 the average arrest to sentence time was 67 days compared with the target of 71 days.

  From another source of information the time between arrest and sentence can he estimated for all young offenders sentenced in magistrates courts in England and Wales. For the 12 months ending September 2001, this estimate was 60 days. Similarly for adult offenders the time between charge (the closest available date to arrest) and sentence in magistrates courts was 58 days.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of young offenders broke the terms of their bail conditions in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [42506]

  Beverley Hughes
  Regular statistics on the number of young offenders who break their bail conditions are not available centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, Home Office research published in 1998 showed that juveniles breached their bail conditions in 30 per cent. of cases.

  Juvenile bail has been strengthened by the Youth Justice Board"s bail support schemes and intensive supervision and surveillance programme. And curfews as a condition of bail, monitored electronically, will be available for 12 to 16-year-olds in six areas from 22 April 2002 and nationally from 1 June 2002.

  National Probation Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the National Probation Service information system. [43121]

  Beverley Hughes
  A full breakdown of the costs of the National Probation Service information systems strategy can be found in the National Audit Office report published on 26 April 2001, HC401 Session 2000–01.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the business benefits derived from the introduction of the National Probation Service information system strategy. [43119]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Probation Directorate will conduct a post-contract review of the National Probation Service information systems strategy (NPSISS) contract which will include consideration of benefits delivery to the Service.

  I can say in advance of this review that the qualitative benefits to the National Probation Service (NPS) resulting from NPSISS include; the introduction of a network infrastructure which covers 38 of the 42 probation areas; the ability for electronic communication between these areas, the Directorate, Her Majesty"s Inspectorate of Probation and the Research and Statistics Unit; and the deployment of Lotus Notes across the Service. In addition this technology has given probation staff the opportunity to develop information technology skills providing the NPS with a computer literate workforce.
  404W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many National Probation Services accredited programmes have been completed, broken down by probation area. [42790]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is compiled on a quarterly basis. Figures for the first three quarters of 2001–02 (the most current information available) are:

  Area

  Completions (core programme)

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  4

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Mercia

  11

  West Midlands

  106

  Regional Sub-Total

  124

  North-east

  County Durham

  77

  Northumbria

  243

  Teeside

  82

  Regional Sub-Total

  402

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  Essex

  88

  Hertfordshire

  18

  Norfolk

  37

  Suffolk

  28

  Regional Sub-Total

  232

  North-west

  Cheshire

  23

  Cumbria

  27

  Greater Manchester

  158

  Lancashire

  166

  Merseyside

  74

  Regional Sub-Total

  448

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  36

  Leicestershire

  30

  Lincolnshire

  24

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  Regional Sub-Total

  128

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  29

  South Yorkshire

  20

  North Yorkshire

  11

  West Yorkshire

  86

  Regional Sub-Total

  146

  South-east

  Hampshire

  50

  Kent

  36

  Surrey

  52

  Sussex

  19

  Thames Valley

  99

  Regional Sub-Total

  256

  South-west

  Avon and Somerset

  109

  Devon and Cornwall

  29

  Dorset

  24

  Gloucestershire

  17

  Wiltshire

  19

  Regional Sub-Total

  198

  London total

  Total

  353

  405W

  Area

  Completions Area (core programme)

  Wales

  Dyfed-Powys

  9

  Gwent

  13

  North Wales

  12

  South Wales

  15

  Regional Sub-Total

  49

  England and Wales

  Total

  2,336

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what duties the police have to carry out before an accident site can be cleared from(a) an A-road and (b) a motorway; [42749]

  (2) what the average length of time was which it took for the police to clear an accident on (a) a motorway and (b) an A-road, in order to return the road to normal use; [42750]

  (3) what the average response times were for the police to
  reach an accident on (a) a motorway and (b) an
  A-road in the last three years; [42748]

  (4)what is the average length of time it took the police
  complete all their official duties at an accident site on
  (a) an A-road and (b) a motorway in eachof the
  last three years. [42751]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information relating to the average time taken to reach accident sites on A-roads and motorways, to clear the site and to complete official duties are not recorded centrally. Individual forces have accident response time targets, of between 10 and 15 minutes. These targets are not uniform across the country to allow for differences in terrain, road infrastructure and police resources.

  The main duties performed by the police in dealing with road accidents do not vary substantially between A-roads and motorways. They are:

  (a) to gain access to the scene;

  (b) to make the scene safe through coning and signing;

  (c) to assist any injured party by effecting
  rescue or through first aid;

  (d) to arrange attendance of other agencies to
  assist in rescue and scene management;

  (e) to preserve the accident scene and undertake
  crash investigation when appropriate;

  (f) to manage the traffic around the accident
  scene;

  (g) to protect and recover property;

  (h) to manage the handover of scene management to the Highweys Agency; and

  (i) where there are fatalities, to work in accordance with coroner"s procedures in relation to the removal of bodies.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries he has received from residents in the constituency of Buckingham about setting up experience corps in the last 12 months. [43286]
  406W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: I have not received any inquiries about the experience corps from residents of the constituency of Buckingham in the last 12 months.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2411 European Union Council of Ministers (Justice and Home Affairs) meeting on 28 February, which particular matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised by the UK Government delegation; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [42688]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 February 2002, reference number 38035.

  Arrangements allowing for the attendance of Ministers from the devolved administrations at Council of Ministers meetings are set out in the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues which supplements the Memorandum of Understanding between the devolved administrations and the United Kingdom (UK) Government. Discussions on the composition of the UK delegation to specific Council meetings are normally conducted on a confidential basis. The Concordat further provides that a single UK negotiating position will be formulated and advanced. It states that the role of Ministers and officials from the devolved administrations will be to support and advance the single UK negotiating line which they will have played a part in developing.

  I reported the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 28 February 2002, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), Deputy Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee on 15 March 2002, Official Report, column 1258W.

  Arrangements for post-Council scrutiny in Scotland are a matter for the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. The Home Office provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government"s plans to change the rights of defendants to elect a jury trial. [42894]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The removal of the defendant"s rights to elect jury trial in either-way cases was one of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld in his Review of the Criminal Courts, and the matter remains under consideration, along with the rest of the Auld report.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a national register of injunctions in cases of domestic violence. [43542]
  407W
  Beverley Hughes
  The ministerial group on domestic violence is considering this idea in consultation with practitioners. The Government"s conclusions will be announced as soon as possible.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by his Department to improve domestic violence services for perpetrators and their partners; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the Probation Service domestic violence Pathfinder scheme. [42664]

  Beverley Hughes
  Two Pathfinder initiatives on domestic violence are under way. One is to pilot the Duluth Non-violent Men programme. The other is a major piece of research to identify the criminogenic needs of domestic violence perpetrators, in order to establish an evidence based way of addressing this type of offending.

  The research into the pilot phase of the Duluth programme is due to finish in October 2002, and a report on it will be available over the winter of 2002–03. The research project is due to be completed in August 2002.

  The National Probation Service is committed to completing the Pathfinders and to using the knowledge gained to review services to domestic violence perpetrators, in order to maximise reductions in abusive behaviour and develop services to enhance victim safety.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the results of the Duluth domestic violence Pathfinder evaluation to be published. [42659]

  Beverley Hughes
  The pilots are due to finish in September 2002 and interim evaluations will be available approximately three months after that. Longer term evaluations linking the programme to reconvictions will follow subsequently, but it is not possible at this stage to say when they will be available.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances the Duluth domestic violence Pathfinder will be rolled out before the results of the evaluation are known. [42663]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Duluth programme will not be rolled out nationally unless it can be demonstrated that it meets the criteria for accreditation laid down by the Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel.

  Drug-related Crime (Bristol)
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further schemes the social exclusion unit is planning for Bristol, with specific reference to policies which might help combat drug-related crime. [40128]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: There are a number of programmes in place in Bristol to tackle drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour.

  The Home Office fund a number of initiatives, some of which include:
  an Arrest Referral Scheme based at Trinity Road police station, specialising in providing for crack cocaine treatment;
  an "Off the Street" initiative. working to disrupt the drug/sex market; and
  408W
  Avon and Somerset Constabulary"s Operation Atrium, working to disrupt the supply system of importation of crack cocaine.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has also announced a policing priority area in Bristol which will help police tackle drug-related crime.

  Overstayers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who applied under the regularisation scheme for overstayers have had their cases(a) decided, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) not yet considered; and what the target date for completing consideration of applications is. [42960]

  Angela Eagle
  A total of 17,120 applications were received by the closing date. In response to a ministerial commitment caseworking staff have been asked to consider applications in a phased way. Resources have been invested during the current financial year to sift all applications in order to speedily identify all those cases where leave to remain can be granted under existing policy concessions. Indications are that this target will be met, and so far approximately 1,200 cases have been granted indefinite leave to remain.

  During the next financial year (2002–03) more caseworkers and resources will be devoted to substantive consideration of the remaining cases. The target date for the consideration of all cases is April 2003.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in Prison Service accommodation. [43038]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 29 December 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 29 December 20011,2

  Dedicated Immigration Service wings3

  295

  Other prison establishments4

  170

  Total persons detained in prison establishments 4

  465

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  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 125 persons detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  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 Rochester. In addition, the dedicated detention facilities at Her Majesty"s Prison Haslar and Her Majesty"s Prison 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

  409W
  2002 is published on 31 May 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Following the incident at Yarl"s Wood removal centre on 14-15 February 2002 a number of detainees held at that centre and others have been transferred to prison accommodation. This is consistent with our policy on the use of prison accommodation for detainees who pose particular control and security risks.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has changed his policy on his commitment not to house asylum seekers in prisons; and if he will make a statement; [43031]

  (2)if asylum seekers who have not had an initial decision on their case are being held in Prison Service accommodation. [43030]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: Our policy on the detention of asylum seekers in prison remains as set out in our White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven—Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain". We made it clear that, although the routine use of prison accommodation for immigration detainees had ended, there would remain a need to hold small numbers of individuals, including asylum seekers, in prison for reasons of security. This would, for example, include individuals transferred to prison accommodation following the incident at Yarl"s Wood removal centre on 14-15 February 2002. Such individuals would be identified on the basis of the security risk they are assessed to pose rather than on the progress of any asylum or other claim they may have made. As such, individuals who are assessed to pose a security risk and who have yet to receive a decision on their asylum application may be held in prison accommodation.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum seekers with dependent children will be eligible for subsistence benefits for them and their children if they choose to live with family or friends in the UK under his immigration and asylum proposals. [40681]

  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven—Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" (Chapter 4 Paragraph 53) makes it clear that for the future, the case for abolishing the subsistence only option will be looked at and a power to allow this will be taken in forthcoming legislation. As yet we have not set any timetable for ending the subsistence only support option.

  Paragraph 4.33 of the White Paper makes it clear that asylum seekers who refuse the offer of a place in one of the accommodation centres being trialled will not be offered any alternative forms of support. There is no reason why these proposals should lead to greater destitution among asylum seekers. We will be offering both accommodation and subsistence support to those who need it.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) of 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 461W, on asylum seeker accommodation centres, when the final 410W
  criteria for selection of the four accommodation centres will be decided; who will draw up the final criteria; and how this information will be announced. [42747]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 718W.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) of 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 160W, on asylum seeker accommodation centres, what education facilities will be made available to asylum seekers; and what role(a) local schools, (b) colleges and (c) other education institutions will be expected to take in the provision of education. [42727]

  Angela Eagle
  The trial accommodation centres will offer education facilities. We are working with key stakeholders to establish the range of facilities that will be available to children on-site and what if any role local schools, colleges and other educational institutions will be expected to take.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are detained; and of these how many are(a) awaiting an initial decision on their asylum claim and (b)awaiting an appeal. [42947]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 29 December 2001. As at that date, 1,410 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained who had sought asylum at some stage.

  I regret that the requested information on how many of these persons were awaiting an initial decision on their asylum claim and how many were awaiting an appeal on 29 December 2001, is not available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 30 March 2002 will be published on 31 May 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will serve an asylum seeker"s appeal dismissal when it is served personally on the other parties and the appellant"s representative, if he has one, under the rules that came into force on 7 January. [42907]

  Angela Eagle
  An official of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) serves the appeal determination, either in person, by post or by facsimile. If the asylum seeker"s representative is present at the time of personal service, they will receive simultaneous notification from the official serving the determination on their client. If the representative is not present, it is usual practice for an IND official to provide notification, normally by facsimile, within 24 hours.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been dispersed to areas in Scotland in the last 12 months, broken down by local authority; and what percentage of these have had their asylum applications approved. [42737]
  411W
  Angela Eagle
  The only cluster area to which the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) disperses asylum seekers in Scotland is Glasgow.

  As at the end of December 2001, 4,750 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in Glasgow. The cumulative number dispersed to Glasgow over the last 12 months is not currently available.

  This information broken down by local authority is not currently available.

  NASS does not currently hold statistics on the asylum status of supported asylum seekers.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for making Commissioner appointments to the Commission for Racial Equality. [45702]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am pleased to announce that I have today appointed seven commissioners for the Commission for Racial Equality.

  The appointments are:
  Khurshid Ahmed, who is currently a non-executive director of Dudley Group of Hospitals National Health Service Trust;
  Ian Barr, who will represent the interests of the Confederation of British Industry and is the co-founder and managing director of Astar Management Consultants Ltd;
  Jagdish Singh Gundara, who is currently Professor of Education at the Institute of Education, University of London;
  Kay Hampton, who will represent Scottish interests and is currently a lecturer in sociology at Glasgow Caledonian University;
  Gloria Mills, who will represent the interests of the Trade Unions Congress and is currently the Director of Equalities at UNISON;
  Cherry Short, who will continue to represent Welsh interests at the Commission, and
  Sarah Spencer who is the Director of Citizenship & Governance at the Institute for Public Policy Research.

  The appointments will initially be for four years.

  The role of the commission is central to the drive for securing equality for all our citizens, and cohesion between diverse communities of our country. I want the commission to make a real difference to community relations in the years ahead.

  In addition to these seven new appointments I will be recruiting two further commissioners with significant experience of working in the community to help support the commission"s priority of building links with communities and particularly with young people.

LORD CHANCELLOR"S DEPARTMENT

  Census (1901)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department how much of the work to transcribe the 1901 Census returns on to computer was carried out outside the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [38543]
  412W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd. appointed Enterprise and Supply Services (ESS) to undertake the transcription of the data from the 1901 Census returns. A proportion of this work was sub-contracted by ESS after full competitive tendering to a commercial data input company based in India and Sri Lanka (Hays Document Management). The proportion of transcription work undertaken outside the United Kingdom was 78 per cent.

  Social Diversity
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department how he proposes to ensure social diversity among JPs. [41549]

  Mr. Wills
  I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is determined that the social composition of the magistracy reflects the community it serves, subject to all magistrates fulfilling the merit criteria for appointment. He will consider any suggestions from hon. Members how this can be achieved. Separated the national strategy for the recruitment of magistrates will supplement the efforts already being made by the Lord Chancellor"s local advisory committees to deliver this aim. It will be published in the spring. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any ideas he may have for ensuring social diversity.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the structure of the magistrates court system. [43459]

  Mr. Wills
  Sir Robin Auld"s Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales makes wide-ranging recommendations in respect of the magistrates courts. The period for comment closed on 31 January. The Government have taken no decisions on the report and is now considering the recommendations in detail, taking account of the comments received. The Government will announce its conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Consultants
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the consultancy work purchased by the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority in drawing up their Strategic Plan, 2002 to 2006; and if he will make a statement; [43796]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the consultancy work purchased by the Greater London Magistrates" Court Authority in drawing up their proposals to close the Magistrates court at the Guildhall, Kingston-upon-Thames; and if he will make a statement; [43797]

  (3) which consultants have been employed by the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority since it was established; how much has been spent by the GLMCA on consultants; and what the remits were for each of the consultancy projects the GLMCA has procured. [43798]

  Mr. Wills
  Decisions on the number, location and future of magistrates" courts in the Greater London area are for the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority
  413W
  to determine, in consultation with its local paying authorities. The issues raised in these three questions are, therefore, matters for that authority.

  Constituency Duties (Data Protection)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department (1) if he will take steps to make available to all hon. Members a pro forma standard consent form, for use in discharging their constituency duties, giving legal authority and protection when personal information has to be made available to an hon. Member by a statutory body; [42504]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to review data protection legislation to allow personal information held by statutory bodies to be shared with hon. Members strictly in connection with their duties in helping constituents. [42503]

  Mr. Wills
  I am aware of the hon. Members" concern about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 on their constituency work. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I am considering what changes might be needed to the present arrangements.

  Court Sittings
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department if he will list the monthly court sitting hours for(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001 for the magistrates courts in (i) Kingston-upon-Thames, (ii) Merton, (iii) Richmondupon-Thames, (iv) Sutton and (v) Croydon. [43799]

  Mr. Wills
  Court sitting hours are collected annually for the Magistrates Courts Committees (MCC) areas rather than individual courts. The figures for the five MCC areas in the question are contained in the table. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available for the single entity of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority (GLMCA) which was formed in April 2001 and incorporates the previous 22 Greater London MCCs including the five courts in question.

  Court sitting hours

  19981

  April 1999 to March 20001

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,915

  2,960

  2,718

  Merton

  3,426

  3,670

  4,148

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,920

  2,606

  3,134

  Sutton

  2,622

  2,628

  2,780

  Croydon

  7,273

  6,658

  7,098

  1 At the end of 1998, the system was amended to collection based upon financial rather than calendar years.

  Community Court Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department how many warrants in respect of breach of community court orders have been outstanding for(a) less than 12 months, (b) 12 months to two years, (c) two to three years, (d) three to four years, (e) four to five years and (f) five years or more. [42792]

  Mr. Wills
  Lead responsibility for execution of community penalty breach warrants was transferred from the police to Magistrates Courts Committees on 1 April 2001. Prior to the transfer, statistics on community penalty breach warrants were not routinely kept. LCD is 414W
  now collecting data but complete figures are not yet available. Of the community penalty breach warrants issued since the transfer, 10,034 were outstanding as at 28 December 2001.

  As a result of the transfer, the courts now control the whole enforcement process and can give the work higher priority. From April 2002, the courts will be given almost £10 million extra—ring-fenced for enforcement. I have also announced challenging performance targets for next year which will highlight performance on community penalty breach warrants.

  Persistent Offenders
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department what powers are available to the courts to detain persistent offenders under 16 years who are(a) charged with and (b) guilty of non-violent offences; and if he will make a statement. [42244]

  Mr. Wills
  The decision whether to grant bail or not is a judicial decision taken within the statutory framework provided by the Bail Act 1976. The court may refuse to grant bail where it finds there are substantial grounds to believe that one or more of the statutory exceptions in the Act apply. Where the court finds such grounds and refuses bail, it must then decide where the youth shall be remanded. The courts" powers and the restrictions on those powers are set out in section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969

  The courts" powers to order custody in respect of persistent offenders under 16 who are convicted of non-violent offences are set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts Acts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Section 100 sets out the courts" powers to impose a detention and training order of up to two years. Section 91 sets out the Crown Court"s powers to order a youth to be detained for certain serious offences for a period not exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment with which the offence is punishable in the case of an adult aged 21 or over. These powers are subject to the general restrictions in section 79 of the 2000 Act on imposing discretionary custodial sentences.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department how many members of staff of her Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if her Department has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44064]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have staff who are members of the Territorial forces, although we keep no central record of numbers. We actively support members by providing eight working days paid special leave for training (of 15 days or more), as well as unpaid leave if they are required to undertake a period of mobilised service.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department (1) what indicators and methods his Department uses to measure the satisfaction of magistrates courts" users; and if he will make a statement; [43776]
  415W
  (2) what measures his Department uses to assess the quality of service and facilities provided by a magistrates courthouse; and if he will make a statement. [43777]

  Mr. Wills
  Quality of service in magistrates courts areas is assessed bi-annually by questionnaire and survey. Users are asked to rate their satisfaction with court facilities and the information given to them. The methodology and results are explained fully in LCD Information Bulletin 1/2002, copies of which are lodged in the Library of the House. This latest bulletin, issued on 7 March, covers the survey results for 2001.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor"s Department what performance measures his Department uses to judge the financial efficiency of magistrates courts; what the performance of each courthouse against those measures was in Greater London in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [43778]

  Mr. Wills
  Cost per unit of weighted caseload is the financial efficiency performance indicator for magistrates courts. This indicator uses the gross expenditure in a year divided by the total unitary value of completed caseload. The measure is collected and assessed at the administrative level of the magistrates courts committees (MCCs), as set out in the table for 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available, and when they are produced they will only be available for the single entity of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority, (GLMCA), which was formed in April 2001 and incorporates the previous 22 Greater London MCCs.

  Cost per unit of weighted caseload

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Barking and Dagenham

  35.08

  36.93

  31.91

  Barnet

  37.73

  50.58

  45.53

  Bexley

  35.42

  34.91

  38.32

  Brent

  44.35

  50.59

  48.90

  Bromley

  42.51

  53.20

  45.12

  City of London

  57.37

  55.88

  58.75

  Croydon

  27.83

  35.13

  37.63

  Ealing

  33.10

  34.90

  38.88

  Enfield

  35.59

  37.16

  25.44

  Haringey

  35.75

  34.79

  35.57

  Harrow

  27.99

  24.42

  30.51

  Havering

  34.76

  37.30

  38.83

  Hillingdon

  31.43

  39.00

  35.20

  Hounslow

  40.09

  47.94

  48.07

  Inner London area

  47.78

  53.81

  48.05

  Kingston upon Thames

  38.42

  46.94

  43.87

  Merton

  39.24

  41.03

  72.29

  Newham

  39.02

  21.93

  42.73

  Redbridge

  35.36

  37.99

  40.35

  Richmond upon Thames

  44.91

  44.41

  43.62

  Sutton

  41.31

  50.59

  48.52

  Waltham Forest

  33.31

  39.61

  39.04

  Greater London average

  43.90

  47.54

  44.73

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Rehabilitation Leave
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received 416W
  on the introduction of rehabilitation leave after trauma or sudden infirmity. [44264]

  Maria Eagle
  At their conference on 7 March the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in their employment strategy document Work Matters, raised the issue of disability leave to allow people losing their sight to get time off work for intensive rehabilitation, mobility training and the opportunity to learn new skills.

  The Disability Rights Task Force considered this and concluded that the reasonable adjustment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act provide adequate arrangements for employees affected. We are continuing to work with the Disability Rights Commission and employers to promote the retention and rehabilitation of people who become disabled.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 851–52W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42643]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. From May 1997 to March 2001 there have been no reported cases of equipment stolen containing protectively marked data.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whom he has appointed to his Regulation Scrutiny Group; and what is its remit; [42253]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce changes to the housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes twice a year. [42254]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Regulation Scrutiny Group is made up of officials from the Department and representatives appointed by the local authority associations. Its remit is to consider proposed changes to housing benefit and council tax benefit and to make recommendations on the timing of such changes, taking account of local authorities" capacity to implement them.

  We have already made a commitment to the local authority associations that changes to regulations will only be introduced in April and October of each year apart from in very exceptional circumstances. This, combined with the Regulation Scrutiny Group, will go a long way to improving the handling of essential changes to the housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants for incapacity benefit underwent a medical examination in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; and at what cost to public funds; [40783]

  (2) what the policy of his Department is towards claimants for incapacity benefit who do not attend an appointment for a medical examination; [40791]
  417W
  (3)how many claimants for incapacity benefit did not attend the medical examination arranged for them in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; and at what cost to public funds. [40792]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People who have been receiving incapacity benefit for more than 28 weeks normally undergo a personal capability assessment (PCA). The purpose of the PCA is to determine that a person meets the threshold of incapacity to continue receiving benefit. In addition, in selected pilot areas, examining doctors are able to produce a capability report for the person"s personal adviser. The capability report helps those who wish to return to work by shifting the emphasis from disability to ability.

  As part of the PCA process, a person may be called, where appropriate, to attend a medical examination. The importance of keeping an appointment along with the potential consequences of not attending are clearly highlighted in the supporting documentation sent to the person.

  When a person fails to attend an appointment he or she is asked to provide written details of their reasons for non-attendance. The reasons, along with any other relevant information, are presented to a decision maker for consideration of whether there was good cause for not attending the appointment. The good cause provision acts as a safeguard for vulnerable people and those with genuine difficulties.

  A decision maker decides good cause by considering all the evidence and applying the law to the facts of the claim. Each case is considered on merit and all relevant circumstances, including the person"s state of health, are taken into account. If it is decided to withdraw entitlement, then the person can ask for the decision to be reconsidered or referred to an independent appeal tribunal.

  The available information is in the tables.

  Number of medical examinations

  Year

  Number of medical examinations

  Cost of incapacity benefit examinations (£)

  19991

  432,210

  22,004,978

  2000

  372,934

  18,868,786

  2001

  455,454

  228,654,598

  1 Figures for the number of medical examinations performed are not available until the beginning of the 1999–2000 financial year. Therefore, figures for the period 1 January to 31 March 1999 have been estimated.

  2 A restructuring of prices took place during 2001. As a result of this, the cost of incapacity benefit examinations increased, but this was offset by a reduction in the cost of Incapacity Benefit scrutiny reports.

  Notes:

  1.Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Volumes and costs include severe disablement allowance.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from IMPACT 100 per cent. counts.

  Number of incapacity benefit recipients who failed to attend a medical examination for incapacity benefit

  Year

  Number

  1999

  132,314

  2000

  124,356

  2001

  148,357

  418W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. The Department only pays SchlumbergerSema for completed cases. The administrative costs associated with failed appointments are not separately available.

  Source:

  Figures are taken from a 100 per cent. count by SchlumbergerSema Medical Services of Incapacity Benefit (including Severe Disablement Allowance) customers who fail to attend a medical examination appointment.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department"s press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41079]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  None.

  Pensioners Tax Credit
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the impact of the pensioners tax credit on pensioners in receipt of modest occupational pensions who are being taxed. [31353]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension credit, which is not a tax credit, will have a positive impact on the small proportion of recipients with modest occupational pensions who also pay tax, as pension credit itself is tax free.

  Retired People (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retired people in the Tooting constituency are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. [38205]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table.

  Minimum income guarantee for pensioners, in the parliamentary constituency of Tooting, as at November 2001

  Total1

  Claimants

  Partners

  All

  2,900

  2,500

  400

  State pension age

  2,600

  2,200

  300

  Working age

  400

  200

  100

  1 Claimants and partners

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 2001

  Jobcentre Plus
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will direct the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus to consent to referring the current dispute with the Public and Commercial Services Union to ACAS for arbitration. [33531]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the PCS Union has agreed to refer the dispute over safety at work in the Benefits Agency and jobcentres to arbitration; and what the view is of Her Majesty"s Government on this process. [32872]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the recent dispute between the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Benefits Agency over screening in benefits offices will be referred to ACAS; and if he will make a statement. [32763]
  419W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason in the course of the industrial dispute over safety in Jobcentre Plus the involvement of ACAS has been specifically excluded as a means to bring this dispute to a resolution. [40503]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answers 5 and 6 February 2002]: While conciliation and arbitration can be of value, it would not be appropriate in this instance to refer the current dispute to ACAS as the Public and Commercial Services Union has proposed. The fundamental principles underpinning the delivery of Jobcentre Plus are at the heart of the welfare modernisation and customer service improvement to which the Government are committed. They are not ones about which it is appropriate to seek arbitration.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the(a) subject matter, (b) dates and (c) times of (i) discussions, (ii) telephone conversations and (iii) meetings, (A) he and (B) the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus has had between 1 January and 28 February with (1) Mark Serwtoka, (2) Barry Reamsbottom, (3) Alan Churchyard and (4) Eddie Spence; [40500]

  (2) if he will list the (a) subject matter, (b) individuals involved, (c) dates and (d) times of (i) discussions, (ii) telephone conversations and (iii) meetings he has had with the TUC in connection with the current trade dispute between his Department and the PCS Union; [40501]

  (3) if he will list the dates and times of discussions,telephone conversations and meetings (a) he,(b) the Chief Executive (c) Kevin White and(d) other senior managers in his Department have had with the PCS Union with regard to the Jobcentre Plus industrial dispute over safety; and which PCS Union senior officials those meetings and conversations were held with, between 4 September 2001 and 1 March 2002; [40502]

  (4) what the overall cost arising from industrial dispute over safety in Jobcentre Plus is; and what expenditure has resulted. [40504]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Managers have had over 60 hours of discussions with PCS. There have been numerous other contacts and approaches but we have been asked to treat these as confidential.

  We estimate that around £5.5 million has been saved in staff salaries since September.

  Pensions
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to promote understanding of the importance of pension provision among young people. [37117]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are committed to promoting the importance of pension provision to young people—as well as other groups.

  The Government"s pension education strategy includes providing information to people about their pension provision through pension forecasts, raising awareness of retirement planning through a publicity campaign. This includes activity aimed at young people, such as: advertising in publications and during TV programmes whose readership or viewers include a high number of
  420W
  young people; specific direct marketing activity for young people such as a targeted newspaper insert and direct mail to young people, and testing new ways to get information out to the public, for example through an interactive digital television pilot—due to launch this spring, which will have a section dedicated to a younger audience.

  In addition, my Department continues to liaise with other Government Departments, the Financial Services Authority, employers, private pension providers and other organisations and groups to improve the way we provide pension information to consumers—including young people.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how much exists in purchase pension pots that were annuitised in each of the last five years; and how much he expects will be annuitised in the next five years. [37031]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available as requested.

  The latest available information on the value of annuities sold is in the tables. This information is from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), and the values quoted are in cash terms prices. The figures are for all annuities purchased—which will include those purchased by pension funds which are not money purchase. However most annuities will have been sold to money purchase occupational pension funds and to individuals converting personal pensions.

  We do not have any information as to how much we expect will be annuitised in the next five years.

  Value of new annuities (in
  cash terms)

  Year

  £ million

  1996

  3,394

  1997

  3,944

  1998

  5,755

  1999

  5,716

  2000

  5,708

  Source:

  Figures taken from ABI publication.

  Quarterly press release—long term annual figures.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the marginal benefit withdrawal rate will be from October 2003 for a pensioner on the pension credit who also receives(a) council tax benefit, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit and housing benefit. [24234]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is shown in the following tables. The tables show the marginal deduction rates applied to people under minimum income guarantee or pension credit regimes who also receive any combination of housing and council tax benefits.

  Pension credit recipients with income above the guarantee credit who are also entitled to housing and council tax benefits will experience higher withdrawal rates than under the minimum income guarantee. However, these people will see gains from the introduction of the savings credit, the fairer treatment of capital and the extension of the applicable amounts in housing and council tax benefit due to our proposals for

  421W
  pension credit. This means that a single pensioner over 65 with marginal deduction rates of 91 per cent. will gain at least £ 11 a week (couples will gain at least £15.81). It

  Table 1: Marginal deduction rates facing a single pensioner aged 65 or over, and couples where one member is over 651

  Illustrative weekly income (£)

  Percentage

  Marginal deduction rates

  For singles

  For couples

  Council tax benefit(a)

  Housing benefit(b)

  Council tax benefit and housing benefit (c)

  Minimum income guarantee

  0–100

  0–154

  100

  100

  100

  100+

  154+

  20

  65

  85

  Pension credit

  0–77

  0–123

  100

  100

  100

  77–100

  123–154

  40

  40

  40

  100–135

  154–200

  52

  79

  91

  135+

  200+

  20

  65

  85

  1 Excludes income tax

  Table 2: Marginal deduction rates facing a single pensioner aged 60–64, and couples where both are under 65 but one member is aged 60–641

  Illustrative weekly income (£)

  Percentage

  Marginal deduction rates

  For singles

  For couples

  Council tax benefit(a)

  Housing benefit(b)

  Council tax benefit and housing benefit(c)

  Minimum income guarantee

  0–100

  0–154

  100

  100

  100

  100+

  154+

  20

  65

  85

  Pension credit

  0–77

  0–123

  100

  100

  100

  77–100

  123–154

  100

  100

  100

  100–135

  154–200

  20

  65

  85

  135+

  200+

  20

  65

  85

  1 Excludes income tax

  Table 3: Gains for single pensioners over 65 due to the introduction of pension credit

  £

  Illustrative weekly income for singles

  Pension credit

  Council tax benefit (a)

  Housing benefit (b)

  Council tax benefit and housing benefit (c)

  0–77

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  77–100

  0.00–13.80

  0.00–13.80

  0.00–13.80

  0.00–13.80

  100–135

  0–13.80

  2.76–13.80

  2.97–13.80

  11.73–13.80

  135+

  0.00

  2.76

  8.97

  11.73

  Table 4: Gains for pensioner couples where one member of the couple is over 65 due to the introduction of pension credit

  £

  Illustrative weekly income for couples

  Pension credit

  Council tax benefit (a)

  Housing benefit (b)

  Council tax benefit and housing benefit (c)

  0–123

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  123–154

  0.00–18.60

  0.00–18.60

  0.00–18.60

  0.00–18.60

  154–200

  0–18.60

  3.72–18.60

  12.09–18.60

  15.81–18.60

  200+

  0.00

  3.72

  12.09

  15.81

  Notes for all tables:

  1. It is assumed that a pensioner with HB and/or CTB entitlement was entitled to these benefits before the introduction of pension credit.

  2. Although single pensioners with income under £77 and pensioner couples with income under £123 face 100 per cent. marginal deduction rates their final income will be raised to the amount of the guarantee credit as a result of the introduction of pension credit.

  3. Tables 3 and 4 show gains due only to the savings credit and the extension of the applicable amounts in housing and council tax benefits by the maximum savings credit. Some pensioners will gain more because of the changes to the treatment of capital and the more generous income assessment.
  422W
  also means that almost 1.9 million pensioner households will get more help, or get help for the first time, with their rent or council tax.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the level of inpatient care for those spending over a year in mental health hospitals above the present weekly allowance. [40651]

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at what level the personal allowance for mental health patients requiring in-patient care is set; and if he plans to review it. [41469]

  Maria Eagle
  There are no plans to change the amount by which benefits are reduced for hospital in-patients who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks.
  423W
  The hospital downrating rules prevent double provision from public funds as the publicly funded NHS maintains people while they stay in hospital as well as providing free treatment. Social security maintenance benefits are also paid from state funds. They are therefore not paid in full indefinitely where a person is in a NHS hospital and having their day to day living expenses met through the NHS.

  The double provision principle is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance introduced over 50 years ago.

  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 none the less decided to extend the period before benefits are downrated by a further seven weeks to the 13 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. Benefit is generally then not downrated again until after 52 weeks.

  Benefit is adjusted in this way because, generally speaking, the national health service will have assumed the responsibility of providing for patients who have spent more than 52 weeks in hospital. The personal requirements allowance is regarded as a reasonable amount to cover small personal items not already provided by the hospital.

  Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) mean and (b) median income of (i) single men aged 65 to 74 years, (ii) single men aged 75 years and over, (iii) single women aged 65 to 74 years and (iv) single women aged 75 years and over, (v) pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 years and (vi) pensioner couples aged 75 years and over for the latest year for which figures are available. [39545]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Net weekly income before housing costs 1999–2000

  Mean

  Median

  Single men aged 65 to 74 years

  183

  134

  Single men aged 75 years and over

  162

  131

  Single women aged 65 to 74 years

  144

  123

  Single women aged 75 years and over

  134

  121

  Couples aged 65 to 74 years

  299

  234

  Couples aged 75 years and over

  245

  201

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined here as net income before housing costs.

  2. Amounts are in £ per week at July 1999 prices and are rounded to the nearest £1.

  3. A pensioner couple is defined as a married or cohabiting couple.

  4. Pensioner couples are allocated to age categories according to the age of the head. The head of a couple is defined as the man.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1999–2000

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advertising campaigns his Department is(a) running and (b) planning for the future; what the
  424W
  committed spend on marketing is for the 2001–;02 financial year; and what estimate has been made of the final cost of all his Department"s marketing in the 2001–02 financial year. [7898]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are currently (February/ March) running the following advertising campaigns: Pensions education, Inherited SERPS, New Deal 25 Plus, and DDA awareness.

  Between October 2001 and February 2002 the following campaigns ran: New Deal 25 Plus, Targeting Benefit Fraud, New Deal for Disabled People, Winter Fuel Payment awareness, Pensions education.

  Major campaigns costing over £250,000 for the financial year 2001–02 are as follows:
  New Deal for Disabled People—£850,000: A national campaign to launch NDDP, covering press advertising in national and regional titles, supported by a helpline, website and publicity material.
  New Deal 50 Plus—£500,000: A regional campaign to encourage more of the over-50s into work and to increase their awareness of the local help available.
  New Deal 25 Plus—£500,000: A national campaign to inform the public about changes to the programme through radio advertising, a video and printed materials, supported by research.
  Age Positive—£500,000: PR (including direct mail and partnerships with regional newspapers, sponsoring an award, exhibitions, research and promotional material) to raise employers" awareness of the business benefits of employing an age-diverse work force.
  Work Incentives—£450,000: Advertising campaign on local radio to raise awareness of the range of financial initiatives available to those moving from benefits into employment if they meet the qualifying criteria.
  Pensions Education—£7,520,000: A publicity campaign to encourage people to save for their retirement and understand the pension options available to them.
  State Second Pension—£500,000: Development and implementation of publicity to inform carers about how new state pension rules could help them—linked to the overall pensions education campaign.
  Pensioners" Guide—£1,058,000: Production and distribution of a guide on cross-Government help and services for pensioners.
  Winter Fuel Payments—£716,000: Information for people aged 60 plus and advisers about winter fuel payments and activity reminding them to claim and telling them how to claim for winter 2001 and for relevant previous winters.
  Changes to rules on inherited SERPS—£453,000: Publicity about the change to the rules on inheriting the State Earnings-Related Pensions Scheme.
  Targeting Fraud—£9,000,000: A national advertising campaign on television, radio, press and posters to deter dishonest behaviour, reinforced by regional press advertising showing that benefit fraudsters are regularly caught and punished.
  Disability Discrimination Act Awareness—£3,000,000: A national, regional and trade press advertising campaign to raise the public"s awareness of the DDA and specifically to encourage service providers to ensure that disabled people have access to their services.

  Other activity is being considered but nothing has been finalised.

  Allocations, and therefore spend, are not set in stone at the beginning of the financial year, but remain flexible throughout the year responding to need as and when required.

  Mr. Tom Mann
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will issue advice to decision-makers for(a) attendance allowance and (b) disability living allowance to give full weight to the definition of virtually unable to walk as given in Cassinelli v. Secretary of State for Social Services, Times Law report 6.12.91, following the Chairman"s ruling on 11 February at the reconstituted tribunal set up by the Sutton Benefits Agency office concerning Mr. Tom Mann. [39412]

  Maria Eagle
  The 1991 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Cassinelli v. Secretary of State for Social Services was concerned only with the meaning of the test of "severe discomfort" in relation to whether the manner in which a person could make progress on foot out of doors was so limited that he could be taken to be virtually unable to walk for the purpose of entitlement to mobility allowance. The court held that the test is one of severe discomfort rather than of severe pain or distress. This is not relevant to(a) attendance allowance, for which entitlement depends upon a severely disabled person"s need for personal attention, supervision or watching over from another person; but (b) it continues to be relevant to the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance, which replaced mobility allowance in 1992, and the guidance to decision makers about that component in the Decision Makers Guide cites the meaning of "severe discomfort" given in the Cassinelli judgment as the one to be followed when considering whether a person is virtually unable to walk.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34285]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department for Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment.

  Legal costs for the new Department are not yet available for the current financial year (2001–02).

  New Deal
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make additional funding available to New Deal providers to help trainees with(a) basic skills and (b) English speaking. [36403]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Long-term unemployed people who need help with basic skills or the English language are identified by personal advisers during the Gateway period of the New Deal. Those with a need can then be referred to help within the Gateway, including short basic skills courses. People who need more intensive, longer-term assistance are offered help through the Education and Training New Deal option which can provide courses lasting up to 26 weeks.

  Basic skills or English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) training is provided in response to an individual"s needs. The Employment Service contracts locally with New Deal providers to meet the needs of their particular client group and provides sufficient funding for this to be achieved.
  426W
  The help provided through the New Deal is an important part of the Government"s strategy to improve literacy and numeracy skills. A new curriculum in ESOL was launched in February and will further improve the quality of language provision available to those who need it. We will be working to embed the new curriculum into our employment programmes.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners who are entitled to support claim the minimum income guarantee. [36407]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Estimates of the proportion of pensioners who are entitled to and claim the minimum income guarantee are published in Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up. A copy of the latest publication covering financial year 1999–2000 is in the Library. Estimates of take-up of the minimum income guarantee are subject to greater uncertainty than other published take-up estimates; research is under way to improve the precision of estimates.

  The take-up campaign launched in May 2000 attracted over 127,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of pensioners in(a) the North Norfolk constituency and (b) England claim the minimum income guarantee. [43696]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The information requested is in the table.

  MIG claimants in North Norfolk and England by percentage relevant population—November 2001

  Area

  Number of MIG claimants (Thousand)

  Percentage population aged 60 and over

  North Norfolk parliamentary constituency

  3,400

  —

  North Norfolk LA

  3,400

  11.0

  England

  1,459,200

  14.3

  Area

  Number of MIG beneficiaries (Thousand)

  Percentage population aged 60 and over

  North Norfolk parliamentary constituency

  3,900

  —

  North Norfolk LA

  3,900

  12.5

  England

  1,622,800

  15.9

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner households are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [43979]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  As at November 20001, there were 1,741,300 pensioner households benefiting from the minimum income guarantee in Great Britain.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 2001.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if self-employed people will be required to join the State Second Pension. [24228]

  Mr. McCartney
  As with SERPS self-employed people cannot join the State Second Pension because they do not pay class 1 national insurance contributions.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many new entrants to the civil service employed in his Department were aged 50 years and over in each of the last five years. [42399]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department for Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment.

  The statistics relating to the number of staff aged 50 or over on their recruitment to the new Department are not yet available for the current financial year (2001–02).

  Unemployed People (Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people in Lanarkshire over 50 years of age back to work. [42617]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  People over 50-years-old on benefits can also take advantage of the help and support available through our New Deal 50 plus. By the end of January over 61,000 people had moved off benefits and into work nationally through New Deal 50 plus and 906 people have been helped into work in the Lanarkshire Employment Service district.

  We have made a firm commitment to tackle the high levels of inactivity among people over 50 by increasing choice and opportunities for employment. We are doing this by setting the standard for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement through the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment.

  Our policies are having a positive effect and the national employment rate of older workers has risen for the fourth year running.

  Pension-related Benefits
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the increase in the MIG per pensioner if money accrued through delaying the payment of pension-related benefits by increasing the retirement age to 67 years were put into funds for the minimum income guarantee. [43650]

  Maria Eagle
  We have no plans to increase the state pension age to 67. It is not possible to estimate how such a change would affect the MIG in future as it depends upon the level of MIG at that time, on pensioner income growth (which itself is affected by the increase in retirement age) and on pension credit that is being introduced in October 2003.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information his Department collates on the value of occupational pensions available(a) in payment to current pensioners, (b) as assets for future pensioners and (c) in connection with the overall incomes of retired people. [41999]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department of Work and Pensions collects information on the value of occupational pensions available in payment to current pensioners and in connection with the overall income of retired people via the Family Resources Survey. The Family Resources Survey (FRS) is a continuous survey, interviewing approximately 25,000 private households in Great Britain each year. The FRS asks a wide range of questions about people"s incomes and other living circumstances, including sources of pension income.

  Information on assets of private pension funds, including occupational pensions, is published in the National Statistics MQ5 publication. The Office for National Statistics have stated that they expect to publish figures in April.

  Benefit Application Forms
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to simplify benefit application forms, with particular reference to(a) elderly and (b) disabled claimants. [37080]

  Maria Eagle
  All our forms are constantly reviewed and regularly researched. We frequently adopt suggestions made by members of the public as well as organisations such as the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  A radically changed minimum income guarantee (MIG) form was introduced last October after consultation with pensioners and their organisations. The new form cut the number of pages pensioners had to complete from 40 to 10 and removed questions irrelevant to the vast majority of pensioners. The Department also established a MIG helpline to enable pensioners to claim over the telephone.

  Improvements have been made to our standard size claim forms, particularly those relating to disability benefits. They include using a larger type size, increasing the size of answer boxes and using a background tint that gives the best possible contrast to improve legibility.

  We are also currently testing a new shorter and simpler attendance allowance claim form aimed at claimants aged 75 or over. If this 16 page form, which replaces the existing 34 page form, is successful in obtaining the information we need we will be looking to apply the lessons learned to other groups of disabled people applying for disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Pensioners Earnings
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) proportion and (b) number of pensioners have income from earnings, broken down in both cases into five-year age bands. [44226]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.
  429W

  Age

  Proportion of pensioners with income from earnings (percentage)

  Number of pensioners with income from earnings

  60–64

  20

  80,000

  65–69

  19

  320,000

  70–74

  8

  130,000

  75+

  2

  60,000

  All

  9

  580,000

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2000–01.

  Income Support
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Telford are in receipt of income support payments. [41424]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at November 2001 there were an estimated 6,900 income support recipients in Telford parliamentary constituency.

  Notes:

  1. Number is rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Estimate is based on a 5 per cent. sample of the income support computer system, and is subject to sampling variation.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 2001.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people receive industrial injury benefit as a result of suffering from asbestosis. [37112]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Asbestosis is a generic term for all asbestos-related diseases. The prescribed diseases (PDs) relating specifically to those suffering from the effects of exposure to asbestos are diffuse mesothelioma (PD3), primary carcinoma of the lung (PD8) where there is evidence of asbestosis and diffuse pleural thickening (PD9). In addition pneumoconiosis (PD 1) can relate to asbestosis but also to silicosis (which is not an asbestos-related disease).

  The available information is in the table.

  Number of cases where industrial injuries disablement benefit was in payment as at 1 April 2000

  Disease

  Number

  Pneumoconiosis (PDI)

  111,000

  Diffuse mesothelioma (PD3)

  1,000

  Primary carcinoma (PD8)

  2200

  Diffuse pleural thickening (PD9)

  2,000

  1 This figure also includes cases of silicosis which is not an asbestos-related disease. Separate figures for asbestos-related disease only in this category are not available.

  2 As this figure is less than 500 it should be treated as an indication of the number of cases only.

  Source:

  Figures are from a 10 per cent. sample of IIDB assessments in payment, and are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 703W, on fair trade goods, if he will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in his Department. [35456]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department"s purchasing policy is based on value for money principles and purchases are considered on the basis of fitness for purpose and whole life cost. Where these considerations are equal the choice of goods is then influenced by ethical and environmental factors and fair trade goods will be considered in that context.

  My officials will consider with the new service provider for the Department"s London offices the availability of fair trade goods in its refreshment facilities. Our contracted catering providers have assured us that wherever commercially practicable and viable they trade with companies who have their own ethical or fair trading initiatives.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether fair trade products are sold in his Department. [39828]

  Mr. Leslie
  Yes; our contracted catering providers have assured us that wherever commercially practicable and viable they trade with companies who have their own ethical or fair trading initiatives.

  As I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on 26 November 2001, Official Report, column 703W, the Cabinet Office will consider with the new service provider for the Department"s London offices the availability of fair trade goods in its refreshment facilities.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37504]

  Mr. Leslie
  Section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code, paragraph 8.2.1, requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, ref 32799, on which date the Cabinet Office guidelines on sponsorship took effect; and if he will make a statement. [39729]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office document "Guidance to Departments on Sponsorship of Government Activities" was published in July 2000 as part of the Government"s
  431W
  response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cmnd 4817). These guidelines updated the previous internal sponsorship guidelines that had been circulated to Departments in March 1999.

  Radio Advertising
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Central Office of Information spent on radio advertising on behalf of other Government Department agencies and NDPBs in the last year; what percentage of this was spent on black minority media advertising; and what the five main campaigns that the Central Office of Information financed that involved radio advertising were. [41341]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the year 2000–01 the total spend on radio advertising was £16 million, with 1.25 per cent. spent on black minority stations.

  The top five campaigns, by value which featured radio advertising were:

  University for Industry autumn campaign,

  Vehicle car crime,

  Think! (road safety),

  Police recruitment and

  Children"s tax credit.

  Women and Equality Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff are employed in the Women and Equality Unit of the Cabinet Office. [43112]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Women"s Unit was created in 1998. Its staff for the first financial year of its existence (1998–99) was 45. The unit was renamed the Women and Equality Unit following last year"s general election in order to recognise its new policy responsibilities across the United Kingdom for gender equality, co-ordination of sexual orientation policy and its sponsorship of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Its current staffing level stands at 68.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the findings were of the joint benchmarking study of the Women and Equality Unit of the Cabinet Office and the Swedish Government. [43111]

  Mrs. Roche
  The publication "Women as Entrepreneurs in Sweden and the UK: Different Perspectives" built upon a bilateral initiative between Sweden and the UK on women"s entrepreneurship.

  The publication identified the sharing of good practice and supporting joint projects between the two countries, as effective tools to encourage female entrepreneurship.

  The study showed that, in the UK, the reasons for starting a business, the type of business run and the chosen method of accessing finance were markedly different between men and women. The reasons for these differences need to be reflected in the support provided.

  Employers" Forum on Disability
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments are members of the Employers" Forum on Disability. [44266]
  432W
  Mr. Leslie
  The following civil service Departments and agencies are all members of the Employers" Forum on Disability:

  Cabinet Office

  Court Service

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Department for Education and Skills

  Department, for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Department of Health

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Employment Service

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Highways Agency

  HM Customs and Excise

  HM Land Registry

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Lord Chancellor"s Department

  Ministry of Defence

  Ministry of Defence Police

  National Assembly for Wales

  Office for National Statistics

  Ofgem

  Ofsted

  Oftel

  Patent Office

  The Public Record Office

  Companies House

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

  The Meteorological Office

  Financial Services Authority

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Scottish Office

  Health and Safety Executive

  Prison Service

  Child Support Agency and Benefits Agency

  The Rent Service.

  Sickness Absence
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the overall level of sickness absence in the civil service in 2000. [45327]

  Mr. Leslie
  The report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 2000" prepared for my Department by Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (BioSS) shows that by applying the same methodology as in previous years the average level of sickness absence was 9.9 days per staff year. This represents a small decrease over the equivalent figure of 10.1 days set out in the report for 1999. The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the 2000 figures.

  Calculated on the basis of absence per person, the figure for the civil service was 8.5 days. According to the CBI survey for 2000, this compares favourably with a figure of 10.2 days for the public sector as a whole and is only slightly more than the average rate of 7.8 days for all sectors.
  433W
  Departments have published Service Delivery Agreements which contain their individual targets for reducing sickness absence. Overall the civil service has been targeted to reduce sickness absence by 30 per cent. (to 7.2 days per staff year) by 2003 against the 1998 baseline. My Department is continuing to work with other Departments and agencies as they take forward their plans to reduce sickness absence.

  I have placed copies of the BioSS report in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Unlicensed Medicines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what joint strategies have been agreed between the Medicines Control Agency and the United States Government Food and Drug Administration"s Office of Criminal Investigation to combat the online sale of licensed and unlicensed medicines; and if he will publish them. [39018]

  Ms Blears
  The Enforcement Group currently has no specific joint strategies with the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations. However, it does maintain close informal contact, on a case by case basis, shares intelligence, conducts joint investigations including visits where appropriate.

  Anti-TB Vaccinations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of supply of anti-TB vaccinations to the NHS is. [38681]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Current central stock holding (as at 12 March 2002):

  Number

  BCG

  2,126,550

  Tuberculin PPD

  201,920

  January

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Number of staff in Media Centre—Press Officers

  15

  16

  18

  21

  22

  24

  Number of staff in Campaigns/PR

  16

  16

  15

  17

  28

  31

  Number of staff in Leeds (NHS Communications)

  11

  10

  11

  16

  23

  24

  Number of staff in—Comms Regional Offices

  15

  15

  18

  19

  23

  19

  Total

  57

  57

  62

  73

  96

  98

  Technologies Advisory Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1064W, if he will list the names of the members of the Technologies Advisory Group and their declared interests. [40542]

  Ms Blears
  At present, most members of the Technologies Advisory Group are officials in the Department or in the National Assembly for Wales, who

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39343]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2001 five separate business areas within the Department have commissioned various pieces of work from companies operating within the Capita Group.

  The total value of work commissioned by each of the business areas varied between £ 10,500 and £ 87,700. The overall value of work was £ 271,700. In each case the work involved services to support a number of recruitment exercises to fill posts within the core Department and membership of committees.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40034]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  year

  Number

  1 May 1997 to end of year

  230

  1998

  556

  1999

  742

  2000

  664

  2001

  552

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39940].

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  serve on the group as part of their responsibilities within the two Departments rather than in a personal capacity. The officials who attend meetings may also vary depending on their availability and the topics under discussion. For these reasons we do not consider it would be appropriate to list individual names. We are currently consulting on proposals to extend the membership of the group and we will consider, in the light of replies to consultation, whether there would be a case in future for listing the names of individual members.

  NHS Communication (E-mail)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that there should be one e-mail system through which NHS employees can communicate with each other; and if he will make a statement. [40790]

  Ms Blears
  Yes. Our programme for modernising the national health service (NHS) as set out in the NHS plan will rely on the provision of efficient and effective information systems to enable the benefits for patients and the public to be achieved. A common e-mail system is one component of this; by opting for a common system across the NHS the maximum benefits of value for money will be obtained. To this end, the NHS information authority is currently conducting a formal open procurement exercise for e-mail and directory services for the NHS. It is expected that subject to successful completion of negotiations a preferred bidder will be announced shortly.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41067]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not keep separate information about the cost of hotel accommodation but I am able to provide information about the cost of night subsistence for departmental staff working away from home. This will include hotel accommodation, meals and some incidental expenses. The cost of night subsistence, including overseas, for the last four financial years for which information is available is as follows:

  Year

  Hotel and subsistence costs (£)

  1997–98

  871,756

  1998–99

  861,352

  1999–2000

  1,099,249

  2000–01

  1,338,967

  Alcohol Misuse
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government expect to publish their alcohol misuse strategy.[40878]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS plan says that the Department will be implementing the national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse by 2004. The Department is on course to achieve this target and we expect to publish a consultation paper for the strategy this summer.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many healthy living centres there are in Northumberland. [40879]

  Jacqui Smith
  The healthy living centre initiative is managed by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). There are currently no healthy living centres in Northumberland, however, there are a number of applications under consideration and a decision on one from the Northumberland area is expected from the NOF Healthy Living Centre Committee shortly.

  Children in Care (Education)
  Mr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children leaving care have had five or more GCSEs, grades A-C, in each of the past five years. [40874]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is only available for the past two years, and is shown in the table.

  Proportion of children leaving care who had five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C for the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2001

  England

  Percentage

  2001

  5

  2000

  4

  Cannabis
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relationship between cannabis smoking and the risks of(a) schizophrenia and (b) lung cancer. [40841]

  Ms Blears
  The "'Dangerousness of drugs'" report published last year by the national addiction centre states that there is evidence of an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia, but the significance of this association is unclear. Cannabis can exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia in affected individuals and is linked with relapse in schizophrenia.

  The report also states that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis causes cancer in humans, but may be an important risk factor for the development of respiratory cancer. However, smoking tobacco as well or using tobacco as a vehicle for smoking cannabis resin is a confounding factor.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the work and advice of the NRPB is independent of Government. [41185]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) was set up in 1970 under the Radiological Protection Act as a corporate body with functions concerning the protection of people from radiation hazards. It is a non-departmental public body. The chairman and members of the statutory board are appointed by Health Ministers, following Nolan/Neill principles, to ensure an appropriate mix of independent experts. Responsibility for setting the overall strategic direction of the work of NRPB, for monitoring the programme and ensuring that advice is impartial, authoritative and independent of Government and others bodies, rests with the chairman and the appointed members.

  The board benefits from the advice of three independent advisory groups composed of non-NRPB experts. The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation and the Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation review the evidence on the biological and medical effects of radiation. They also advise the board on future research priorities. A new advisory group—the Radiation, Risk and Society Advisory Group—has been set up to help NRPB to improve its communication in a practical way.
  437W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence underlay the NRPB"s judgment that a magnetic field exposure of 1600uT is unsafe. [41187]

  Yvette Cooper
  The considerations underlying the National Radiological Protection Board"s guidance on exposure to electromagnetic fields is contained in Documents of the NRPB Volume 4 Number 5, 1993 and Documents of the NRPB Volume 10 Number 2, 1999.

  Insofar as magnetic fields are concerned, the exposure guidelines are developed to prevent adverse effects of induced current in the body. The current density level given in the above NRPB advice to avoid adverse biological effects on the central nervous system is 10 milliamperes per square metre.

  Calculations were made to relate the external magnetic field to the induced current density using a dosimetric model. The model chosen was considered to be conservative hence exceeding the investigation level (1600T) does not necessarily imply an "unsafe" level.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is within the remit of the NRPB to present to the public a statement of the effects of(a) ionising and (b) non-ionising radiation. [41186]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Radiological Protection Act 1970 provided for the establishment of a National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) with functions concerning the protection of people from radiation hazards; and for connected purposes. The Act defines "radiation hazards" as the dangers of ionising radiations emitted by radioactive substances or other sources and radiations which are electromagnetic but not ionising. The reference to
  non-ionising radiation was added by Statutory Instrument 1974 No. 1230.

  It is, therefore, within NRPB"s remit to comment on ionising and non-ionising radiation; NRPB"s website www.nrpb.org contains much material on both types of radiological hazard.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision the NRPB has made with respect to its magnetic field exposure threshold. [41188]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board advice on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure guidelines is contained in Documents of the NRPB Volume 4 Number 5, 1993 and Documents of the NRPB Volume 10 Number 2, 1998.

  A further review of the scientific basis for the EMF exposure guidelines is currently in progress. The terms of reference for the review are:
  To produce a comprehensive assessment of the science covering the areas of biology, epidemiology and dosimetry and provide guidance on limiting exposure of people to electromagnetic fields in the range of 0 Hz to 300 GHz.
  To consider where information may be lacking, discuss any need to invoke a precautionary approach and what that might be.

  The results of the review will be published as a consultative document in 2002.

  Mesotherapy
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the mesotherapy treatments which are available from the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [41213]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: I understand that while mesotherapy has a number of applications, it is of most relevance to the NHS as a method of pain relief. Mesotherapy is a treatment where local anaesthetic is injected in small amounts to an area of pain. Chronic pain relief is provided throughout the NHS in different forms, and includes the use of local anaesthetic. However, pain relief is a short-term measure and it is important that the underlying cause of the pain is identified and treated.

  The decision on the type of pain relief treatment provided to patients is made on a case by case basis. The Department does not collect details of the different types of pain relief available on the NHS.

  Autism
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the additional money for research into autism will be spent. [41463]

  Jacqui Smith
  The additional funds provide the opportunity for the Medical Research Council (MRC) to accelerate research on autism, building on existing strengths and addressing gaps which were identified in the report of their review of the epidemiology and causes of autism. It will complement and add to the MRC"s current support for research in this field. It is likely that the range of research supported will be broader than that of the MRC review and may include research to develop and evaluate interventions.

  The MRC will shortly be setting up a steering group which will offer detailed advice on implementation. Building on the success of lay involvement in the MRC review, the membership of this group will importantly include lay people. The Department will have an observer on the group. We will continue to pursue our constructive dialogue with the MRC on autism research.

  Dentistry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are registered with an NHS dentist in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and what the figures are for each year since 1997. [41309]

  Jacqui Smith
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to NHS services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  The number of child patients registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist in East Riding and Hull health authority (HA) at 30 September for each of the years 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table.

  In September 1996, the registration period for new child registrations was shortened to 15 months. Previously child registrations expired at the end of the following

  439W
  calendar year. This affected registration numbers from December 1997 onwards. Data for 1997 is not comparable with later years.

  Some patients that are not registered with a GDS dentist choose to attend occasionally.

  Data for the East Riding area is unavailable.

  General dental service: number of child registrations, 1997 to 2001

  East Riding and Hull health authority

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  19971

  85.6

  1998

  79.2

  1999

  80.7

  2000

  81.6

  2001

  81.8

  1 Registration number is not comparable to later figures because of the change in the registration period to 15 months.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to support NHS staff dealing with the mental health problems of older people; and if he will make a statement. [40828]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following publication of national service frameworks (NSF) for mental health and for older people, the Department has established a number of multi-agency care group workforce teams, including one focused on older people and one on mental health, to support national workforce development.

  Standard 7 of the Older People"s NSF concerns the promotion of good mental health in older people and the provision of treatment and support for older people with dementia and depression. Work undertaken to implement the framework standards, and within the care group workforce teams, will help to strengthen training and education for existing staff and support recruitment, consistent with the proposals in the NHS plan for new staff to support people of all ages with mental health problems.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the hospital budget was spent on mental health services in each year since 1997; [41709]

  (2) what proportion of the community health budget has been spent on mental health nursing services in each year since 1994–95. [41706]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proportion of the hospital budget spent on mental health services in each year since 1996–97 and the proportion of the community health budget spent on mental health nursing in each year since 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Community

  Hospital

  Total

  1994–95

  9.5

  10.9

  10.7

  1995–96

  9.5

  0.9

  10.7

  1996–97

  12.2

  12.2

  12.2

  1997–98

  13.6

  12.0

  12.3

  1998–99

  13.3

  11.8

  12.1

  1999–2000

  13.3

  12.3

  12.5

  440W
  However the figure given for 1999–2000 is not comparable to previous years or future years, 1999–2000 represents the first year that primary care group expenditure was included in the calculation and the formula used to apportion the expenditure was based on estimated data. In future years the data for primary care groups will be more detailed and the resultant figure for percentage spend will be more accurate.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are receiving domiciliary care; and if he will make a statement. [41601]

  Jacqui Smith
  An estimated 1.3 million adult clients received a package of community-based services (following assessment), by councils with social services responsibilities, in England, during the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. A client may be recorded more than once during the year.

  Hospital Service Availability
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards acceptable travel distances between(a) maternity hospital services, (b) paediatric hospital services and (c) general hospital services. [41404]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department set up a Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group last year to examine the best way to provide high quality maternity services which will provide safe, effective, evidence based and accessible care to mothers and babies.

  We are also committed to producing the acute module of the new children"s national service framework which will, among other issues, consider access to appropriate care and facilities for children.

  Women"s Hospitals
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on providing specialist maternity and obstetric services in stand-alone dedicated women"s hospitals. [41408]

  Yvette Cooper
  The national health service provides a variety of types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth including care in stand-alone dedicated women"s hospitals, general hospital maternity units, as well as midwife-led units. We expect this variety to continue and do not support any one single model of maternity service provision in preference to all others.

  It is for health authorities and NHS trusts to decide on the pattern of service provision taking into account the needs of local service users, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.

  The Department has set up a Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group to make recommendations through the Children"s Taskforce on workforce issues and various models for configuration of maternity services.

  National Care Standards
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has(a) made and (b) received of the cost of upgrading establishments to meet his national care standards; and if he will make a statement. [40888]
  441W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The full Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Care Homes Regulations and national minimum standards for care homes for older people and younger adults estimated that the cost of meeting the environmental standards from 1 April 2002 would be £68 million over five years.

  A and E Services (Shropshire)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for patients at the accident and emergency units at(a) Princess Royal Telford and (b) Royal Shrewsbury hospital. [41420]

  Ms Blears
  The average waiting time in accident and emergency (A&E) units in not collected.

  The NHS plan set new targets to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by 2004. The interim milestone is to achieve 75 per cent. of A&E attendees waiting four hours or less by March 2002.

  In line with this, from August 2001, the Department has collected data on total time in A&E from arrival to transfer, admission or discharge. Information suggests that the NHS is on track to meet the March 2002 milestone with currently 77 per cent. of all people attending A&E waiting four hours or less.

  NHS Reorganisation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost of office moves resulting from NHS reorganisation in the last three years. [42214]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Department has not collected any data which would enable an assessment to be made of the cost of office moves resulting from NHS reorganisation. For example, mergers of NHS trusts may involve the need to consolidate at one of those merged, or new offices entirely. The cost of this is not readily identifiable from trust accounts.

  MMR Vaccine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the target payments paid to general practitioners for MMR vaccination rates. [42269]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: There have been calls for a moratorium on the target payment system in the wake of the public debate on the MMR vaccine. We recognise the hard work of general practitioners and health visitors in responding to parents" concerns around MMR and trying to sustain high rates
  442W
  of immunisation in the current climate. However, we consider it would be inappropriate and counter-productive to change the target payment system at this time.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children in the Cynon valley have been immunised before their fifth birthday against measles, mumps and rubella in the last year for which figures are available; what the national average is; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Government reach their target rate for vaccination. [39521]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply. These are matters for the National Assembly for Wales. I am, though, aware that the Assembly has taken a number of steps over the past year, aimed at improving uptake of the MMR vaccine.

  In April 2001, they launched the Mythbuster initiative, to assist health professionals in counselling concerned parents and dispelling myths surrounding the safety of MMR. This was followed up with a comprehensive information programme which included an in-depth technical pack, leaflets, posters and videos.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford"s letter of 22 November, with reference to Mr. Raybould (Ref column: POH (3) 5499/G). [42969]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 15 March.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 843W, on parliamentary questions, if he will give details of the work that has been re-prioritised in order for the backlog of outstanding Questions to be answered. [43904]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: Clearing the backlog of outstanding parliamentary questions has been handled without the need for a major re-prioritisation of work. It has been cleared either through staff working extra hours, by using staff between postings or by temporarily seconding a member of staff whose duties were covered by colleagues.

  NHS Widowers" Pensions
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of including women doctors" pension contributions prior to 1988 in the calculations for NHS widowers" pensions; [43652]

  (2) if he plans to include the contributions paid into NHS pensions by women doctors prior to 1988 in the calculations for NHS widowers" pension provision. [43651]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the former Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Hospitals: Alcohol-related Violence
Baroness Masham of Iltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the number of alcohol-related attendances at accident and emergency departments, when they will publish their national alcohol strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are determined to make life safer for National Health Service employees. We have already set targets to reduce violent incidents. Alcohol can contribute to violent incidents and the Government will be implementing our national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse by 2004.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is a pity that the date is not sooner. Is he aware that at peak periods in some accident and emergency departments as many as eight out of 10 people may have abused alcohol? Crisis teams can be called upon by A&E departments to help with mentally ill patients. Could they be provided for those suffering from alcohol abuse?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out the serious impact of people attending A&E departments with alcohol-related injuries or problems. It is impossible to say exactly how many A&E attendances are alcohol related, but a Health Education Authority study found that one in six people attending A&E for treatment had alcohol-related injuries or problems, rising to eight out of 10 at peak times. That makes life difficult for dedicated NHS staff working in incredibly difficult circumstances. We have launched a zero tolerance strategy to communicate to the public and staff that violence towards NHS staff will not be tolerated.
A number of good initiatives, such as the one mentioned by the noble Baroness, have been implemented. I especially commend the co-operation that has taken place between NHS authorities and the police, enabling the NHS to call on the police where necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in June last year, I think, the Prime Minister announced plans to crack down on violence in hospitals. Guidance was promised later in the year. Has that guidance now been
1346
produced? The baseline measurement of offences of violence in hospitals continually shifts. Have the Government now got a grip on the problem? Is it beginning to decline?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figure I have for the number of violent incidents in 1998–99 is about 65,000. The department now has figures for financial year 2000–01, which are currently being analysed but are not yet finalised. They will form the baseline against which we set targets for reduction in violent incidents.
The work announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been taken forward. Campaign materials—posters and distance learning packages—have been made available. There is an award scheme and the NHS is setting up safety awareness teams and making support available to staff when violent incidents occur. So an enormous amount of activity is taking place. I am satisfied that each individual NHS organisation is taking the matter seriously.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if we know that there are 65,000 violent incidents—a horrifying figure—the baseline for reduction does not need much calculation? It should be 65,000.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not entirely agree. There is a feeling that the figure of 65,000 violent incidents may well have been an underestimate because previously the NHS did not collect figures in a robust way. That shows the importance of establishing a proper baseline, which will be done through careful analysis of the figures for 2000–01. It is much better that we establish a robust baseline and then deliver improvements rather than base improvements on a baseline that may not be as accurate as we would like.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Westminster council is most concerned about the huge numbers of people on Friday and Saturday nights who have to go to University College Hospital with broken bottle injuries and so on? The council feels that the police are needed to control the situation. Does the Minister agree that it is not only the staff but other patients in the hospital who can be attacked or seriously upset by violent people around them? What provision exists for segregation of violent patients from others awaiting treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I well understand the local authority's concern, although I do not know of the specific details of University College Hospital. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Violence in A&E departments is disturbing not only for staff but for other, law-abiding members of the public who have to attend A&E. Attending A&E is in any case a stressful situation for most of us.
The National Health Service has introduced a number of initiatives, including the provision of security staff, closed circuit television and

1347
programmes that advise staff on how to deal with such incidents. There is also great potential in closer co-operation with the police. Joint working has helped to deal with the problem in a number of schemes. For instance, at Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, a police base has been established in the hospital grounds immediately adjacent to the A&E department. In other examples, the police have opened sub-stations near A&E departments, which have proved effective.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the patients coming into A&E departments are young people and children? Is health education good enough and will public health provision in the new NHS be effective enough?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we will see a strengthened public health role in the NHS reorganisation that will come into effect on 1st April. The principal public health authority will be at primary care trust level. I would expect primary care trusts to take a vigorous approach to health promotion. In addition, the alcohol strategy to be introduced in 2004 will place some emphasis on young people and the kind of message that we must get over to them.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the national treatment agency for drug misuse. Does the Minister think that having a national drugs strategy with targets and a national treatment agency will help to support the treatment of drug misuse? Would it be applicable to the treatment of the misuse of other substances, including alcohol?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the potential of the strategy and the targets. The question of whether the NTA's remit should include alcohol treatment services has been discussed by the NTA with Ministers. We hope to make an announcement about that shortly.

Amateur Sports Clubs
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to confer charitable status on amateur sports clubs.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, it is for the Charity Commission to decide whether amateur sports clubs may successfully apply for charitable status under the revised criteria that were announced last November.
1348
The Government's proper role is to ensure that clubs that may consider applying have access to clear guidance and advice. The Minister for Sport is working to that end with the Charity Commission, Sport England and other interested parties.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the vast majority of sports clubs would be dismayed at being able to go down only the charity route? Even the Charity Commission has made it clear that, in addition to the administrative burden, only about 5 per cent of clubs would qualify. Is the Minister also aware that the vast majority of clubs would much prefer the policy published by the Treasury last November; namely, a tax relief package, including 80 per cent mandatory rate relief? Will the Government reconsider that issue?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are aware that some amateur sports clubs would prefer a new tax regime to charitable status. However, if clubs seek charitable status and are designated as charities, they will benefit from 80 per cent mandatory business rate relief, as well as other smaller benefits. It would be a pity if amateur sports clubs did not take up that option, when it becomes available, and I would encourage them all to do so. The benefits would be substantial.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that charitable status is not a real option, in view of the complexities of the process? A great many yacht clubs could be involved in the process, and the adoption of the CASC tax relief scheme would discriminate against the larger clubs, which, arguably, are of more benefit to their local community. It would discourage them from growing and developing, in stark contrast to the encouragement given by the Ministers for health, education and sport.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know that there would be a particular problem for yachting clubs. To obtain charitable status, amateur sports clubs must have open membership, must be organised on a permanent, non-commercial basis and must have as their primary purpose the promotion of participation in an activity that promotes healthy recreation.
The procedure for obtaining charitable status will not be as difficult as has been suggested. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport is working with the Charity Commissioners to devise a relatively simple procedure for amateur sports clubs that make an application. The Charity Commissioners are committed to trying to process applications quickly. Once that is done, the clubs concerned should have no difficulty in obtaining the benefits.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in pursuing the answer that she has just given, can the Minister say whether it is likely that extra resources will be made available for that purpose? The number of community amateur sports clubs that may seek charitable status if

1349
they are forced down that route will run to tens of thousands. There is serious concern that the delay and obfuscation that might result from that deluge of applications could impede the registration process and, generally, be expensive and time-consuming for small clubs.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, extra resources will be provided, so that clear, simple guidance is available to the smaller amateur sports clubs that wish to seek charitable status on how to go about doing so.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, pursuant to the Minister's Answer, do the Government agree with the policy objective of parity with charity for all voluntary sports organisations?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understand the basis of that question, unless it is about whether clubs involved in activities for which the criterion of healthy recreation may be more difficult to demonstrate may be left out. That may be behind the noble Lord's question.
The Performance and Innovation Unit is considering the case for sport becoming a charitable purpose in its own right. That review will be completed before the summer. The PIU is addressing that central issue.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the ability of amateur sports clubs to work effectively and to function competitively, even if on a comparatively low level, will not be impeded by the introduction of any criteria attached to acquiring charitable status?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I can give the House that assurance.

Chlamydia
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to stem the rise in chlamydia infections.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we will start to phase in a national chlamydia screening programme later this year to reduce undiagnosed infections. In addition, to improve awareness of sexually transmitted infections and how to avoid them, a new mass media safer sex campaign is planned for the autumn.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging news and welcome the fact that some action is now to be taken. However, when does my noble friend think a national screening programme will be made available for all women, in particular in light of the fact that Chlamydia
1350
is a non-identifiable disease in sufferers and can have very serious consequences, including the risk of infertility? In the meantime, will resources be made available for a sustained, high-profile national education campaign to increase awareness among women of the seriousness of this problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's question about a national campaign, the answer is yes. As a part of the roll-out of our sexual health strategy, on which consultation has just been completed, an educational campaign will begin in the autumn. Also in the autumn we intend to introduce a screening programme in around 10 areas of the country. Obviously, we shall learn from that experience and hope to introduce programmes in other parts of the country as soon as possible thereafter. However, I cannot yet confirm when the whole country will be covered.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, are the Minister and his department demonstrating a proper sense of urgency? The national strategy was published last July. As we know, chlamydia can have the health consequences described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, but we arc promised a national awareness information campaign only later this year, over a year after the national strategy was published.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the national strategy opened with consultation over a six-month period which finished towards the end of last year. We are now carefully considering the document covering the results of that consultation. We shall publish an action plan in the late spring. Furthermore, as part of the roll-out of the action plan, we shall introduce a major awareness campaign in the autumn. Large campaigns of this kind need to be planned well in advance and in the light of comments received as a result of the consultation process.
With regard to the screening programme, two pilot studies have been undertaken, one in Portsmouth and the other in the Wirral. We need to analyse carefully the results of those pilots. That is now being done. It is then proposed to run further pilot schemes in 10 other parts of the country, commencing this autumn. That represents careful planning and careful analysis and, I believe, reflects the fact that the Government remain exercised about the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether the national strategy in this regard proposed for England will be introduced in parallel in the National Health Service in Scotland?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot speak for the health service in Scotland, but we do work very well together. Obviously, officials in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish health service will be made aware of our proposed campaign. I shall seek to ensure that everything possible is done to coordinate our activities.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this infection, chlamydia, is the single most

1351
common cause of infertility in women, as well as being a prime cause of pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancies? Incidence of the infection is rising. In the pilot studies referred to by my noble friend, infection was found in around 8 per cent of young women of sexually active age. Given that, does my noble friend further agree that a national screening programme, which would go a long way towards detecting the disease, followed by treatment which is both simple and effective, is now essential?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Evidence gathered from the pilot studies indicates that the prevalence of disease among females in the target age range was 8.5 per cent in Portsmouth and 8.7 per cent in the Wirral. The studies also showed that almost 20,000 people were tested during the one-year programme, which covered 50 per cent of the Portsmouth female age range of 16 to 24 years and 38 per cent of the same age range in the Wirral. Those figures indicate both the prevalence of the disease and the issues that need to be tackled in order to deal with it, such as the need for effective screening programmes. Most important, however, is that the pilot studies have demonstrated the practicality of introducing a general screening programme.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that men can also catch chlamydia? Will they be included in the screening programmes? Furthermore, can men also become sterile as a result of this infection?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, men are not affected by chlamydia, but the consequence of infection is that the disease can be passed on to partners. That is why it is important to take men into account in the programmes. I understand that in the pilot studies undertaken in Portsmouth and the Wirral, some men did attend for screening. In addition, although inevitably the health promotion programme will focus on women, we shall also encourage men to take advantage of the services that will be offered.

Rail Performance
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Astorasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why three trains in every 10 ran late in the last quarter of 2001; and whether sufficient ministerial attention is being given to this problem.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, rail performance is subject to strong seasonal variations. The drop in performance last autumn was in line with the usual seasonal decline, but it is clear that the performance last autumn simply was not good enough. My right honourable friend the
1352
Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has made it clear that improving train performance and reliability is a priority.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that nothing has changed and that we are still being given the old autumn excuse of "leaves on the line"? Given that, what progress has been made in determining the future of Railtrack? While Railtrack is in its present situation, it is obviously difficult for it to move ahead. Can the Minister also tell the House what funding the administrator has received so far in order to complete the process of the sale of Railtrack? Will he give an assurance that sufficient funding will be made available to complete that process?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, progress made in relation to administration is obviously in part a matter for the administrator. He shares the Government's hope that the process will be completed as quickly as possible. As my right honourable friend has said, the Strategic Rail Authority is sponsoring a bid team assembled under the leadership of Ian McAllister to develop a bid based on the concept of a "company limited by guarantee". Interest has also been shown by other bodies.
With regard to the financial issues, upon making the administration order, Her Majesty's Treasury agreed to make a loan of £2.1 billion to Railtrack. It was provided to enable the administrator to discharge the administration creditors and to keep the rail network operational. This funding agreement was designated to keep Railtrack both liquid and functioning in administration, and business went on on the usual basis. It was always envisaged that the loan would be repaid once the Government had secured state aid, which they did in February. Railtrack and the administrator are currently in discussions with the banking community to arrange the refinancing of the loan. The Government will get their money—taxpayers' money—back with interest.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, reverting to the noble Viscount's original Question, does my noble and learned friend recall that one of the main virtues of the privatisation promoted and put through by the party opposite was that it would entirely remove ministerial involvement in the management of the railways? Given that, perhaps this is a rather odd question for the noble Viscount to ask today. Is he aware that many noble Lords on these Benches feel that the most important contribution that Ministers can make towards getting the trains to run on time is to choose the right people to run the industry? The appointments of Richard Bowker as chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and John Armitt as chief executive of Railtrack have been universally welcomed in the industry.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the second part of my noble friend's question, I too very much welcome the appointments of Mr Armitt and

1353
Mr Bowker and I agree that those appointments have been widely welcomed throughout the industry. The effect of administration has been to compel Railtrack to focus on its core activity; that is, to work for the good of rail users. Perhaps I may quote from Nigel Harris, the managing director of the publication entitled Rail. In the edition of 6–19th March he stated that:
"Administration has finally both compelled and allowed Railtrack to prioritise on its core job".
With regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I shall not be tempted to join with him in describing the noble Viscount's question as "odd".
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I declare an interest in that this morning I was a passenger on the Yorkshire Pullman, which nowadays is the 6.40 a.m. train from Skipton to King's Cross. From Leeds and Wakefield and then on to King's Cross, the train ran almost one hour late. Apparently the delay was due to the train not having left the depot on time; it was not clear whether it was the train that had not woken up or whether it was the driver.
Will the Minister join me, first, in congratulating Great North Eastern Railways—perhaps not on this morning's Yorkshire Pullman—but on its proposal to introduce in its new timetable a half-hourly service for much of the day between Leeds and King's Cross? However, would he also agree that there is no point in having the most visionary timetable in the world if the trains then in fact run an hour late?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that one of the important objectives for which we should aim is reliability—that is, consistency with a timetable. It would be unwise for me to comment on what the right timetable would be for the Great North Eastern Railway.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, has any estimate been made of the economic cost to the country of these horrendous delays? If not, is it not time that we had such an estimate? While the Government are making that estimate, should they not also make an estimate of the economic cost of delays on the motorways?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know whether or not such an economic estimate has been made in relation to either the railways or the motorways. I do know, however, that it should be—and is—a priority of the Government to ensure that those delays are eradicated as quickly as possible.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if politicians spent less time intervening in the day-to-day management of the railways, that might give the management of the railways more time to solve some of the problems?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have placed Mr Bowker at the head of the
1354
SRA and Mr Armitt at the head of Railtrack and left them to get on with the task of making the trains run reliably.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the reliability figures for the last period show that Railtrack's share of delays has gone down? Does he agree that that is probably because Railtrack plc and Group have been separated and that the plc people can now concentrate on running the railway? Is he aware—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—that the most reliable service on the network is operated by Consignia Royal Mail trains?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question. I shall write to him about that. The share of performance delays between Railtrack and the train operating companies remained little changed. There was a 2 per cent rise in Railtrack's share during the quarter, but that is typical of the autumn period.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the only government who have had any success in making trains run on time was that of Benito Mussolini? Is it the policy of either his party or the party opposite to induce a dictatorship such as that of Benito Mussolini?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is certainly not the policy of this Government. The noble Viscount will have to ask the Opposition for their view on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, many Members of the House will have noted the noble and learned Lord's difficulty in keeping a straight face when, in his original Answer, he spoke about the normal lessening of services in the autumn. Can he explain to the House the difference between the figures for this last autumn and, say, the previous two autumns?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very sorry that my cheery disposition caused offence to the noble Lord. I shall seek to look suitably more serious from now on in relation to the Questions that I am asked. As to the figures for the autumn before and the autumn before that, the autumn before was the period immediately after Hatfield and so the performance during that autumn was probably worse than this autumn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister convinced that it was entirely sensible for the ownership of the trains to be separated From the ownership of the tracks? If so, why?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, in a spirit of inquiry, draws attention to the decision made by his party to separate the two. Obviously the administrator is looking at the next

1355
stage of the process. As to whether or not it was sensible to separate trains and track, there are differing views on that issue.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, about 25 years ago, my father wrote a short poem on this subject? The poem was:
"Do you remember in 1908,
Long, long ago, long ago,
When the post was on time and the trains never late,
Long, long ago, long ago".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness's father had written a poem.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say what capacity restraints, such as those imposed on the Welwyn viaduct, have been recently eliminated? What plans are there for further elimination of capacity restraints?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question. I shall write to the noble Earl.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that later today my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will table a Motion on Afghanistan to be debated in the House next week on Monday, 25th March. The Motion will ask the House to take note of developments in Afghanistan and the war on global terrorism. The debate will follow the Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It will not be time limited and a speakers' list has been placed in the Government Whips' Office.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Brennan set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Parekh to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Corporate Regulation
3.6 p.m.
Lord Brennanrose to call attention to recent corporate failures and to the case for regulatory and other action to maintain public confidence in business and accountancy; and to move for Papers.
1356
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the heart of this debate is the human vice of greed. The levels of greed in the corporate sector have led to very severe hardship for ordinary people and to the loss of jobs, savings, homes and pensions. Such excesses in the corporate system can and should be dealt with by regulatory or other action.
What is the nature of the problem? Enron collapsed in probably the greatest corporate failure of our times leaving debt of 60 billion US dollars. It has put paid to one of the big five accounting firms employing more than 200,000 people world-wide. It is not an understatement to say that this is a seminal moment in the history of modern capitalism.
In the 1980s and 1990s we moved from an historical approach to business, where corporate effort was directed at firm structures, a steady hand on the tiller and a reasonable interest—but not obsessive interest—in profit. As we came towards the end of the century, we entered an era where the sole objective of much of business was ever-increasing annual profit. That difference in the ethos of business is the real explanation for the disaster of Enron.
This profit mania was worked under the rubric of shareholder value. The very objectives of decent shareholders—to make a reasonable return on their investment—became the millstone that the corporate structure in the case of Enron hung around its neck. It is simply impossible, year by year, evermore to increase your profit regardless of the world around you. But, by the turn of the century, many thought otherwise. Such a belief leads to failure. Enron was that failure.
It is not only an American failure. ICI has lost more than £400 million; Andersens employs 6,000 to 7,000 people in this country. The international ramifications of what has happened are very serious indeed. Asked by me, a friend in the financial world tried to explain what has happened in human terms in this way.
The executive, imbued with market fever, intent on making ever greater profits, becomes addicted to the task. The addiction is fed, perfectly reasonably, by the banks, which expect a return on their investment, and in this case the accountant—the "GP", who is there regularly to check on the presence or absence of serious symptoms—completely missed the problem, or chose not to diagnose it. So, in the end, the community—the "family", the "relatives" in the metaphor of the addict—entirely without expecting it, with no preparation at all, find that the addict has exploited his money and theirs to satisfy his addiction. So the problem can be translated into community terms. That is the aspect about which I propose to speak.
The first, and obvious, question to ask in this House is: could such a thing happen in our country? I regret to say that it already has. Within the last year or two, an independent insurance company collapsed in a sector of the financial world which is supposed to be the most heavily regulated in auditing terms. In response to the question, "Could it happen here?", Sir

1357
Howard Davies, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, in an article in the Guardian on 2nd February, frankly stated:
"The only honest answer is yes".
How could it happen here? The Government, very sensibly, are intent on investigating, having set up in February a review of the role of auditors and an investigation of the independence and effectiveness of non-executive directors, helped as they will he by the new Financial Accounting Foundation, the independent regulator for accountants.
If it could happen here, how can we reform corporate systems in an attempt to ensure that it does not happen; and, if it does, that the impact is reduced to the bare minimum? I turn to the issue of company systems. Cadbury in 1992, Greenbury in 1995, Hampel in 1998, and the Government in 2002 have all investigated the same basic question: how can we make companies work honestly and fairly in the interests of the community?
I shall not anticipate many of your Lordships' contributions to the debate, but here are some of the obvious topics for debate. The audit committees of a company must be made to work. Off balance sheet accounting, the absence of employee share options and their value in accounts, the deep complexity of derivatives not fully explained, and an inconsistent treatment of revenue are all obvious factors which an audit committee could, and should, examine, along with company auditors.
Secondly, if it is felt that local authorities should have their auditors independently appointed by the Audit Commission—as now happens throughout the country—is it not reasonable that some similar system should operate in the private sector? I put the proposition forward. If it is wrong, I eagerly await the reasons why; but I hope that the concept behind it will not be ignored by those who seek to deal with this. The intent is that the auditing function can be separated from executive influence by the company.
I am pleased to note that Sir Howard Davies has set in progress this year several schemes or reviews to assist better control of company systems. There is already a very strict control of the auditors of financial institutions under the FSA. They propose to review their listing rules and I imagine that, in due course, they will establish appropriate disclosure rules, especially for the complexities of accounting which I have described. Above all, in company systems, let us ensure that the concept which I now understand to be commonly used in the City of "financial engineering" is never just that step ahead of the law, the regulator and the tax system.
If companies are to be audited, how can we make the auditors more effective in what they should do? Under our present statutory system, they are a watchdog for investors only in the sense that they determine, vis-à-vis the company and themselves, whether they can issue an auditing certificate of good accounting. But they have no separate duty, no separate obligation to individual shareholders, creditors or employees. That is a serious deficiency in the system.
1358
What should happen with auditors and the companies that they audit? Is it acceptable that you audit on Monday as an independent accountant and advise the company on Tuesday, as an accountant to that company, on its investment strategy? Most ordinary people would conclude that the conflict of interest is so obvious that it could hardly occur in the business world—and yet it does.
What should we think about the rotation of auditors? What should we think about auditors leaving their accounting firm to become a consultant or employee of a company, and their previous accounting firm continuing as the auditors? I invite the House to note with particular care the following stark reality. Out of the 250,000 accountants that we presently have—ever-increasing, always present in times past—no firm of auditors of any size has ever detected a corporate failure of any size by its auditing activity. That is simply amazing.
If we are to have effective auditors, the key principle upon which they must act in the future is surely the interests of the community affected by the affairs of the company that they are auditing, and not the interests of the company with which they are dealing.
Lastly, and most importantly, if such problems continue to occur—and human nature makes it inevitable—how can we seek to influence those in corporate life better to appreciate, and more enthusiastically to seek to avoid, the damage that they can cause to the community by their activities if reasonable activity descends, or ascends as the case may be, to excess? The answer to my rhetorical question must be better corporate governance, with responsible corporate behaviour in the community.
I put forward three propositions. Every company should be ethically governed and act responsibly towards the community in which it operates, whether nationally or internationally. We are not hidebound by a company law system created in the 19th century that treated the only relevant relationship as that between a company, its shareholders and its auditors. We have gone far beyond that in our multinational world.
The second proposition is to have the International Accounting Standards Board and its American counterpart seek to reach agreement.
Thirdly, many companies seek to act responsibly. I endorse their efforts and hope that feature will evermore be present in our national corporate life.
Milton Friedman, with remarkable and unacceptable candour, once answered a question about the basis of business thus: "What kind of society is not structured on greed?" I answer, not my kind of society. I adopt the wisdom of Lord Weinstock when in charge of the General Electric Company. He observed that profit was not a target but a residual—the end result of doing the right things in the right way. That is the expectation that we should have as a society of corporate activity serving the community. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for raising this issue. I congratulate him on his success in bringing it to your Lordships' attention. I declare an interest as a member of audit committees of a number of companies and a former partner, now consultant, of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
I wish to address my remarks to the responsibilities of directors—in particular, members of the audit committees of boards—in ensuring proper financial control and regulation of the companies they serve in the interests not just of shareholders but of society as a whole. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he identifies the importance of the role of directors and audit committees in particular.
On 27th February the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, announced the setting up of an independent review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors in the United Kingdom. That review is important and has been a long time coming. I am sure that your Lordships welcome the Secretary of State's announcement and hope that she will name the chairman of the committee as soon as possible, so that it can get under way.
The Secretary of State said that the independent review will examine the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors in the UK and will report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Secretary of State. The review will consider in particular strengthening the UK framework for how companies operate. I take that to mean that the review will look at how best to prevent a collapse such as that of Enron happening in this country. Sir Howard Davies asked whether that might possibly happen. The answer is, yes it could. Is it likely to happen? We can take steps by legislating and following the initial work of the Cadbury committee in 1992 for ensuring best practice to make certain that such a collapse is unlikely to happen.
The term "non-executive director" is misleading and I hope that we shall stop using it in this country. It creates the impression that the so-called non-executive director is a second-class director of a company; that he or she has fewer responsibilities than other members of the board. That is not true. A non-executive director is as much a director as the chairman, executive chairman or chief executive officer.
The term "non-executive director" conjures up a comfortable perk—as it was sometimes known to be a decade or more ago. In today's world, that is not the case. In our largest companies, the role of the so-called non-executive director is arduous and needs to be defined more clearly. The days when ex-politicians—let alone ex-accountants or distinguished members of the Bar Council such as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—could be expected to join companies easily in the role of a non-executive director have gone. It is a demanding job and there is a shortage of competent people willing to take on the responsibilities involved.
1360
I hope that the review will recommend increased training and guidance for all directors but particularly members of board audit committees. That follows the lines of the excellent Myners report of last year. Its recommendations concerning the pension fund industry and the role and responsibilities of trustees have been accepted by the Government.
I am grateful to Paul Myners for reminding me that a recent poll showed that one-third of pension fund trustees in this country were unclear whether a fall in interest rates meant that bond values rose or fell—a disturbing fact but true.
As to the key aspects of training that will help to improve the climate of financial regulation, directors—particularly those who are independent of full-time management—should ask the right questions at the appropriate time. Directors should have explained to them their responsibilities under corporate law and the fact that they have a direct responsibility to shareholders—as do auditors. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, did not mean to imply that auditors are accountable only to the management of a company. By statute law, they report to the members of a company—the shareholders.
I pay tribute to the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England of Wales and many others for the steps they have taken to improve the training of directors. But there is a long way to go.
When the Secretary of State made her announcement on 27th February, she expressed the hope that the review's focus would be primarily on improving best practice. I hope that the review will consider changing our statute law—specifically, the basis of operation of audit committees. An audit committee is a sub-committee of a board and has responsibility for dealing directly with the auditors and internal auditors of a company. It must also satisfy itself on behalf of the board that the audit is independent and that proper steps have been taken by the auditors to ensure that a fair picture of the company's results is presented.
The auditors look retrospectively, not prospectively, which is one reason for it not being surprising that it is difficult to find examples of auditors identifying the imminent or possible collapse of a company. Auditors often look at three, six or nine months of historical perspective—not into the future, which is the job of others.
We should encourage the independent committee to consider proposing in statute the responsibility of boards of directors, certainly of listed companies, to appoint a sub-committee—the audit committee—to discharge the responsibilities of financial regulation and oversight over the audit. That ought to be a statutory responsibility. At the moment, it is best practice. The code followed in recent years by listed companies in this country states that the annual report must include a statement if an audit committee has not been appointed. I believe that that should be a universal requirement.

1361
I believe that audit committees should have a majority of independent directors and a statutory right of independent access to the auditor of the company so that they can not only challenge but support the auditor when misgivings, wrongdoings or concerns are expressed or alleged.
I believe that the audit committee itself should have a responsibility to report in the company accounts directly to shareholders, and therefore directly to the wider community, about whether it is satisfied that the audit is independent. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, drew attention to the fact that some auditors perform non-audit services and argued that that could in some ways impede independence because of the pressure that companies could bring to bear on the auditor. I believe that it should be the responsibility of the audit committee so to report. I also very much agree with the opinion of the Association of British Insurers, which has been circulated to some noble Lords, on that point.
We should be realistic in our expectations of boards of directors, audit committees, auditors and lawyers. We can, however, take steps in a future review of company law to place clearer and more specific responsibilities on audit committees.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House when the office of non-executive director came into existence? When I took my examinations some 70 years ago, there was no such office as non-executive director.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I very much agree with the thought that lies behind that intervention. The arrangement is not enshrined in company law, but it has become common currency to refer to directors who are not in full-time management as "non-executives". I believe that that is wrong and that it should cease.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, before beginning, I must first declare my interests. My business interests are as set out in the Register of Members' Interests, but my most relevant interest in relation to this topic is the fact that I am a former chairman of KPMG—one of the so-called big five—and continue as a paid adviser to that firm.
I must confess that I approach this Motion with a great deal of sadness. When I joined the accountancy profession 40 years ago, it was a profession held in high esteem. In those days, my girlfriends' mothers were quite keen on having a prospective chartered accountant as a son-in-law. That is not the case today; it is certainly not the case for Lady Sharman. Today, the accountancy profession faces the greatest crisis in its history. The reputation of Arthur Andersen, which has taken 90 years to build, lies in tatters, destroyed in 90 days. The indictment of a firm of accountants for obstructing the course of justice in the USA will, if sustained, leave a stain on the global accounting profession that will take many years to remove.
1362
As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, the key factor in all this has been the collapse of Enron—the largest corporate failure in the history of the USA, if not the world, resulting in the loss of livelihood and pension for many thousands of people. I do not have the time to engage in a detailed analysis of how Enron developed, nor of how it failed. Suffice it to say that it was an unusual set of circumstances and that, as early as March 2001, Fortune magazine was pointing out the organisation's frailty. Clearly, however, it was a failure in corporate management—a house that is built on sand will not survive once the foundations start to move—which was compounded by a failure in corporate governance. Clearly the Enron board did not ask enough questions nor exercise enough control over the management.
Noble Lords who have sufficient time to look at Enron's financial statements—about six weeks should do—will see buried in the notes all sorts of disclosures. Although the situation could by no stretch of the imagination be said to have been hidden, it was very difficult to interpret. That was made possible by an auditing failure. At a minimum, the circumstances leading to the massive restatement of reported earnings, in late 2001, should have been identified and prevented. I believe that that was all made possible by poor regulation and inadequate accounting rules. This series of failures was compounded by what is alleged to be the wholesale destruction of evidence—the shredding—by the auditors, the very people who are supposed to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, the watchdogs. They are supposed to be the ones who exemplify independence, objectivity and probity. It is therefore little wonder that public confidence in them has taken a knock.
It is very convenient to remind ourselves that all this happened in the USA. However, that begs a question to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, Sir Howard Davies has given an honest answer: "Yes, it could happen here". There are, however, two key factors in the Enron affair that I do not think could he present here. First, our approach to accounting principles is highly beneficial, entailing principles based on substance rather than mere form and detailed rules. When one devises a set of rules, the first thing that others do is start spending a lot of time figuring out how to get round those rules.
The second factor—a key one in Enron's collapse—is companies' use of their own shares as security for borrowings and to fund their retirement programmes. The use of own shares as debt security is relatively uncommon in the USA, but it is almost unknown in this country. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, the use of own shares to fund retirement programmes is of course controlled by the MFR—minimum funding requirement—and is limited to 5 per cent of any pension plan.
As I said, however, let us make no mistake about the situation. When the Financial Times calls in a leader, as it did on 13th March 2002, for the potential "Fat Four"—a new term for your Lordships—to spin off their consultancy businesses and to be banned from doing non-audit work for audit clients, we have a deep

1363
crisis in public confidence. The issue is what we should be doing about it. Management is the first point. I know of no process other than good training to make incompetent management competent. I also know of no means other than counselling to make corrupt management not corrupt. So we have to rely on governance.
Many have said that the UK's corporate governance system, as it has developed, is thorough and should be seen as a role model for the rest of the world. I join those who have said that we probably have about reached the overdose level on corporate governance reviews—from Cadbury, through Hampel and Greenbury, to Turnbull. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that we really do have to examine the issue of the so-called non-executive director. We have to consider how many such appointments people can sensibly handle. We have to examine whether full-time executives can take more than one or two non- executive appointments, as they are called. We have to examine the desirability, or otherwise, of cross-directorships. I should also hope that the review will come up with something approaching a better definition and understanding of the role and responsibilities of so-called non-executive directors who do not spend all their time on a board.
We clearly need to look at auditor independence and regulation. I hope that the major firms and their professional bodies will understand the depth of this crisis. There needs to be much more transparency in their affairs. I am deeply disappointed that other major firms did not follow the example of KPMG and Ernst & Young in publishing audited financial statements. It is transparency that generates public confidence and an understanding of what these people are about. These firms each employ upwards of 10,000 people in the UK and have a significant role in our economy. Why should their financial statements not be audited and published to the same standard required of the public companies on which they report? There would he one benefit aside from the rest, which is that proper financial disclosure and segmental reporting would once and for all resolve the issue of whether auditing is used as a loss leader.
Progress has been made on regulation. Although I find it complex, with all the bodies involved, I think that there is a further step to consider. The key body is funded by the accounting companies themselves, but I think that the Government should consider taking over that funding which would get us away from the notion that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
A further step in transparency that should be considered is that the quality control reports carried out by the joint monitoring unit on those firms that audit public companies should he made public. I recommended that in my report, Holding to Account for the C&AG last year. There is no reason why that could not be extended to those firms that have a role in public companies.
I do not have time to comment on other issues such as the rotation of auditors. All our knowledge and experience leads us to believe that that will not work.
1364
It is better to focus on the rotation of audit personnel. Clearly we need to look at arrangements for former audit partners joining their clients, and to consider the role of the audit committee in determining what fees should be paid to accountants and auditors for other than audit services.
Before concluding, I wish to make the observation that it is difficult to be prescriptive because in regulated industries, in particular, large amounts of work flow from the audit function itself, such as reports for regulators and so on. They are not audit fees and are not disclosed as such.
In conclusion, it is clear that the auditing profession needs to take a very close look at itself in the light of the Enron affair. Let us not forget that it was not only the board of directors, management and auditors who were involved in that shambles. Investment bankers, lawyers and other advisers were clearly involved as well. We must not over-concentrate on any one of the villains in that piece. There is quite a large cast of characters to look at.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I gently remind the House that there are three minutes in the gap. This is absolutely no criticism of anyone, but unless everyone keeps fairly close to the nine-minute limit, we shall have very little time for the wind-up speeches.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for this debate because it highlights certain crucial principles, which I believe are essential to the healthy functioning of our society. I would not presume to go into the detail of what kinds of regulatory and other action is necessary to maintain confidence in business and accounting, but there are a few fundamental points that are relevant to the issue.
First, there is the value of business and the business community to society as a whole. There was once an anti-business mood in this country. People believed that it was best to be born with a large estate, but if one did not have that good fortune, the second best thing was to make a lot of money quickly in order to buy one and then get out of business. In recent years attitudes to business have, quite rightly, been much more positive. It is vital that society feels good about its core activity. If people who work in business, or the rest of the community feel ill at ease with the work on which society depends, it sets up a tension that cannot be healthy. It matters that there is public confidence in business and accountancy.
I do not believe, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, does, that the business of business is simply to make money. Of course a business must be profitable, but I think that the mission statement of Dayton Hudson, the American retailing firm, is right when it says:
"The business of business is serving society, not just making money. Profit is our reward for serving society well. Indeed, profit is a means and measure of our service—not an end in itself".

1365
The work of Charles Handy highlights the fact that most people who work in business do not want to work simply for the bottom line. They want to do something that they regard as worth while and which has meaning. Business is a worthwhile activity in principle. I always very much enjoy talking to groups of business people. There is a note of reality in the air, for if they do not succeed the company goes bust. That is very salutary for a mere talker.
If the first point is the value of business, the second is its values. Just because business has value, it is all the more important to ensure that its activities reflect and are permeated by its core values. One of the encouraging features of business over recent decades is the number of companies that have adopted mission statements, ethical codes and statements of best practice. Of course, no doubt some are simply there to reassure shareholders when they look on the inside of the glossy front cover of the annual report. But even that is better than nothing, for as the Duc de Rochefoucauld said:
"Hypocrisy is the tribute that the vice pays to virtue".
Other businesses, some of which are our most profitable, take these themes extremely seriously. They have not just been jotted down on the back of an envelope by the chairman during a boring part of a meeting, but are the result of a process of long consultation throughout the company and are subject to regular monitoring. My questions in relation to recent scandals would be as follows. What publicly stated principles did those companies have? How were those principles drawn up in the first place, and what steps were in place for monitoring them? I do not know the answers; I should be interested to hear them. My guess is that companies with such codes, agreed on after extensive consultation and subject to monitoring, need very little, if any, exterior regulation. My guess is also that such companies are among our most successful.
Clearly, however, some companies need regulation. Greed, compliance with a culture of conformity and cowardice are part of us all. In an article in the Telegraph last month, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, pointed to the excesses of particular forms of capitalism and businesses that are less devoted to the production of goods and services that people need and want than to speculative buying and selling of things that no one can touch and which few understand. We need to be reminded of the danger that the pursuit of wealth turns into an end in itself as the need to see profits rise and rise becomes a temptation to excess and selfish irresponsibility. In relation to that temptation and perennial danger, regulation will always be necessary.
A few years ago the noble Lord, Lord Laing, and I co-operated to produce a booklet entitled The value of business and its values. As I have tried to suggest, the two halves of this sentence go together. They are integrally related and reinforce one another. Business has value and therefore it will want to be shaped and permeated by a set of values; and, vice versa, being shaped by a set of values will enhance a sense of the value of the work as a worthwhile human endeavour.
1366
The more perceptive were those who in the 1980s argued in favour of a market economy—some of whom came from all sides of this House. They argued that in order for a market economy to work properly it depends on, and is underpinned by, a set of values. Therefore, it is not just individual companies that need such values. To function appropriately, the whole market economy does so, too. For example, markets depend on contracts, but the efficacy of contracts depends on the assumption that they will he honoured. As the social thinker Durkheim said:
"Not everything in the contract is contractual".
In short, if one makes a business agreement concerned with the exchange of goods or services, there is an unspoken moral assumption behind that agreement—agreements should be honoured.
Regulation, whether internal or external, is necessary, for two reasons. First, it stops rogue companies. The drive to excess will always take some people and some institutions close to the line and over it. Secondly, it reinforces good corporate practice. Regulation is necessary and more, or different regulation, may be needed to prevent the recurrence of recent scandals.
My main point is that, in the end, it is the ethos of a company more than anything else that matters. In this life, virtue does not always result in prosperity, but in the field of commerce it is more likely to do so. It will certainly help to avoid some of the financial collapses that we have seen recently.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, corporate failures have always been with us. They are part of an enterprise culture. Competition in the market sorts out the good from the bad.
My noble friend Lord Brennan is right to look at this matter rather more deeply and ask why some firms fail; not because they cannot compete in the market, but because of fraud or other unacceptable practices. As he said, it is a serious matter affecting people's jobs, pensions, savings and livelihoods. It is that kind of failure which affects the relationship between business and the public. The spectacular failures have usually led to some kind of inquiry. As other noble Lords have said, after Maxwell we had Cadbury, then Greenbury followed by Hampel.
All those inquiries concentrated on the role of the non-executive director. Certainly, non-executive directors are expected to watch out for and be alert to any situation which could endanger the business. But they are also expected to set and maintain the strong values referred to by the right reverend Prelate and to set high standards of corporate governance in all areas of the business. Some fulfil that role well, but obviously many do not. I am not sure what the forthcoming review by the DTI of the roles and responsibilities of non-executive directors will add, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I hope that it will do something to provide non-executive directors with the skills and encouragement to do the job of governance better, especially on audit committees.

1367
The difficulty is that non-executive directors are largely dependent upon management for information about the business. If two or three executives decide to hide, distort or falsify information, there is little that a non-executive director can do except to use his or her intuition and then conduct an inquiry. Inquiries are impossible if auditors shred the records. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, I found the shredding of documents by the auditors perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the whole Enron affair.
Auditors are in much the same position of dependence. If there is collusion in a business to hide or falsify information, it requires a lot more than a traditional audit to detect it. That explains the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about major frauds not being detected by auditors. Indeed, the auditors may turn a blind eye to some irregularities. Although legally appointed by the shareholders, the auditors are selected by the directors with whom they want to maintain a good relationship, especially as the directors and managers can also retain them for other work, or even give them a job, as noble Lords have said. Recently, some accountancy firms have taken steps to avoid those conflicts of interest. Like other noble Lords, I welcome that.
What about more detailed accounting rules? Along with the rest of the European Union, we in Britain are committed to adopting international accounting standards fully by 2005, but that still leaves many jurisdictions where sloppy accounting and disclosure rules will apply.
If accountants and non-executive directors cannot stop these corporate failures, what about the regulators? We live in a complex economy and there are limits to regulation. I was in the United States when Enron went bust and was amazed to read in the newspapers that Enron was not really an energy company but a trading company, trading in the futures of 1,200 different products, many of which were totally unrelated to energy and a lot more risky. Yet Enron was regulated by the energy regulator, and those greater risks should probably have been better regulated by the banking regulator.
But if regulation is too tough, so-called investors can always operate outside the disclosure rules by spread betting, which in practice avoids both regulation and tax. So there are limits to regulation. Meanwhile, the banks have to ensure that their share analysts in the assets management arm do not promote the shares of companies with which their banking arm is doing business.
What is it about our business life in this country that has brought all this about? What is it that has created these difficult conflicts of interest? I put it down to the single-minded insistence on shareholder value and its narrow interpretation, as expressed in the share price. My noble friend Lord Brennan called it greed, yet most financial institutions, businessmen, managers and executives insist that the primary purpose of an enterprise is to deliver that narrow version of shareholder value. That takes precedence over
1368
everything. That is what justifies the dodgy deal that violates the code of practice; drives the cosy relationship between the auditors and directors with valuable share options; and makes it difficult for the non-executive director to argue for social responsibility if it stands in the way of the share price. I do not think that new rules for regulators, auditors, and non-executive directors will do a lot to change that. No, the solution lies in changing the culture of a company. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that.
There is nothing new here. As long ago as 1993, the RSA started an inquiry into Tomorrow's Company. It realised that the narrow view of shareholder interest brought only short-term success. The RSA stated:
"Only through deepened relationships with and between employees, customers, suppliers, investors and the community will companies anticipate, innovate and adapt fast enough, while maintaining public confidence."
It defined a new kind of leadership to be put at the centre of all this, acknowledging that it takes entrepreneurship to start a business but adding that inclusive leadership and clear direction prolongs the success of a business by giving it lasting values. Slowly, companies are adopting that approach successfully. That is why some companies, such as Shell, are now auditing their environmental performance and their people performance as well as their financial performance.
Each company needs to develop its own inclusive approach; one which fits its needs. For some years, the centre for Tomorrow's Company has been quietly helping companies to do that. I welcome that. I believe that that bottom-up change of culture is the most practical way to raise public confidence in business and to avoid dramatic business failures.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic today. As one would expect from a distinguished lawyer, there was a powerfully argued case. He rightly drew our attention to the appalling personal consequences inter alia of these major collapses. However, rather than retread the Enron ground, I hope he will forgive me if I come at the issue from a slightly different angle.
I begin by declaring interests present and past. I am currently chairman of an investment bank in the City, and what is called a non-executive director—for the reasons referred to by my noble friend Lord Freeman I prefer to call myself an independent director—of three companies, one of which is listed on the Stock Exchange. Historically, I was a founder director of the Securities and Investment Board, the first City-wide regulatory authority, set up under the Financial Services Act, and until last December was director of the Securities and Futures Authority until it was swept away in the new structure.
I mention those organisations because I want to make clear that I am no Luddite as regards corporate governance. Indeed, a good many of my years within the City have been devoted, in a voluntary capacity, to

1369
raising standards and nailing popular misconceptions. For example, when I first went to work in the City 25 years ago, there used to be a widespread view that insider dealing was a victimless crime. That is far from being the case. Although perpetrator and victim never meet, and will never even know each other, the one has robbed the other as surely as if he had hit his victim over the head and taken his wallet—not as obvious and not as bloody, but just as certain.
Therefore, when people talk about the need to root out fraud, I am there with them. Fraud too, after all, is theft. But in making, and while making, such a condemnation we must be careful to distinguish between fraud and risk. We live in a litigious age. Every night on the television there are advertisements by legal firms inviting one to contact them if one wishes to make a claim.
Too often a risk that goes wrong can be seen as a fraud. None of us likes to believe that our judgment is fallible, so we seek someone to blame. That cannot be right. In commercial dealings there has to be what bankers like to call "the moral hazard", without which people do not take the trouble properly to assess what they are being offered and their own self-interests in accepting the offer.
I talked about popular misconceptions that have been nailed. One that has not been nailed is that regulation comes for free. Probably people feel that, because in many cases there is no charge to the taxpayer, there is no cost. But there is a cost.
I give a brief example from the City concerning the Financial Services Authority. The FSA is the top regulatory body that now controls every aspect of those of us who work in the City. Its budget will be £180 million. It will be paid for by the industry. But the external costs are not the whole cost. There are huge internal costs of complying with the regulations laid down by the FSA. The extent of these have been the subject of learned treatises by the London Business School, Warwick Business School and others. But they work out at roughly two to four times the cost of the external authorisation.
If we take the mid point, it is a cost to the City of around £720 million every year for the present regulatory structure—a short £0·75 billion. Who pays for that? Investors, pensioners, and savers pay, and maybe in the long run UK plc will pay if the sum becomes large enough. A balance has to be struck between too little regulation which drives people away because they fear malpractice in the market and too much regulation which drives them away because of the cost of doing business. If your Lordships feel that the City's position is unassailable I invite you to visit Frankfurt to see the German Government's plans for Finanzplatz Deutschland.
When I previously raised such uncomfortable questions the Minister in his response, quite fairly and properly said to me, "What about Barings bank?" That was 10 years ago. It was before the present regulation. But for the purposes of today's argument let me accept it as a "fair cop". But, interestingly, the total liabilities of Barings at the time of implosion were about £800 million.
1370
We are spending nearly that sum every year on regulation. Are we stopping a Barings a year? We shall never know. The trouble with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about not stopping fraud is that the fraud you stop is never a fraud. That is one of the difficulties.
There are two much more significant points arising out of that comment about Barings. First, we must remember that in the end not a depositor, saver, creditor nor a customer lost a penny. ING bought the business—the market worked. The losers were the shareholders—the moral hazard again.
Secondly, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and other noble Lords who have talked about the need for increased legal statutory regulation, we must not expect that the law will automatically provide a remedy to all these matters.
I was a member of the SFA's enforcement committee which considered the Barings case. It seemed to us on the committee that greed had clearly outrun judgment. Moreover, there was considerable public anger over the way jobs had been saved and, above all, the way that bonuses had been paid. We found our hands tied, not by the old pals act, but by the law. I had never heard of the legal doctrine of "vicarious liability". That principle states that if one asks a subordinate member of staff a question which one has reason to believe he will answer honestly, one is entitled to rely on his answer. However, it became clear that, despite the best legal advice, our powers to proceed and pursue were limited. Our sentences were seen to be inadequate. But even then one senior member of the Barings team was able successfully to attack his sentence and get it expunged, and even force us to pay his costs.
In this country we are in the process of settling down a huge volume of legal and quasi legal codes—the Financial Services and Markets Act and statutory instruments aplenty. There are the voluntary codes of Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel to which many noble Lords have referred. The weight of responsibility on non-executive directors has already become very heavy. They are in danger of reacting by becoming box-tickers rather than by using their judgment, which should be their proper function, as was pointed out a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Unfortunately, one can never be proved wrong as a box-ticker but one can be proved wrong in one's judgment.
Of course there is no room to be complacent. The recent collapse of Enron has clearly raised issues. The implications of that need to be considered carefully. That is why I welcome the noble Lord's debate today. But if every large corporate failure is to be accompanied by an unthinking legislative banging of stable doors behind apparently bolted horses we shall be doing no service to the UK economy or to our competitive position in the world.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I shall use his last minute. I should be grateful if

1371
he could answer a simple question: what is the total size of the funds in the financial system against which £720 million has been spent to regulate it?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, it is minuscule. It is impossible to measure. Probably one-tenth of 1 per cent, depending of course on how one measures it and what one is including; for example, whether one is including foreign exchange transactions. It is hard to get the whole sum. It is an infinitesimal sum, but it is still a large sum.
4.8 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for initiating the debate. I speak in the debate because as a barrister I have been involved in a number of cases dealing with corporate collapses and with the attribution of responsibility. In particular, I have detailed knowledge of the Barings bank disaster, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has just referred.
I agree almost entirely with the noble Lord's diagnosis of what went wrong at Barings. However, I must correct him on one point. It was the bondholders who suffered a grave loss and not the charity shareholders. I do not think that they can be dismissed as people who ought to have known when taking the risk.
The debate has been somewhat dominated by the Enron affair. So far we know little about the matter. However, it must be regarded as a somewhat unusual case. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, would agree that there are not many cases where auditors are found shredding documents. We must not extrapolate from Enron to the generality of business.
I have three particular points. First, we should not assume that whenever a company goes bust someone must be legally and morally at fault. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, it is in the nature of business that some enterprises will fail and that investment involves some degree of risk. Unfortunately, we in this country are now rapidly acquiring a culture of blame that says that because something undesirable has happened, someone must be held liable. That culture and concept is fundamentally misconceived and profoundly damaging. But that perhaps is a wider topic for another day.
My second point relates to the position of what are normally called non-executive directors. It may well be that "independent" is a better term, but there is a real distinction between those who are just directors and those who are also the leading managers of the company and involved in day-to-day management.
In many of the collapses, and certainly in the Barings case, the action or inaction of non-executive directors is wholly irrelevant. Barings was the result of failures of management. If management had applied to its business a reasonable understanding and an ordinary appreciation of risk and return, there would not have been that collapse. But there was nothing in
1372
the Barings case which a board of independent directors, or indeed an audit committee, should have seen or done.
Of course, it is desirable to have good non-executive directors or good independent directors, who have real independence, have an inquiring mind and an understanding of the business. But there is and must be a clear limit as to the extent of their role. Nothing in life can be successfully run by a committee on a day-to-day basis, whether it is a ship of the Royal Navy, an Arctic exploration or a commercial enterprise. If management is subjected to constant supervision and interference by non-executives, or if the auditors are second guessed by an audit committee, not only will enterprises of great pith and moment be sicklied o'er by the pale cloud of debate, but also responsibility will be diffused. Everyone will comfort himself by the fact that others are thinking about it whereas what is needed is a clear allocation of managerial responsibility so that someone knows that the buck stops with him and that it is his job to know whether the facts and figures of his department make commercial sense.
Thirdly, I refer to regulation. There may be, of course, some instances where a specific regulation would prevent a particular abuse, although as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said, one must remember that the ingenious and improper mind will rapidly find a way of avoiding or evading almost any regulation. However, on a much more general point, we must resist the siren call which says, "Something went wrong. We must make rules that ensure that it never happens again". "It must never happen again" is a sound but hopeless cry. One hears it after every rail disaster. Noble Lords stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "We must ensure that it never happens again", but we know as sure as eggs is eggs that it will because one cannot have rapidly moving vehicles, aeroplanes or trains without them occasionally crashing. One cannot have successful entrepreneurial businesses without occasionally a rogue or a fool making them go wrong. To go round saying that it must never happen again is to kid oneself and the public.
There are two great dangers in regulation and particularly in over-regulation. First, those involved in complying with the regulations spend their time ensuring that they have complied with the rules, filling in forms to ensure that the ratios tally with the requirements in the regulations. What they ought to be doing is looking at the fundamentals of the business and considering whether the reports and figures are consistent with the basic principles of commerce. Barings would never have happened if the fools on that board had ever said to themselves, "There is no such thing as a high rate of profit with no risk". Regulations will not teach them that simple lesson.
Secondly, the existence and the role of regulators creates a dangerous and false feeling of security. Time and again the managers in the Barings case have said, "Oh, we know that Singapore, and in particular the financial markets in Singapore, have very strict regulation by very strong regulators. Those regulators are happy and therefore we know that there could not

1373
be anything seriously wrong". Thus insidiously, regulation diffuses and dilutes responsibility from management where the buck should be and should stop.
In all these debates we must never forget the fundamental principle that a good business depends on proper control by a sound and sensible management, which understands the essential rules of sound commerce and applies them to its particular enterprise with a proper understanding of its risk. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, no rules or regulations can make the incompetent or dishonest into beings who are competent and honest.
I do not have time to deal with audits, but I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that it is certainly not true that auditors never detect frauds and irregularities. When they detect them they are put right and one does not see that. It may be that when they are detected before they have got too far they cease to happen. The cases which emerge where auditors have not seen something are the rarity and not the regularity. The problem that auditors have when things go wrong is not that the audit rules are wrong, but that the relatively junior people who are, for reasons of cost, inevitably doing the donkey work, just fail to read the message which is inherent in the fact, perhaps because they have not the experience or the time within the cost to do so.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the whole House will he tremendously indebted to my noble friend for initiating this important debate. We have heard from the world of business, of accountancy, of the clergy even, and from bankers and barristers, and I am the first solicitor to open my mouth. I believe that there will be another soon.
It is very important that the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, govern our attention this afternoon. Of course, we have been blighted by the Enron scandal. It is important that that should occupy our thoughts. But it is not the only issue, as the noble Lord and others have pointed out, that should be important to us. For example, the issue of auditor independence has been cited, and that is very important. The Law Society has given its full attention to the issue and it has also addressed the European Commission Competition Directorate. As a result of those activities the big eight were reduced to the big five as regards the world of accountancy.
It was considered at that time that conflicts of interest could arise, which could have deleterious effects on the issue of competition. Who is to say that the Law Society was wrong then? Is this not still a highly germane issue in the light of the Enron affair?
Solicitors, in particular, have to be conscious of the requirement for independence just as much as auditors do, but independence is viewed in different ways. It is vital that auditors should be able to provide objectivity in viewing the financial position of a client and, for that reason alone, the auditor should not enjoy—or be
1374
seen to be enjoying—a fiduciary duty to the client. As I understand it, this is not always the case in the United States.
A solicitor, on the other hand, has a very different relationship with a client, and I speak here of solicitors who have served on audit committees. Confidentiality to the client is a prime necessity. In other words, the auditor should never get into bed with the company, but the situation may be totally different for the solicitor, although I must stress that adherence to the law remains essential from his or her point of view.
The Enron affair has established a strong case for ensuring that auditors comply fully with a much stricter regulatory regime. They should play no part in misleading shareholders, nor, in my view, should they impair their independence by offering consultancy services that could have that effect.
The problem of consumers being vulnerable to unqualified advisers and fraudulent management companies is vitally important, and the Law Society is not alone in this regard. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has reported an increased number of inquiries from people who have simply failed to understand the terms of the agreements that they have signed with management companies dealing with accident claims. The Blackwell Committee and the Leggatt report have also covered vital matters.
What is especially wrong with accident claim companies is the way in which many of them go about their business. No one has referred to this tonight. For such organisations, the lay client is a burdensome necessity. They are often extremely aggressive, and frequently persuade the client to settle the case on terms that are distinctly disadvantageous to the client. That they do this is, in my submission, entirely beyond doubt.
I turn to the question of tribunals. Unqualified advisers frequently provide inadequate advice and representation in these circumstances, and the client is often persuaded to settle on terms that could, frankly, be considerably improved. I hope that the Government will soon confront these, and other, issues, which are central to the way in which tribunals on personal injury cases are dealt with.
I shall conclude by asking my right honourable friend what I hope are some relevant questions. Will the Government take steps to ensure that qualified lawyers can carry out advice work in contemplation of proceedings before courts or tribunals? As an alternative to that, will the Government require claims management companies and unqualified advisers to stick to a code which would stop sharp practice? I hope that the Government will do their best to ensure that the customer should approve only those who adhere to such basic standards.
The elements of a standards code might well include: a cooling-off period; some indemnity insurance; suitable consumer redress when appropriate; transparency about what the consumer has to pay: a ban on doorstepping potential clients; and a ban on paying claims management staff only on a commission basis. I hope that these questions have been relevant to

1375
the debate. I regret that no one seems to have tackled these important issues. This debate is not only about auditors, or about the Enron affair. It is about a wide variety of matters that are equally important.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I would like to declare an interest as a solicitor, and also as the former company secretary of a major FTSE 100 company. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan on instituting a timely debate, and on a thoughtful, if rather bleak, speech.
I am tempted, unusually, into this area because I believe that, following the events of this year, we have reached a watershed in corporate governance. We have had crises of confidence in corporate governance in the past—I remember particularly well the Robert Maxwell case. I am sure that the Mirror pension scheme is engraved on the hearts not only of many professionals but of many of those affected by the case. There have been attempts to deal with corporate governance in a voluntary way. Many of your Lordships have talked about Cadbury, Greenbury, Hampel, Turnbull—the mantra goes on—and the combined code. There has been a succession of governance and risk management tools to give investors assurance about the governance and risk management of their companies.
Those attempts were worthy, and it is only with some reluctance that I have concluded that the current role of the non-executive director is no longer viable for major PLCs. In the past, we have relied on the non-executive director—sometimes a retired professional or executive, often a busy current full-time executive—to fulfil the role of watchdog on behalf of the shareholders. In reality, however, despite attempts to boost their role through the various codes, that is a quite impossible task, except, perhaps, after a crisis has happened. We have audit committees and remuneration committees, the membership of which is often entirely made up of non-executives, yet abuses have occurred. In fact, it is noticeable how newsworthy it is when a remuneration committee really works and takes a robust line on remuneration, as it has in the Vodafone case, with Penny Hughes in charge of the remuneration committee.
The other frequently cited role of non-executive directors is that of their relationship to shareholders and investors. Chief executives, however, regard that as a major part of their role, as the share price is key to the perception of a company, to the measurement of performance and, indeed, to the chief executive's bonus. Non-executives can and do have a major impact on the social responsibility aspects of a company. But the question that needs to be asked is whether that is more than skin deep.
The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, that executive directors are far better informed than non-executives will ever be. It is no longer tenable that non-executives should have the same legal duties as executive directors. I agreed with a great deal of
1376
what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, had to say, but on that aspect I part company with him. Someone being paid to do, say, one day a month for a major company is hardly in a position to argue with the full-time executives of that major company. Often they are appointed precisely because they will not do so. However, companies get the professional advisers that they deserve.
Though I am happy to discuss future governance of the accounting profession, I do not believe that that is at the root of this problem. Unless the governance of a company is strong, the professional advisers will inevitably see their main route to retaining influence as serving the interests of the executive management team of the company. That is professional and human nature.
How many auditors will actually spill any beans at all to the non-executive audit committee when the executive directors are asked to leave the boardroom, or express doubts about any aspect of the company's financial controls? Therefore I welcome in particular the Secretary of State's announcement on reviewing the role of the non-executive director. I am pleased also that the Secretary of State wants to see more active institutional shareholders following the Myners review.
We already have two types of director who should have different legal duties. We should rapidly move towards a fully effective two-tier board system for our major companies. A supervisory board should be charged with the duty of ethical and financial quality control and governance. That board should be accountable to shareholders for that aspect of the company. The members of the board should be properly remunerated; they should be serviced by staff; and they should he fully supported by legal and financial expertise. There is a good case to have the internal audit function reporting to that supervisory board.
On the other hand, the management board should be responsible for commercial strategy, trading and financial performance. In the words of Patience Wheatcroft, the City editor of The Times, who conducted an effective, sceptical campaign about the role of non-executive directors, the executive directors should walk the plank if they do not perform.
I am a reluctant convert to that structure for a company. I believe that currently non-executives can play a valuable strategic advisory role to boards. But that is as far as it goes. I do not believe that the appointment even of a designated senior non-executive director will do the trick in governance terms.
In summary, I do not believe that we can carry on tinkering about with a bit more corporate governance here and a bit more corporate governance there. If we are genuine about ensuring proper governance, protecting shareholders' interests, managing risks and so on, we need to think more radically. A two-tier governance system deriving inspiration from continental models, but being far more proactive and with responsibilities far more carefully defined, is the best way forward.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an accountant and, some time ago, being the chairman of a moderately sized accountancy body of the kind that was eaten for breakfast, or morning tea, by KPMG. I admit willingly that I have never shredded a single paper. I should also declare an interest in that I am a non-executive chairman of two companies and have been a non-executive chairman and director of others in the past.
I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan for introducing this important debate at this time. We all know that the Enron affair damaged both company boards and the accountancy profession rather more than many of the other failures and serious problems did in the past, for reasons of which we are all aware.
Many major investigations have already taken place by the DTI and the US Congress, and Paul Volcker was brought in by Andersens a bit late to look at what could be done for them. I noted what my noble friend Lord Brennan called "profit mania". I am not too sure about that. Greed certainly could have been one of the causes of the Enron disaster—money is often the root of all evil and that was certainly a problem in which the directors and indeed the auditors seemed to be involved.
That said, it would be nice if, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, we could have a moral value on the boards of companies. However, the code of most of the companies with which I have been involved has been to increase their profits. I do not apologise for that; I understand that that is one of their major functions. I would love it if we could all have moral values, not only boards of companies, but we do not.
I hope, as a member of a company board, that boards take proper account of what is legally sensible and right and what is good corporate governance. But I do not know enough yet about the causes of the Enron affair to be able to advocate more regulation of a statutory kind. It is far too early to say and we should not rush into that kind of legislation. And I do not necessarily go along with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that regulation is positively damaging to corporate bodies. Some action will be needed, not necessarily with statutory regulation, but such action could be taken now before we need to take legal action.
It should be recognised, and I hope it is, that directors of most companies—certainly the ones of which I am aware—and most accountants are perfectly honourable men and women who should not be condemned along with what happened to Enron or Andersens. I am sure that all the accountants in Andersens, other than those directly involved in the issue, are perfectly decent, honourable people. So we have to be careful about who we find guilty in these affairs. We must not allow the Enron affair to besmirch the whole of the accounting profession. Many companies I know would not be happy to have the name of Andersens as their auditors—they may
like KPMG, but I shall come to that.
1378
Clearly, changes are needed. Some FTSE 100 companies and even more, have already appointed internal audit bodies. Those bodies need to be truly independent of the board and the auditors of the company. That is crucial. Otherwise neither the directors nor non-executive directors would know, as somebody said, how to deal with the problems that arise. It may not stop all the fraud and corruption that takes place, but I like to think that it would go a long way towards dealing with some of it. If there is, as there seems to have been in the Enron affair, collusion between a chief executive and the auditors, enormous problems could be created even for a properly appointed internal audit committee.
Much has been said in this debate about non-executive directors. Somebody even referred to them as "so-called" non-executive directors. I can say that a non-executive director is someone who is not an executive. That certainly applied in my case and applies in most. But much attention has been focused on them. The very first question a non-executive director should ask on being appointed is: "Do we have a properly appointed independent internal audit system?". That is crucial because they cannot do the job if they do not have such a body.
After asking that question—and asking if there is proper insurance for directors, of course—we need to know how non-executives are appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman—I have a lot of regard for him℄said that he did not believe that they were now appointed in the way that they were in the past. Again I declare an interest; most of my appointments as non-executive director arose from contacts and connections I had, some no doubt because I was a Peer of the realm and a former Cabinet Minister. It could be that I was appointed on every occasion precisely because I am such a wholly competent person. I would like to think so, but I doubt if that was the reason—at the start anyway. Later, that may have been found to be so. There is no doubt that Peers and former Cabinet Ministers are appointed because of their connections and are not always the most competent of people.
Another person often appointed is the senior auditor of a practice who retires, perhaps early, to take a non-executive directorship. That kind of conflict of interest is clearly serious and it needs to be examined very carefully. There has been talk of a one-year delay between retirement and appointment. Though many of them will do an excellent job, I am not sure about that; it needs to be looked at. We have to ask ourselves whether statutory regulation would help at present. I doubt it.
The other point that has been made throughout the debate, and elsewhere, is whether auditors should do non-audit work. The definition of consultancy is a somewhat difficult one. Much of it stems from the audit work done by a sensible partner who is doing a good job. Should due diligence on an acquisition be given out to someone else to do? There are all kinds of other areas, such as tax work and investment decisions, that are required by a partner and by the company. They will invariably arise in talking with the

1379
partner: a perfectly decent, objective, serious partner. All of that could not be cut out, and we need to look very carefully at what is done in that direction.
The problem of accountancy is the sheer size of it. They are now called the "fat four"—and I am not making any comment about the size of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, but the "fat four" practices of which he is now, I understand, only a consultant. The problem has grown with the size of private companies, mergers, and so on.
It has happened and is happening in the accountancy profession. I checked with someone who was the senior partner of a modest-sized accountancy practice in the UK which merged with Andersen some years ago. They were a so-called alliance of separate partnerships. I asked him today what kind of a partnership it was, because it does vary. To my amazement, he said, "a federal partnership". We spoke about that at Question Time yesterday, and so I will not go into it again. I understand that Andersen itself is an alliance of small partnerships. We should not rush into statutory regulation before we know exactly where we are going and what has happened.
The Association of British Insurers represents, it is said, some 20 per cent of the stock market and so is not a small organisation. The investment fund managers, instead of writing letters to the Prime Minister and printing them in The Times, should think more carefully about what they are doing in their job as investment managers.
With that, I leave it, my Lords, as my time seems to be more than up.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I thank, as others have done, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for introducing this subject, which is very timely. I also declare my interests which are set out in the register. In particular, the membership of the boards of two companies in America, boards of which I have been a member for 10 years and both of which have been audited by Andersen over that period. I must say that the service we have had from them has been of the highest possible standard of integrity.
The subject of today's debate is of enormous importance to anyone who values the market economy. The collapse of Enron, as has been said, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is different from the collapse of almost any other company that I can think of. Its failure on such a massive scale, with such repercussions, casts a cloud over all of us who have any association with business. It has undermined the credibility of the business world. The notion of one of the major five auditing firms in the world shredding documents when in difficulty is so appalling, and so impossible to justify on any ethical basis, that it calls integrity into question on a massive scale. Accountants, lawyers, independent directors, regulators—we all stand indicted because of that.
There are three questions that I find myself asking. First, the numbers which are being thrown up and which reflect the value of a company are being called
1380
into question. Secondly, the validation of those numbers by an external firm is being called into question. Thirdly, the competence of independent directors is being called into question.
I have no desire whatever to be complacent. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said about increased regulation. Perhaps I may say one or two things, however, before making some positive suggestions.
First, an economy which had no failures would, in my judgment, be an economy which was inefficient. It would not be an economy in which companies were taking risks and innovating. What seems to have happened at Enron is a disgrace. Nevertheless, when it started and for the first 10 or 12 years, it made tremendous innovations which have benefited consumers. Secondly, there is no regulatory system in the world which can ever outlaw fraud. If there was fraud in the Enron situation, it is something which, however much we try to change regulations, we shall never outlaw. Thirdly, Enron is not typical of corporations in either this country or in the United States. The remarkable thing is that it is such an exception. There are so many companies, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in which the non-executive directors and the management are very decent, honourable people, who have very high ideals in business.
It has been said that we should think twice before embarking on regulation. Every extra piece of regulation that we impose on a company will involve a cost. The question we have to ask is: do the benefits justify the cost that we will be imposing?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Labour Government in particular caused a number of reports to be made on the aberrant activities of companies and, in that regard, every report had a recommendation.
Does the noble Lord totally ignore that? Is that something which counts for nothing?
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I am not suggesting that such a report is not valuable. What I am suggesting is that we already have, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, an enormous amount of regulation with which companies have to comply. Before we increase regulation as a result of Enron, we would do ourselves well to ask what benefits we can realistically expect from such regulation. That is the simple point that I was making.
The other point I make is in relation to what was said, initially by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel; namely, that we live in a society which is entirely driven by greed and that, as a result, the concept of shareholder value is not a good one. From my perspective of sitting on company boards, shareholder value is necessary as an objective simply in order to survive. When a country the size of China is entering the WTO and exporting their products here, shareholder value is necessary. If we do not pay attention to shareholder value, we will not be in business tomorrow.

1381
In order to achieve that shareholder value, one has to do much more than simply go after profit. Profit is the result of producing a service or a product which people want. It is that which is the value.
I turn to the subject of accountancy and also non-executive directors. In relation to accountancy, many have mentioned possible reforms of the auditing process in order to make it more effective. Mention has also been made of re-tendering of audit work; audit firms not doing consulting; companies not hiring finance staff who were formerly employed by their audit company; non-executive directors appointing auditors, and so on. However, a number of speakers have said, "Let's go easy in this respect".
I believe that Enron has created a crisis of great proportion. In such a crisis, we need very simple rules. The last thing we want is a lot of complexity. If we want to rest ore public confidence, first—this is where I would be in favour of increased regulation—we must have simple rules stating: that every board must have a beauty contest every so many years in order to look at its audit work; and that an audit company cannot undertake consulting for that company. If you start trying to trim, it seems to me that you cannot restore public confidence.
Secondly, when it comes to financial reporting, transparency in terms of the numbers is absolutely critical. I am no accountant, but, although they may be legal, certain current practices also seem to me to be misleading. Let us take, for example, the question of off-balance sheet liabilities. This is really a call to the accounting profession. I believe myself to be reasonably intelligent, but I find the footnotes to some accounts totally impenetrable. In my view, the annual accounts of a company should be providing not just the professional investor but also the average investor with sufficient information to make an informed decision. Financial reporting has a long way to go in that respect.
A few years ago, Warren Buffett said that three questions should be asked by an audit committee of its auditor. First, if the auditors had prepared the accounts, would they basically be different from the way that the company prepared them? Secondly, if the auditors were an investor, would the information provided have been sufficient to make an informed judgment about that company? Thirdly, if the auditor were the CEO, would the internal audit system of the company, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, be something that was up to scratch? There is a further problem for the audit profession; namely, where do you find good auditors? If it is more attractive to be proactive running companies, or to operate in other areas—investment banking, and so on—there is a real problem about getting high quality
people who can examine others, such as the directors of a company like Enron.
Finally, although there is little time in which to say anything, I should like to make one comment. We have seen many reforms of corporate governance in this country. It seems to me that we could have more of those reforms. The Government could play more of a
1382
role in the process and we could limit the role of non-executive directors, but the values of non-executive directors lie at the heart of the issue. You need a CEO and a chairman who have integrity; management that has integrity; and, indeed, a board that has integrity. You cannot regulate in that respect, but you can try to create an ethos within the business community that those are the shared values that apply. If we go down that route, I believe that that will prove to be the way to inspire public confidence.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on introducing this extremely timely debate. In speaking this afternoon, I declare an interest as chairman of a company that seeks to advise other companies about how they should exercise their corporate social responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, talked about the basic human emotion of greed, which drove many of the people at Enron, and in many of the other companies to which he referred, to disaster. I should like to add two other basic human emotions; namely, ambition and pride, which, when mixed with greed, produce a particularly heavy cocktail at the heart of running a big company.
I should like to begin by discussing the role of the accountancy profession. This role is especially important because it is central to the management of all businesses. The effect of Enron has been to undermine confidence in the profession not only in the United States but more generally. Certainly, with allegations of the shredding of documents in the United Kingdom, the industry in this country cannot afford to be complacent; nor will the fact that accountants in this country have to form an overall judgment about the state of a company, rather than simply following set rules, be completely reassuring to many investors.
Post-Enron, things simply cannot continue as before. I share the view of the industry that a knee-jerk response that simply accepted all the possible areas of reform would be inappropriate. But during the course of this afternoon's debate we have heard a number of suggestions that should now be seriously considered. Let us start with the role of the auditor. A number of suggestions have been made in terms of a rotation of auditors. I would not wish to go as far as to have a formal shift or change in the audit company on a regular basis; indeed, where that has been tried in Brazil and Italy, it has not worked. However, there is an argument for having a more frequent rotation of audit staff.
I certainly agree with those speakers who made the point that the practice of former audit partners joining companies that they previously audited—and doing so within a short period of their working in the audit company—either as members of the board or in an advisory capacity, must stop. There is a question over how long a moratorium might be; for example, should it be a year or two years? In my view, it should be at

1383
least two years and there may be an argument for a longer period. Clearly there is an issue about the extent to which non-audit work should be undertaken by auditors. However, I agree here with my noble friend Lord Sharman. It is very difficult to prescribe in the area. It is necessary for the audit committee to keep a very close watch on the process, rather than setting very precise limits. I also agree with my noble friend's suggestion that government should take over the funding of the Accountancy Foundation.
We also had a long discussion on the role of non-executives. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Hewitt review. The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones of a two-tier board for large companies needs to be considered. That is one dramatic way of being able to shift current practice. However, even with that structure in place, it would be very difficult for those on the supervisory board, unless they are very assiduous, always to get underneath exactly what the executive board is doing. I certainly agree with the suggestion that there should be a limitation on the number of cross-directorships that arise, and on the number of non-executive directorships that any individual should hold.
Enron has demonstrated the need for many such changes. It also demonstrated the fact that complicated, sophisticated companies look to areas of weakness in order to undertake areas of corporate practice that they could not manage at home. The partnerships in Enron that caused many of the problems were undertaken offshore because those concerned could not have got away with those activities in the United States. Therefore, the whole question of extending best practice in terms of accountancy, tax rules and international standards to countries that do not currently adopt such standards should remain high on the agenda of this Government, and on that of international bodies.
Although today's debate has naturally concentrated on the accountancy profession post-Enron, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer briefly to another area where public confidence in business is currently taking a battering. I refer to the split capital investment trust sector. This sector has grown over the past decade and a half—from nothing to a series of over 120 funds with assets of over £13 billion. However, in recent weeks a dozen splits announced that they were in default of their banking covenants. It is estimated that between 20 and 40 other funds are at risk, with possible assets between them ranging from £4 billion to £5 billion.
The sector has been characterised by a high degree of cross-holdings between one firm and another, creating a pyramid of values that was bound to collapse given a significant market downturn. That downturn has now occurred, leading to a systemic collapse of at least part of the sector. Those who are losing out are not only institutional investors, but tens of thousands of small investors who invested in splits believing them to be low-risk vehicles for long-term savings. They did so in part because the funds were
1384
marketed as low risk and recommended by their managers as a means for saving for school fees or retirement, for example.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for quoting from a letter that I received yesterday from a couple who invested their life savings in a split trust that has now defaulted. They write:
"Our investment was made in the knowledge that there was a risk of a fall in capital commensurate with such a higher than market dividend, but the thought of a total loss was never thought of, and our perusal of the literature received from the management Co. never suggested such a possibility".
A number of serious allegations have been made against the sector that need a quick and authoritative answer. First, did the pervasive extent of cross-holdings amount to collusion and a reckless disregard for investors' funds? Secondly, were directors in breach of their Companies Act duties to act in the interests of shareholders by putting their own interest first as recipients of extremely high bonuses based on fees earned by their companies? Thirdly, how extensive was the mis-selling of splits to small investors, some of whom have now lost their entire investment? Fourthly, is there a case for compensation for those investors? Finally, will the splits now waive all their fees while the crisis is sorted out?
The Financial Services Authority is currently undertaking an investigation into the management of split level trusts. Given that they are publicly listed companies quoted on the Stock Exchange, with boards of directors at least nominally independent of the fund managers, there is a major question about the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. I should be most grateful if the Minister would say whether the DTI intends to launch its own investigation or to leave the whole issue to the FSA.
Turning from that specific area back to the main issue, several noble Lords have discussed the need for the development of a more ethical corporate culture and practice, in which some of the practices undertaken by Enron and its accountants would simply never have been contemplated by the board or executives. I strongly agree, but I fear that to rely solely on the good nature of senior executives in every case to see off the triple vices of greed, ambition and pride is to wish for the moon.
Our current regulatory framework, complex and expensive though it may often appear, is necessary to keep those three vices at bay. It must be kept under constant review. To take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, it may not be possible to stop every financial or other man-made disaster happening, but it is surely only sensible to try.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare some interests. I am a chartered accountant and a member of the council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—indeed, I am a former president of the institute. I was a partner of KPMG until 2000 but have no on-going interest to declare in that regard. However, I should say that I have a number of friends who are currently

1385
partners in KPMG or other members of the "fat four". I am also what I am learning to call an independent director of a number of companies and in that capacity am a member or chairman of audit committees.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for introducing this important debate. Noble Lords who have spoken today have contributed much wisdom and practical experience and we have had an excellent debate. In particular, I welcomed hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford contributing to a debate on business affairs, and I agree with him about the importance of the issue of values. I sincerely hope that they can exist within a framework of shareholder value.
The issue of Enron has clearly been the driver for this debate—it was the largest corporate failure in the history of the United States. We may never know the truth behind what led to the Enron collapse. Some strands, including inadequate accounting rules and action or inaction by auditors, are identifiable, but it seems certain that behind those failures were directors determined to flout the rules for their own purposes.
Indeed, if we consider major corporate failures the world over, directors must be first in the firing line. The most notorious cases in this country in recent years, such as Maxwell and Polly Peck, involved one or more directors—executive directors, management—set on breaking the rules. Those directors have often been dominant personalities whose apparent commercial success made it more difficult to challenge them.
But not all corporate failures are linked to fraud in the boardroom. If I think back to my first year of accounting training, the biggest corporate failure, which shocked the business community in 1971 was that of Rolls-Royce. That did not involve overbearing or fraudulent directors but directors making a major commercial misjudgement.
I mention that not to diminish the importance of the collapse of Enron but to remind your Lordships—as have other noble Lords—that corporate failure is a natural consequence of the capitalist system on which our economy is based. Capitalism has fuelled our economic growth and that of other Western economies. Global economic prosperity rests on it. But capitalism involves risk taking. Capital markets, shareholders and management all accept that risks sometimes turn out badly. Some business enterprises will fail. Last year alone, there were more than 30,000 liquidations and bankruptcies in this country. Business failure is an unfortunate fact of business life.
One reason that our economy has been successful has been its relatively light regulatory burdens. Of course, our business community always complains about the level of regulatory burdens—and rightly so. Especially since 1977, regulatory burdens have been rising—the British Chambers of Commerce estimates their total cost at £15 billion. But our economy is still relatively flexible, which has meant that we have a greater ability to withstand global slowdown.
It is important to remember the underlying virtue of the flexibility of our economy when we consider what responses are needed to corporate failure. It may be
1386
tempting to think of ratcheting up regulatory systems as a response to Enron, but I sound a note of caution. Increasing regulatory burdens could drive business out of this country or prevent inward investment from coming here. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, regulation carries costs for business.
We know that other regulatory burdens on business in this country are coming. There is the so-called enterprise Bill, which will increase regulatory burdens, and at some point during the life of this Parliament, the company law review will increase the regulatory framework for companies.
Today is not the time to debate the substance of those issues, but it is time to debate how we approach the regulation of business. We must be careful that we do not simply respond to corporate failure by massively increasing the rules and regulations surrounding business. We must ensure that the benefits of any additional regulation outweigh the costs. We must ensure that we do not strangle the spirit of entrepreneurship, which is important to our economic success.
We should also remember that major corporate failures can result as much from government action as from the actions of directors or auditors. The most shocking corporate failure in this country in recent months was the assassination of Railtrack by Mr Stephen Byers, who is, remarkably, still Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. When the Government address the issue of corporate failure, they should consider carefully whether they come to the task with clean hands.
The Government have announced several actions in specific response to the Enron case. First, there is the review of non-executive directors announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which has been welcomed by many noble Lords. On these Benches, we welcome such a review in principle. Although the announcement of the review made it sound as if some action was involved, there is still, I understand, no chairman or person to take forward the review. The person whose name was mooted in the newspapers, Sir Peter Davis, appears not to have wanted to take up the challenge. Perhaps, that is not surprising, given the succession of reviews—Cadbury, Hampel, Greenbury and the like—that have already covered the area. What is the status of the review of non-executive directors? Who will lead it? What are the terms of reference? When will it report back?
The second review announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a review of audit and accounting issues. It is to be taken forward with the various regulators in the field. What are the terms of reference for that review? When will it report? I would also like the Minister to say whether the proceedings of both reviews will be open to the public. Will they take evidence in public? Will they cast far and wide for contributions? Will the reviews be open and transparent?
The reviews will touch on issues that are central to business life and the existence of a successful business community in this country. Their recommendations

1387
could have far-reaching implications for business. It must be made clear that a broad spectrum of business interests can contribute to it fully and openly.
The accountancy firm at the heart of the Enron scandal, Andersen, has close links with the Government. It worked closely with the Labour Party before the 1997 election and was rewarded with the rapid settlement of long-running litigation undertaken by the previous Government against it over the quality of its work on De Lorean, another corporate failure, albeit less spectacular than Enron. The Secretary of State was director of research for what was then Andersen's consulting arm.
What are the Government doing about Andersen's Enron role in the UK? I am aware that the majority of the issues relate to the US offices of Enron and Andersen, but Andersen's UK office was singled out for special mention by the US authorities when the US firm was recently charged with criminal acts relating to the destruction of evidence. What is the Government's current approach to work done by Andersen? Are there any contracts in progress or any contracts for work for which Andersen are bidding? What do the Government intend to do if there are any such contracts?
Many issues are raised by the Enron failure. I hope that the Government will be prepared to face all those issues, even those close to home. I hope also that the Government will not fall into the trap of creating more regulatory burdens on business—that includes auditors—without being sure that those burdens are outweighed by the benefits to our economy.
5.14 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brennan is to be congratulated on the timeliness and importance of the Motion and on having attracted such a range of expert contributions. As has been suggested by several speakers, that has happened because, although Enron is not mentioned in the Motion, attention has been wonderfully concentrated by the largest, most serious corporate failure in the history of capitalism. Perhaps it is going a little too far to call it that; but certainly several speakers have questioned things that should have been questioned before but may not have been.
We start in the knowledge that company failures, as has been said, are a normal part of business life. They can result from misjudgments in corporate strategy, from an inability to adapt to changing market conditions, or from simple bad luck. They can also result from weak systems of control within companies, from failure to apply those controls rigorously, from human weakness—greed, ambition and pride—and, in a significant number of cases, from dishonesty and fraud on the part of the employees and managers of a company.
As has been made clear by the Enron case, they can arise also from failures in accountancy, Whether they are failings in external or internal audit, all those things can and do happen. I doubt whether the noble
1388
Lord, Lord Brennan, was right to say that no company was ever saved by its auditors. I suspect that the companies that are saved by their auditors do not come to public notice, and the fraud does not bring the company down. The poet said:
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason".
We must accept that no amount of regulation by Government could prevent all failures occurring. On that, if on little else, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Certainly, we could not expect to provide benefits to consumers or the economy by propping up failing companies. As has been said, taking risks, with all the rewards that it brings, is at the heart of the free market. However, we take seriously the failures that raise issues relating to regulation or public confidence, and I shall set out some of the things that have been done in the past 10 years or so and some of the things that are being done now and will be done in the future.
We must get the balance right between regulation and encouraging enterprise. We must make the United Kingdom an attractive place in which to do business, and we must consider the issue in the wider sense. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, gave some importance to the cost to business of regulation, although even he admitted, under questioning, that the cost was infinitesimal in the context of the turnover of the financial services business.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Will the Minister give way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall do so now, but I shall not give way again.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the question is whether other markets charge the same. If not, there is a competitive disadvantage. If the Minister deals in shares, he will see that there is £5 compliance charge on each of his contract notes. That is a considerable sum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not the question. The question is what is necessary to make this country a safe and successful financial market. I shall not give way to any other interventions; I simply do not have the time.
What has been done in the past 10 years? We have improved accounting and auditing requirements. The Companies Act 1989 paved the way for the creation of the Financial Reporting Council and the Accounting Standards Board. There is a stronger requirement to consolidate special purpose vehicles. There is the use of substance over form to determine the extent of consolidated accounts, which makes it more difficult than it may be in some other countries to keep liabilities off the balance sheet. That was certainly the issue at Enron. The Financial Reporting Review Panel, chaired until a couple of years ago by the present Attorney-General, has played a role in this.

1389
As my noble friend Lord Brennan pointed out, of course it is important that the United Kingdom and the United States should reach agreement on accounting standards. However, as we move towards international accounting standards by 2005, it is also important to ensure that we should move to the best accounting standards and not sacrifice any of the virtues that we have now.
Financial services regulation has been addressed with the establishment of the Financial Services Authority, which took on its full powers last December. We now enjoy the benefits of a single regulator which sees the importance of market confidence at its core. Furthermore, we now have an opportunity, if not to eliminate the risk of failure—that cannot be done—at least to probe more fully and penalise more harshly any contraventions of the standards now being put into place by the FSA.
Improvements have been made in corporate governance, perhaps less dramatic than in some other areas. The combined code has proved a valuable account of best practice. Its influence has been recognised outside this country. We have also had the Turnbull report which addressed the subject of risk assessment. As I shall make clear, there is still a great deal more to be done on corporate governance and, indeed, on the issue of audit committee responsibilities, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Brennan. However, we have not been entirely idle in this area.
In terms of accounting regulation, a commitment was made in 1997 in our business manifesto that new arrangements should be introduced for oversight of the self-regulatory functions of leading accountancy bodies. The new Accountancy Foundation, chaired by my noble friend Lord Borrie, and the various bodies related to it, are now active and are asking many or the questions which have been put in our debate this afternoon.
I turn now to what is being done and what will be done in the future to address these concerns. I refer first to the Company Law Review, whose final report after a three-year exercise was published in an enormous volume last July. The review looked at the whole framework of company law and corporate governance and made wide-ranging recommendations. However, it did not go as far as some of the views that have been expressed in our debate. It recommended that there should he a statutory statement of directors' general duties, to provide greater clarity about the rules governing directors' decision-making. It also made recommendations about transparency, including a statutory operating and financial review for large companies, and improved arrangements for company disclosure and shareholder voting.
Many of those recommendations will require legislation. We are consulting on that now and we are actively preparing major draft legislation in response. It will be published for consultation purposes. We are determined that our company law should be fit for the demands of the 21st century.
1390
Questions were asked about what is being clone about concerns raised by the accountancy profession and the role of the Accountancy Foundation. In this area, too, progress is being made. The Ethics Standards Board is looking at the professional rules on auditor independence, while the Auditing Practices Board is considering the relationship between auditors, audit committees, company management and shareholders. We shall have to see whether the role of the audit committee should be strengthened, as well as enhanced independence for that committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharman and Lord Newby, have suggested that the Government should fund the Accountancy Foundation. In due course we shall be carrying out a review, probably after five years. Certainly the question of government funding has not been ruled out, although as far as I am aware, it has not particularly been asked for.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and my noble friend Lord Barnett referred to the issue of auditors and non-audit work. I think that there is a distinction to be made with regard to non-audit 'work which falls naturally to auditors and thus does not raise any issues of auditor independence. However, over the years there has certainly been a history of non-audit work presently undertaken by auditors which could raise reasonable concerns about independence. In particular, it raises concerns about whether the profitability of non-audit work can affect the independence of the audit work itself. That, after all, is what we are concerned with here; this is a debate about corporate governance rather than consultancy.
I shall interrupt myself to say a few words about offshore financial centres, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is an ongoing problem and has been so for many years. However, we are working closely with the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, putting considerable pressure on them with regard to the issue of money laundering. All the UK dependent territories have sent letters of commitment to the OECD Harmful Tax Competition Initiative and we are continuing to hold talks on that.
Perhaps I may turn to the developing role of the Financial Services Authority. An issue which has been raised is that of the review of the listing rules, which will give an opportunity to consult on the issues raised by the collapse of Enron as they affect listed companies. However, I do not think that we should prejudge the outcome of that review. It may be sensible for the FSA to take the opportunity to address the issue of auditor rotation or the employment by major companies of senior staff from their auditors before a form of "cooling off" period has elapsed. That suggestion received a mixed response this afternoon.
Two issues which are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority are ones of which I have become aware only by reading the press today. The first is the news of what I believe is called the "Plumber" case, concerning the use of spread betting in flotations, which clearly raises issues of market abuse. Since the provisions covering market abuse came into effect only last December, it will be interesting to see how they work out in practice.

1391
The second issue is that of split level investment trusts, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I have to say that I think that this is a matter for the FSA rather than for company law reform. Even if the business vehicle used is corporate, it would still come within the remit of the FSA. However, if having concluded its investigations the FSA was to make recommendations to the Government, we would take those recommendations very seriously indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was right to say that insider dealing, which undoubtedly is still going on, is not a victimless crime. That is why the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 introduced the civil market abuse regime, to which I have already referred. That regime complements existing insider dealing and other criminal legislation, so that the market abuse offences of misuse of inside information, giving false or misleading impressions or market distortion can now be tackled in ways that were not possible in the past. The FSA can also investigate and prosecute insider dealing offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
Questions were asked about what is being done about corporate governance and non-executive directors. A number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Clement-Jones, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have welcomed the announcement of a review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. Clearly they have an enormously important part to play.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who suggested that what had been a comfortable perk in the past is in many cases not a comfortable perk now.
I am not saying that it ought to be a comfortable perk—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that being a non-executive director and doing the job properly can be, in many ways, an impossible task—but if you look at the lists which have been published, with mugshots and all, in the Sunday press recently, you realise that all the old abuses are still going on. There are still far too many people who are serving on 10, 12, 15 boards, to which they clearly cannot do justice; there are still far too many people serving on each other's remuneration committees, and no doubt helping each other out when they get into difficulty; and there are far too many examples of what is far less than best practice in the appointment of non-executive directors. The review will look at best practice and ask whether best practice works—because if best practice does not work, something more serious will have to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, among others, raised the issue of the role of institutional shareholders. The Myners review, on which we are still consulting, was enormously helpful in that regard. But there is still a good way to go in establishing the role of non-executive directors. We should be cautious about thinking that non-executive directors—even if much more effective than they are at present—are a simple way of reducing corporate failure.
1392
Over the past 10 years I have found great difficulty in debating these matters. The difficulty I find is that whenever something goes badly wrong, the business community—particularly, the financial services community—says, "Oh well, this was a one-off. It will not happen again. Surely we have procedures in place to make sure that this kind of thing cannot go wrong. You cannot find a way to deal with fraud". People said it about Maxwell; they said it about Barings; they have said it about so many examples. No doubt there are people who are starting to say it about Enron—although they are being a little more cautious now than they were.
On the other hand, it is true that much of what I have said about government action to deal with corporate failure is, to an extent, shutting the stable door after the horse has escaped. You have to attack the abuses that you see—the ones which have identified themselves. It is difficult to find a pattern of failure behind them and to attack that pattern.
That is the value of Patricia Hewitt's recent announcement about the setting up of the group within government which will be chaired by Melanie Johnson and Ruth Kelly. The group will ensure that the relevant questions are being addressed in a coherent and considered way and that the overall response is adequate.
Some of the things that have happened before will happen again, and some things that have not yet happened will happen for the first time. Reading articles in this morning's papers about split capital investment trusts and the use of spread betting in flotations made me think that we shall have to run very fast to keep up with those who are determined to distort markets.
I should love to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that what we need is simplicity of rules. I wish I thought it were true. But the combination of the many important measures I have described in the course of the previous 19 minutes are relevant and will be helpful in dealing with the problem. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, there are three short messages. The first is that we must maintain public confidence in business and accountancy. I am sure that the honest-to-goodness businessmen and accountants, who are the vast majority, will seek to do that. The public want just profit, not profit mania, which I carefully define as a disease first diagnosed during the "South Sea bubble" episode—that is, the expectation of ever-increasing profits wholly unrelated to reality.
The second message is that values instilled into corporate life will support the public confidence that we think is so important. I thank the right reverend Prelate for emphasising that.
The last message is that the objective of all this is to make people in our society feel that the financial system is safe in so far as it can reasonably be made to be so.

1393
I thank all noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, for encouraging me to hone my forensic skills so as to make the unpalatable appear anything other than bleak—for their diverse and informed contributions, which I hope have produced a worthwhile debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Multi-ethnicity and Multi-culturalism
5.35 p.m.
Lord Parekhrose to call attention to the benefits of multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism to Britain and to British society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, over the centuries, different ethnic and cultural communities from different parts of Europe came and settled in our midst and have made Britain a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Although these cultures interacted and created a composite collective culture, their traces still remain in the names of our villages, personal names, surnames, language, institutions and customs. Additionally, we have Scottish, Welsh and Irish cultures, as well as those based on class, gender, region and religion.
The arrival of blacks and Asians after the Second World War intensified, and rendered physically visible, our multi-ethnic and multi-cultural character, but they did not introduce a radically new element. It is vitally important to stress this point because it is sometimes argued that we were for centuries a culturally homogeneous society and that the arrival of Asians and Afro-Caribbeans represented a fall from that idyllic state. Such a lapsarian view of history is totally false. We have always been multicultural, and would remain so even if all the ethnic minorities were to leave the country—heaven forbid—or assimilate into the so-called mainstream.
We are not only multi-cultural but are bound to become even more so with the passage of time. Citizens of the rest of the European Union are free to settle here. We will continue to need immigrants from other parts of the world, numbering about 2 million in the next 15 years according to the Cabinet Office. In this age of globalisation, cultural influences from other parts of the world, especially the United States, freely flow into our country and shape us. As a result, our society is bound to display an even greater range of ethnic and cultural diversity.
This cultural diversity is not only inescapable but is also a valuable resource. The strengths that the ethnic minorities have brought to Britain are considerable. Their forebears died in their thousands to defend Britain and its civilisation during the dark days of the Second World War. Their net annual contribution to the economy today runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. They have kept many of our industries going and our NHS would be in an even greater crisis without its 26 per cent medical staff, 16 per cent dental staff and nearly 30 per cent non-medical staff, all drawn from the ethnic minorities.
1394
South Asians, who amount to barely 4 per cent of the population, run 50 per cent of our cash and carry shops, 55 per cent of the independent retail trade and 70 per cent of independently-owned neighbourhood shops. In London alone, their just more than 15.,000 businesses have created full or part-time work for more than 200,000 people. Afro-Caribbean sportsmen and athletes have brought us great honours and others among them have brought us great pleasure and profit in the areas of music, entertainment and the arts. Asians have so profoundly transformed our cuisine that many in your Lordships' House would experience withdrawal symptoms without the curry, and even perhaps the chicken tikka masala, once or twice a week.
Our ethnic minorities provide just over 13 per cent of our undergraduates, many of them specialising in vitally necessary economic disciplines, and some of them contribute more than their share to the fundamental scientific research in which Nobel prizes are won and commercially profitable discoveries are patented. They have also enriched our literature. They have added a new range of idioms and images to the English language; provided new sources of humour; offered new insights into the British way of life and thought; and deepened our critical self-consciousness. All this has made Britain an immensely lively and resourceful country—a great tribute both to its own generosity and openness and to the talents and self-confidence of the ethnic minorities.
Perhaps I may quote the words of my noble friend Lord Puttnam—who wanted to participate in the debate but was called away elsewhere. He states:
"the past 40 years have seen the emergence of what is, in every respect, a new and very different nation—one that has absorbed its multi-cultural future with a degree of confidence that must have left the early apostles of racial doom almost speechless".
It is sometimes argued that the riots last summer in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley demonstrated the failure of multi-culturalism. Nothing could he further from the truth. They were products of long-term, short-term and precipitating causes. The long-term causes involved the closure of textile mills, prolonged periods of unemployment, and segregated housing and education. The short-term causes involved increasing alienation among Muslim youth not only from the wider social culture but also from their own, a sense of powerlessness, and an ineffective and self-serving community leadership. The precipitating causes involved the intervention of the BNP and some police misjudgments.
In short, the riots had social, economic and other origins, and were little to do with the great multicultural experiment in which Britain is engaged. Had that experiment been a failure, as some Right-wing people argue, the white population would not have responded to the deplorable violence of the rioters with sympathy, understanding, compassion and a sense of solidarity. Whenever our multi-cultural experiment has gone hand-in-hand with economic and social justice, and has been conducted in a spirit of goodwill and self-confidence—as in London and Leicester—it has been a remarkable success.

1395
Britain is a fine country—tolerant, playful, decent, and endowed with the great resources of imagination, creativity and moderation acquired during its long and fascinating history. I say this in all sincerity, and with great pride, in spite of having been a critical child of the British Empire. I suggest that, in spite of some recent and past setbacks, we can create a rich, lively and vibrant multi-cultural Britain and be a beacon to the world if we pay attention to the following points.
We need to tackle large pockets of unemployment in many parts of our country. The rate of unemployment among men is about 7 per cent within the white population, but it is 15 per cent among the Pakistanis and 20 per cent among Bangladeshis. To tackle such unemployment, we need well-considered strategies, as well as such policy tools as contract compliance—which we have tended to neglect—and a rigorous system of monitoring and targets in the private sector.
We also need to reduce economic inequality between the white population and the ethnic minorities. About 28 per cent of the white population live in households with less than half the national average income. The figure is as high as 65 per cent among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Such inequalities generate anger and a sense of injustice, and they create a society in which different communities lead parallel lives with no shared experiences and aspirations to bind them together. Fairness and equal opportunity are not enough, because they pre-suppose level playing fields and an equal ability to take advantage of opportunities—and, sadly, that is not the case. Rather, our concern should be to remove self-reproducing structural disadvantages, so that all our citizens acquire the ability and the resources to benefit from the opportunities available to them and compete as equals.
There are glass ceilings in many areas of life. Hardly any of our large companies have blacks and Asians as chief executive officers, or in any of the most senior positions. That is true also of our Civil Service, the Judiciary, the public sector and—dare I say?ߞthe Cabinet. That is in stark contrast to the United States, where five out of 20 top corporations have blacks and Asians, including recently arrived Indians, as chief executive officers, and where blacks occupy high cabinet and ambassadorial positions and other high public positions. The Government can do much in this area by setting an example and by exerting pressure on the private and public sectors.
We need to cultivate a common sense of belonging among our citizens and in our communities. By that, I mean a basic feeling that we all belong together, share a common fate, and are bound by the ties of loyalty to each other and to certain common institutions and values. This has nothing to do with a common British identity or what is called "Britishness". It is a glory of this country that we can be British in many different ways—"Britishness" is a language which is spoken in different accents—and we do not have to conform to a single mould as in France or in the United States. We
1396
can take different views of our history and of our political and economic institutions, and yet remain as British as the next man.
Ethnic minorities themselves need to do much to put their houses in order. Some of their religious institutions leave much to be desired. Some of their leaders are unrepresentative and self-serving, and have done little to promote the long-term interests of their community. Drug taking is increasing in some communities, and so are crimes, prostitution and intra- and inter-ethnic violence. Some of their youth are understandably alienated from their community. There can be no excuse for disloyalty to a country which has given them a home and a decent life. If minority communities expect the wider society to live up to certain norms and criticise it when it fails to do so, they are, in turn, expected to abide by certain norms of loyalty and good behaviour.
Since the point of our debate is to stimulate new policies, I shall conclude by asking the following six questions. First, while rightly condemning unacceptable minority practices without worrying about political correctness, what are the Government planning to do to present a positive picture of multicultural Britain and to give a lead to the country in appreciating great minority contributions?
Secondly, since our national curriculum does not fully reflect the great sacrifices of ethnic minorities in defending Britain and its civilisation 60 years ago and their great contributions towards making this country rich and prosperous, what are the Government doing to set the record straight and suitably to revise the national curriculum?
Thirdly, while some areas of our private sector have introduced ethnic monitoring and targets, others leave much to be desired. What are the Government planning to do to ensure the appointment of fully qualified blacks and Asians to the highest positions and to promote diversity in the boardrooms and in senior executive posts? Would they consider giving those members of the private sector, say, a year or two to put their houses in order, and extend to them the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 if they fail to do so?
Fourthly, what steps are the Government planning to take to ensure that suitably qualified ethnic minority people are appointed to the highest positions in the Civil Service and the Judiciary? I insist on the importance of qualifications, but when qualified people are available why does there still seem to exist some form of glass ceiling? What do the Government intend to do to encourage political parties to select suitably qualified Asians and Afro-Caribbeans in winnable seats and increase their representation in the House of Commons, as they have done in the House of Lords? The presence in the House of Commons is very important. Not only does it have symbolic significance: it is important in terms of power. If the ethnic minorities do not see themselves reflected in seats of power and symbols of our identity, they are bound not to develop a sense of common belonging.

1397
Fifthly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for both of whom I have the highest Admiration—have frequently convened high-powered national seminars on topics of public concern. These seminars have brought together eminent thinkers and practitioners and have generated sensible policy recommendations. They are badly needed in the field of race. When does the Home Office intend to hold such seminars, as the previous Home Secretary indicated that he would consider doing?
Finally, the Home Office is rightly concerned about national cohesion and is putting together a high-powered cohesion panel. How will the panel be composed, and what criteria govern its membership? Do the Government plan to include not just civil servants and men and women drawn from different social services, but also individuals and organisations with a long track record in this area, able to take a national and long-term perspective?
I am in no doubt that the Government mean well and that they have done much to tackle racial inequality and injustice. I salute their courage and confidence. However, as I am sure they will readily agree, much still remains to be done. I am confident that this debate will throw up interesting ideas concerning what more needs to be done, and why this is a matter of great urgency.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, on initiating this debate. Having seen the list of speakers, I look forward immensely to hearing what people have to say. I wondered whether to talk at length about my own direct experience of living in an area of old textile towns of the kind that the noble Lord described, with a significant ethnic minority population—mainly from south Asian countries. My nearest big town is Burnley. I live in Pendle, where 12 per cent of the population is of south Asian origin—mainly families who originated in Pakistan and Kashmir and are therefore mostly Muslim. They are concentrated in the towns of Nelson and Brierfield. In one particular ward, they are no longer an ethnic minority but comprise 65 per cent of the electorate.
I could talk at a personal level about my many Asian friends and contacts in local politics—although no doubt I have some enemies as well. However, as I have the privilege of speaking immediately following the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, I will consider instead what has happened since your Lordships last discussed the topic, in the form of an Unstarred Question on the Parekh report tabled last summer by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
The report's executive summary stated that building and sustaining a community of citizens and communities would involve, inter alia, developing a balance between cohesion, equality and difference. Since then a substantial number of reports have been produced and the balance of the debate has moved towards cohesion and away from difference and
1398
diversity. In last summer's debate, the key word was "diversity". Now it is "cohesion", which represents a great shift and is partly—but only partly—beneficial.
Since last summer, there has been the report of the Burnley task force chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. That magnum opus or tour de force was produced by local people about their own town. Also published was the Oldham independent review, the Ritchie report, and the Cantle report and the Home Office response to it, entitled Building Cohesive Communities. John Denham, Minister of State for the Home Department, visited Pendle recently and announced that, in future, local authorities would have to produce community cohesion strategies alongside all the others that they have to produce.
When those reports were published, the talk was about parallel lives and parallel communities—people who lived their own lives in their communities, not communicating much with the ethnic majority. The problem has been seen as one of residential separation in particular. The Cantle report refers to building on one kind of separation—at home—to separation at school, of religion and so on. Multiple separation leads to people not knowing people from other communities. I think that claim is exaggerated but there is some truth in it.
The publicity that those reports generated, particularly in the national tabloid press and on television, was not very beneficial. The impression was given that members of the ethnic minorities themselves, particularly from the south Asian subcontinent, were the problem. The Home Office Command Paper that was published in February was unfortunately entitled Secure Borders, Safe Haven. That is not what much of that White Paper is about. When I read it in detail, I found to my surprise that I could agree with much of its contents. The White Paper's subtitle was "Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain". Regardless of its contents, that gets it right. The media give the impression that the problem is that hoards of people are still entering this country. Almost every day we see television images of scenes such as those at the railway sidings at Calais at Christmas.
There is confusion about migration and asylum. The importance of an oath of allegiance has been pinpointed, with its implication that people are disloyal because they do not have to take an oath of allegiance at present. There has also been some concentration on the importance of learning English, as though large numbers of the people who have come to live in this country have not taken any great steps to learn English and that the boys and girls from ethnic minority families who attend local schools do not learn English. There has been a blurring of the distinction between arranged marriages and forced marriages.
The implication is that if the ethnic minorities did not exist, problems would not exist and everything would be okay. If one talks to white people in the street, one often hears comments such as "If they want to live here, they should do what we do and live how

1399
we live". The balance of the debate has shifted and it is right that the noble Lord has raised today the positive side of living in multi-cultural communities.
I am concerned about the emphasis on housing segregation. The media assume that such segregation is all about council estates but in fact it relates to private sector housing. Changes cannot and will not happen quickly. Communities with substantial residential segregation will exist for a long time to come. In many towns, such segregation will increase. We ought to concentrate on all the other aspects of people leading separate and parallel lives, rather than on residential segregation—which we cannot do much about in the short term and perhaps not in the medium term.
We should communicate with people, help to build communities and create public services that make provision for the whole community, not just parts of it. Renovation and improvement schemes should be done in such a way as to be seen locally to be racially fair.
Cohesion and diversity are not opposites. Voluntary integration through incentives, motivation, opportunity and personal example is the way forward. It is not for the Government to come along with a lot of money and tell people how to achieve integration. The towns themselves must take control of their own destinies. All the communities and individuals in the towns in question must begin to take responsibility for their towns as a whole—not just for their part of it, their families or their ethnic or religious community. Only when that happens will we see real progress. As politicians, we have a duty to get involved in that progress.
5.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to contribute to a debate on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, because his reputation is quite outstanding. No one has done more to enable constructive debate of religious, cultural and ethnic diversity. The report that bears the noble Lord's name embodies his characteristic blend of wisdom, compassion and readability.
I shall, if I may, speak personally because I perceive a fair bit of criticism from here and there about spending far too much time bothering with these Muslims, and would I not be better spending my time elsewhere? Such, at least, was the graffiti chalked on to my gatepost last Sunday.
When I came to Bradford 10 years ago, I had never knowingly spoke to a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh in my life. In the past 10 years, my life has been enriched beyond all anticipation, and that has not been at the expense of my own self-understanding of who I am and where I belong. My respect for people of other faiths has grown considerably, and yet I remain even more strongly a person of Christian conviction. Insights into the culture of other Bradfordians has brought a richness to my experience of life which I find hard to describe fully enough. Yet in no way am I
1400
required to deny the culture in which I was born and bred. Learning to live alongside people of other races has increased both my understanding and my tolerance of those who are different, without in any way diminishing my pride and pleasure—if I am allowed to say so—in being English and having a surname like Smith.
To live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-faith society does not in my experience involve any denial of what I hold dear; it places it in an even richer context. However, if I were asked for a strategy to achieve a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-faith society, I would find it hard to provide one. The way ahead, as I see it, is to deal with the practical issues that impede growth in mutual understanding, tolerance and respect, and then to sec how progress can be made. So the experience of Bradford—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, in his assessment of what happened last summer—may help to identify practical problems that need to be resolved. The Cantle report also is very helpful in this respect. It states:
"Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, mean that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives. These lives do not seem to touch at any point".
I believe that that is true, and I should like to make several points. First, it is clear that public funds must not be used to consolidate any such separatism. Secondly, disadvantaged communities, both white and Asian, must not be played off against one another through competitive bidding for urban renewal resources. It is distressing in the extreme to hear various communities vying with each other for money that comes in this category. Such competition is most unhelpful.
Thirdly, we have begun to use the word "Asian" very much more carefully, as minority communities often differ more from each other than from the majority community. That is clear from a recent Cabinet Office paper, produced by the Performance and Innovation Unit, entitled Miproving Labour Market Achievements for Ethnic Minorities. The paper noted the dramatic differentials in achievement levels for distinct communities. Between 1992 and 2000, for example, the white community jumped from 37 per cent to 50 per cent in securing the benchmark 5 or more GSCE A* to C grades in year 11, whereas for Indian communities the comparable figure was 38 per cent to 62 per cent, and for black communities it was 23 per cent to 37 per cent. For Pakistani communities, however, the figure was 26 per cent to only 30 per cent.
There are real issues behind those figures. They indicate that minority communities should not be construed as passive victims of exclusion—racial, cultural, religious or economic—but rather as social actors who can draw on a range of resources within their communities to circumvent such exclusion. I should add that those resources would be the envy of many on our white council estates.

1401
Fourthly, there is a recognition that the type of plastic, anti-racist rhetoric that had been used to prevent honest discussion has now been discarded and issues are honestly on the table for consideration. Transcontinental marriage remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Underachievement in education also needs to be dealt with. I should add, although I can speak for nowhere but Bradford, that faith schools are not part of the problem. Nevertheless, our situation is precisely reflected in the local education authority's problems. Although we work together closely and would all like to improve the balance, we find that the matter is decided largely by where people live and where they choose to send their children. It is quite a delusion to suggest that faith schools, in Bradford at least, play any part in that.
In Bradford, we also have the double whammy of deindustrialisation plus population increase. Therefore, improving the opportunities of work and training for work are major issues that will either help or begin to destroy all efforts towards social cohesion. Nevertheless, it is not all woe and despair. Last week, I convened and chaired a meeting of people in Bradford who work in housing, education, commerce, business, the police and elsewhere. The question at our meeting was this: what has happened since the riots in July? Everyone spoke about considerable progress, and all sorts of steps are being taken. People are taking initiatives here, there and everywhere, not least, and perhaps most importantly, with the young and disaffected. It is not all woe and despair; there is good news. This July, we hope and intend to put on a presentation of what is good about Bradford, to celebrate and rejoice what multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-faith communities can and are doing.
I appeal to anyone who can do this to say, it is a good thing to work towards a multi-cultural, multiracial and multi-faith community. That would enrich all of our lives. It is the future to which we should all commit ourselves.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Ahnned: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for introducing this debate. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that he is rightly recognised for his work in relation to multicultural Britain. I should also like to apologise now for the fact that, due to a longstanding commitment, I shall have to be absent for the winding up.
I recall a discussion last year in which the right honourable Robin Cook not only spoke of how multicultural we have become, but described chicken tikka masala as a national dish. Needless to say, since then, much has happened that has directly affected the relationship between the various cultures in our society. Essentially, however, the underlying issues remain the same. Chicken tikka masala is a wonderful dish which is the product of eastern and western influences. Its interaction of flavours is perhaps the result of mutual appreciation and the interaction of the many cultures residing in Britain. However, although additional cultural seasoning is tolerated to an extent, should we not strive to instil acceptance in our
1402
pluralistic nation, as opposed to seeking the homogenization process summed up in the term "melting pot"? Britain should be proud that our country is a rich banquet with culturally distinct and complex ingredients.
Exotic cuisine is just one of the many ways in which ethnic minorities have contributed to Britain for several generations, and yet many of those minorities are still regarded as recently arrived refugees. Although my own family are now fourth-generation British citizens, they are still labelled as different when people think in terms of "them and us". My father and his family contributed to rebuilding this country after the Second World War. As with many immigrants at that time, they were cheap labour for the textile and steel industries. When I entered the working world, I worked 16 hours a day to match the income of my indigenous counterparts who worked only eight hours a day. Such inequality was experienced by many ethnic minorities.
We have all heard about the contribution made by the ethnic minority community in matters such as health, transport, business, arts, and so on. The list continues. Rather than there being a growing acknowledgement for ethnic minority communities, recent events encourage a growing resentment in Britain. A re-education of society is required at all levels to move away from the Powellite opinion that there are dangers lurking in the multi-cultural society. We should be moving towards realising the potential for lucrative symbiotic relationships with common interests for achieving common goals.
Taking an oath of allegiance is all very well in theory, but we must recognise that if we cannot reach the hearts and minds of our citizens, then it is a mere formality of indoctrination. The inherent inclination towards one's own culture is undoubtedly adapted by one's environment, but it is not a loyalty test. An example of that is a common language.
I support the need to ensure that everyone can speak English, which immediately allows us to belong to a nationwide community. But surely we should encourage regional accents within this broad community. I should have thought that to establish a dialogue between cultures, we must be open to learning from others. That does not mean, for example, that the odd phrase of Punjabi is necessary, but we must accept that there are communities with an additional language and identity.
I remind your Lordships of the example of the former Yugoslavia where the lack of integration over 400ߝ500 years led not only to the external break-up of Yugoslavia but to genocide and crimes against humanity in that country. The reality in Britain is that there are distinct clusters of cultures that reel increasingly vulnerable. Ironically, the cause of the isolation is not necessarily a consequence of culture; it is economic and, subsequently, social factors that are strengthening this segregation.
I do not agree with the chairman of the CR E that if people are forced to live in certain areas, that will somehow lead to integration. During my 10 years on

1403
the housing policy board in Rotherham, I witnessed the resentment and fear in areas of poverty. Housing allocation for ethnic minorities on the relatively affluent side was tolerated, but those who were on the deprived side were on the receiving end of violence. Their windows were smashed and even the practice of fire-bombing was carried out.
What leads a group of supposedly civilised people to threaten innocent lives? It is not the differences in wardrobes but an on-going economic struggle that drives people to despair. That has been exploited by the BNP who have distorted and entangled race and class. Since devolution, there are increasing numbers of people who openly confess that they do not share a common loyalty. Yet, perhaps because of their self-sufficient status, they are not the prime concern of racist groups who try to justify that their abusive actions are for the sanctity of this country.
Your Lordships have already heard about racial tensions last year in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. There is a vicious circle, in which the Pakistani and Bangladeshi, in particular, score poorly on all the main socio-economic indicators, with low levels of fluency in English. This leads to a further drifting away from mainstream ideology and opportunities, while becoming increasingly visible targets for instigators of racial hatred.
I am pleased that Diane Abbott organised a conference last weekend to ensure that black children could achieve higher standards of education. I hope to see similar efforts for British Pakistani and Bangladeshi children who achieve the lowest GCSE passes in the UK today, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford. They are in serious need of support, and a good education lays the foundations not only for opportunity and mobility, but it instils consciousness and optimism.
For this reason, I support the Government's plans for introducing more faith-based state secondary schools. Critics of such institutions are anxious that society will become increasingly fragmented but these so-called "comfort zones" are already established. Rather than allowing them to go unnoticed and flourish either positively or negatively, they must be recognised. For example, in Oldham, there are six secondary schools where ethnic minority students make up less than 5 per cent of the school population and two schools where they make up 97 per cent and 77 per cent. However, there are no faith-based secondary schools as such.
One would infer from that that faith-based segregation already exists and that the parents have different expectations. Identifying that and adapting the education system will be more welcomed than treating the practice with suspicion and failing to provide the additional support that such schools require. This will be a positive step towards a harmonious multi-cultural Britain, not only because of the increasing fairness to all communities, but because it also appears that faith-based schools have on average better results and moral standards.
1404
I am running out of time. I shall say finally that we should learn from the example of the Canadian Government whose refugee literature formerly said, "Welcome to our home", but was changed to, "Welcome to your home". It is my hope that that will happen here in the not so distant future, but I fear that that sentiment is a long way yet.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, multi-ethnicity does not normally receive the thoughtful and considered attention that it deserves. I am, therefore, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for initiating this debate.
To date, debate and policies in this area have been marred by ambivalence and a lack of deeper and comprehensive analysis and thinking. In our attempts to respond to challenges of multi-ethnicity in the past 40 years, we have been grappling with different approaches, based on assumptions of assimilation, integration, diversity within the framework of equality of opportunity, and more recently, community cohesion and citizenship. Furthermore, policy initiatives have been a response either to fear of immigration or crises, such as disturbances in our urban areas.
There was one notable exception in 1976 when an attempt was made by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, under a Labour government, when he tried to fashion a "coherent and long-term strategy". Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons those aims and ambitions have never been fully realised.
A piecemeal response to events or crises inevitably leads to a distorted picture, distorted understanding and, consequently, to ineffective and flawed initiatives. Such responses do not lead to necessary structural and institutional changes; nor do they even influence the broader changes in society that may have implications for minorities. I would go even further and suggest that some of those initiatives have led to the separation of issues facing ethnic minorities from the mainstream and have contributed to the disengagement of minorities from some crucial spheres of life.
We have been slow to recognise that this minimal approach will not make much difference in our fast-transforming political, social and economic context. We have seen great disparities opening up as economic and social changes have unfolded. Some groups are prospering while others face multi-generational disadvantage. It is also evident that discrimination and ethnicity are not the only variables. We need to consider gender, age, class, location, condition, social and economic status and progress.
There have been a number of reports in recent years which have all attempted to deal with different aspects. The Macpherson report focused on inequitable institutional practices. The Hepple report on equality reviewed the enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation and what was wrong with existing laws. The Parekh report analysed the current state of multiethnic Britain and proposed ways of countering

1405
discrimination, disadvantage and making Britain a confident and vibrant multicultural society. The Ousley and Cantle reports made recommendations to promote community cohesion. More recently the Home Office published a White Paper, Secure Borders, Sale Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, recommending the promotion of citizenship, civic renewal and engagement, and policy towards skilled and unskilled immigration and asylum policy. We have also seen the growing role of the European Union in such areas as labour market policy, social policy, migration and anti-discrimination.
Those reports, important as they are, deal with partial aspects of multi-ethnicity and discrimination and in some cases even cut across each other. But I believe we need to go further. We not only need to make the necessary connections between the issues raised by those different reports; we need to fill a gap which has been graphically illustrated by the recent report published by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office. That interim analytical report, entitled, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market, does not make any policy recommendations, but its analysis clearly points to a need for a more considered approach—not one based on traditional assumptions and notions of multi-culturalism, but one which is rooted in deeper understanding of the complexities and evidence before us.
The report's analysis highlights that many of the current assumptions and policy initiatives are at odds with a complex and multi-faceted situation on the ground. The report shows that the idea of integration has been applied mainly to broad social and cultural aspects and, to a lesser extent, to civil and political domains, and not so much to economic structures, labour markets and class patterns. It rightly suggests:
"that the outcomes that accrue to greater economic integration (particularly in the labour markets) are closely related to social and political integration".
To encourage civic engagement, social cohesion and better interaction between communities, we need to develop effective strategies which will encourage economic integration. In other words, it is a virtuous circle; if we want full participation, we need to engage people in the labour market.
In the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, the Home Secretary said that the reports into last summer's disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley painted a vivid picture of fractured and divided communities, lacking a sense of common values or shared civic identities to unite around. He said that the reports signalled the need to foster and review the social future of our communities and to rebuild a sense of common citizenship which embraces the different and diverse experiences of today's Britain.
Civic renewal and community cohesion cannot be built merely by teaching citizenship or by enforced integration. We need to take seriously the messages which are emerging from the Performance and Innovation Unit and shift the paradigm within which we debate the issues of multi-ethnicity. We need a
1406
strategy where various policy initiatives not only complement each other but are pulling in the same direction.
It would be helpful for me to get an assurance tonight that the analysis of that report will be taken on board; that it will be followed by an approach which is well thought through to ensure that we can truly realise the benefits of multi-ethnicity and rebuild a sense of common citizenship, and that the Government will show leadership in helping to create a new climate in which to think and define policies which are based on analysis, evidence and fresh thinking.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh; first for this valuable debate and secondly for his extremely interesting and valuable report, which was published last year. I regret that I am unable to stay until the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, twisted my arm, and I appreciate being able to be here.
My views, like everyone else's, are affected by experiences. As an engineering student, I gave little thought to the issues of multi-ethnicity and problems of relations between ethnic groups until I went to the United States in the 1960s and found myself in a race riot in New York. It was frightening but also terrible to see ethnic groups so enraged that they could injure themselves and damage their own streets and houses. Sadly, we saw the same thing last year in England.
My second experience was when I saw the marked level of racial prejudice in England. My wife and I tried to rent a private flat in London in the 1960s. I put down that I was born in Ootacamund, India, which is, indeed, where I was born. Curiously, all the flats were taken until I appeared in person and, lo and behold, a flat was available. I assumed that a country such as the UK—albeit with much prejudice—with the continuation of its wider provisions of housing, education and health to all sections of society and less unemployment of the poorest groups, would never experience the United States' levels of inter-ethnic dislocation. Partly, that has been true, but there are many worrying trends, as other noble Lords have described.
I welcome the debate as one way forward to improve the comprehension and appreciation between different ethnic elements of society. That must be part of the action plan by every organisation and group in the UK from government to local communities.
The Parekh report issued last year provided useful guidelines and recommendations, which the Government and their agencies could do much more to follow up. That fact and other reports have been an example of the long-standing tradition in the UK. of governments to analyse social problems. But there is now an American or social science approach—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will comment on that—as in the management of large organisations, of trying to seek problems, to identify attitudes and ideas, and using those as a basis for policy. The difficulty of that approach is that not everyone agrees with the analysis or the conclusions.

1407
There is still a huge amount to do in that respect, perhaps more by education and the media than by government, to explain and appreciate how the UK population is made up of different social, ethnic and regional groups. I believe that the regionalisation of government is an important step in that direction. It is particularly important for us to understand that we are made up of those groups. Perhaps even in south-east England we need to appreciate that we are a distinct cultural group. I appreciated that strongly when I gave the Penguin Book of Jokes to a Philippine friend. Noble Lords will know the kind of thing: "Knock, knock". "Who's there?" "Isabel". "Isabel who?" "Is a bell necessary on a bicycle?". "Ah", she said, "a book of ethnic jokes".
More seriously, the critical, philosophical issue of our society is whether our ethnic groups can live together more successfully without the rather heavy policies of the US Government and their strongly conformist culture, including a highly self-censored media. In the United States in the 1960s and 1970s it used to be necessary to listen to Radio Moscow and the BBC to find out what was going on.
However, I believe that it is essential for the UK to move further to introduce positive discrimination—we are learning something from the United States—but without adopting the hectoring and excessively patriotic style of the recent US leaders. The recent speeches by the Home Secretary have emphasised the advantages of greater cohesion, and even conformity. That is obviously controversial, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, reminded us. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, rightly emphasised in his report and in his speech that more could be done by governments to ensure higher-level opportunities for minority ethnic groups.
When I was chief executive of a government agency in the middle nineties I received a circular from the Ministry of Defence to widen the representation of women and ethnic minorities on our advisory board. Being a dutiful civil servant I did just that and was extremely pleased with the results. That is one way, but organisations should not have to wait for a circular from the MoD. They should realise that appreciating the great value of multi-culturalism will enrich all organisations and the lives of everyone in the community.
There is steady progress by many organisations, but it should he faster. Recently a House of Lords committee visited a government laboratory. We were extremely pleased and interested to see an excellent presentation by the technical director, who was a distinguished British Asian. Government agencies employ many more people than Whitehall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is aware. However, in my experience they tend to be forgotten by the people in Whitehall dealing with policy. There are many more civil servants out there and the possibility of being able to use this important instrument of government needs not to be overlooked. Last week I discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, the new developments there will be in the Civil Service. The message given by
1408
the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, should be taken seriously. I am sure that the role of the Civil Service Commission, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, will be in the lead.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for introducing this subject. I should also like to record my interest in the subject as chairman of the Ethnic Minority Foundation. It is one of the major national organisations working with and for ethnic minority communities in Britain.
Much has been said over the years about ethnic and minority issues in Britain. Some of those discussions have been framed in negative terms with prejudice, bigotry and ignorance. But today we are talking about the benefits to Britain in becoming a multi-cultural society. I believe that there is a lot to celebrate, but there is also a need to recognise that much has yet to be done.
When we talk about multi-cultural Britain we must set the context in which we became so. The history goes back about 200 years when Britain started to build its colonial and imperial empire. It was a multi-cultural empire. After the famous "wind of change" speech by Prime Minister Macmillan in the 1950s we started to move to a multi-cultural Commonwealth. It now has over 30 countries as sovereign independent states working together on common issues and concerns. It is a space created by common consent, where differences are debated and discussed, agreed to or disagreed with between equal partners.
Is not Britain a microcosm of the Commonwealth? Our population has about 4 million people from different nationalities, cultures, colours, faiths and languages. Just as the Commonwealth works—and there are many success stories and benefits—so does multi-cultural Britain work and bring benefits to all.
To identify a few highlights of the success stories and contributions of Britain's ethnic communities one has only to look at the sports, media, television and arts sectors for a start. Last week's success by England's cricket team, lead by Nasser Hussein, in New Zealand must be something to talk about. The contributions of a large number of ethnic professionals working in our National Health Service is largely acknowledged but not sufficiently recognised. In business, the ethnic minorities are strong in the retail and small business sectors. There are large manufacturing companies owned or controlled by ethnic minorities which employ thousands of people and contribute to the national exchequer by way of taxes and export earnings. The ethnic communities have introduced their cuisine to our daily diets in our homes and through Indian restaurants across the country. There are ethnic minority professionals in our financial institutions and in professions such as accountancy, law, education and many others.
However, much remains to be done. To build a truly multi-cultural society is a long-term project. There are no quick fixes by the Government or by the people themselves. Everyone has to come together to build the

1409
type of society we want, which is at ease with itself and with the world. It means the education of a huge number of peoples of different cultures over a long period of time. We must recognise that when many cultures come together, enough time and resources must be made available in order to make that possible.
Different cultures have different perceptions on any given issue. There are also generational issues. The people who came here in the 1960s have a different outlook from their children and grandchildren who were horn and go to school here and who are growing up in a multi-cultural society. Out there inter-marriages take place and partnerships in personal lives and in businesses are constantly being forged. That is all against the background of a shrinking world created by information technology.
I believe that Britain is on the right path to becoming a plural, multi-ethnic country. It could be best described as a mosaic society where each colour is a part of one whole nation. We have most of the laws we need. I believe that the lines have been drawn about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour and conduct, and that the law is there to protect everyone, including the minorities. What we now need is time to consolidate and to build on the progress we have so far made.
Having said all that, there are some issues which need to be dealt with in order to enable ethnic minorities to become fully involved in the civic society of Britain. Through my work in the Ethnic Minority Foundation I have come to realise that there is a great need to build up the capacities of ethnic minority communities and their voluntary sector. Our research indicates that one of the major pathways into ethnic minority communities is through their 10,000 community voluntary organisations. Those groups need long-term core funding, support and help to build themselves and their communities so that they can participate in the civic society.
We find that in employment, education, health, housing, crime and prison population ethnic minorities are at the wrong end of the spectrum. Some of these issues are due to discrimination, ignorance and prejudice. They must be tackled on a long-term basis with resources, understanding and patience. I am pleased to report that some government departments are responding to these needs. I hope that that will continue on a long-term basis. The investments that are being made today must not be lost because of a short-term mindset.
It is a great pity that the Parekh report, published in 2000, got side-tracked, although many accept that it is a landmark and a serious piece of work. I urge the Government to look at it seriously and to take matters forward on some of the important issues that it raises. I believe that racism in Britain could undermine Britain's moral authority in the Commonwealth and in the rest of the world.
Let me share with your Lordships the recent experience I had during a Foreign Office-led mission to Morocco and Tunisia. The politicians and the people that we talked to were pleasantly surprised that
1410
there are 2 million Muslims in Britain; that we can practise our faith without any fear; and that we have 1,500 mosques in the United Kingdom. They were also quite surprised to hear that there are six Muslim parliamentarians and many more from oilier ethnic minority communities sitting in both Houses of Parliament. We were able to talk about the same issues of identity. We were told that the Tunisians saw themselves as Muslims, Tunisians, Mediterraneans and Africans. They were also surprised when we said that we saw no conflict in being Muslims and being British at the same time, and that we had full rights under the law.
I wish to refer to sensitive issues such as the "sus" laws, arranged marriages, asylum law and related matters. I beg the Government to look at these issues with a great deal of caution, patience and understanding. A bull in the china shop syndrome must be avoided. A great deal of discussion, and consultation must precede any change in law and its small print. An understanding of how the law will translate into action on the ground by police and other law enforcement agencies must be looked at in order to avoid damaging what has been built up over many years.
I want to end by quoting Robert Frost. He said:
"Nothing to look back to with pride and nothing to look forward to with hope".
That is not where we want to go. Britain in this millennium should be able to look back with pride and with hope for the future.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, like other speakers, I should like to thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, both for his speech and for his wonderful report. In both he drew attention to the fact that the British, like Nelson Mandela's South Africa, have always been a rainbow people. We have been multiethnic and multi-national since the dawn of our history.
Britain has gone through many changes. The word "British" has gone through many changes. The term "British Empire" was actually invented by a Welshman in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, meaning that Britain was linked to Brutus of Troy and to King Arthur. He meant, if you like, the Welsh empire. Certainly, there is very little link between that and the Britishness of "Rule Britannia" two centuries later. It shows how ideas and words about culture and language can change.
In Victorian times this country was increasingly seen as being multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. Many of the factors that are thought to have promoted integration in fact promoted diversity. Industrialisation created regional economies, local pride and local civic values. Literacy, which is commonly thought to have bound the country together, again intensified local cultures. In my own part of Britain it was the great age of Welsh language newspapers and the golden age of Welsh language poetry. So we have always been a culturally diverse, distinctly plural country. What has made

1411
people see our history differently is the rather special experience of the 20th century, which brought two world wars, a sense of union and shared patriotism combined with the unemployment of the inter-war years, which led to a phase of our history that I believe is now over. I believe that in so many ways Britain is now returning to its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic origins. By supporting devolution, my own party, the Labour Party, is in a way going back to its roots. It was an anti-centralist party, which supported home rule for Wales and Scotland and local government. It did not believe in the domination of Whitehall or that the gentlemen of Whitehall know best.
I wish to say something which no other speakers have said about the multi-ethnic and multicultural varieties that we had before Commonwealth immigration. Scotland and Wales I see as a very interesting contrast to the black and Asian communities which other speakers have knowledgeably and brilliantly discussed. In Scotland and Wales we have an example of cultural pluralism, which is moving towards the civic. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had their cultures recognised for a very long time and very beneficially so. I believe that we still have some way to go in relation to the Welsh language. We still have, as it were, the Anne Robinson syndrome abroad in the land, but on the whole the advance of the Welsh language is enormously enriching, particularly in Britain in a multi-cultural and multi-lingual Europe. Devolution will add to this process. It will add civic pluralism to cultural pluralism, which is very important, particularly in Wales whose culture has been recognised, but not in a civic sense. It has not had a sense of patriotism and citizenship in a political context which devolution is now providing.
It seems to me that as regards black and Asian citizens that experience is very different. Their civic recognition is leading to cultural recognition. We have had civic recognition of black and Asian citizens in Britain for a considerable time going back to the race relations legislation of the 1960s. But the problem is that it has not meant very much. We have created institutions which have had a beneficial effect and yet, as speaker after speaker has shown, we have clear inequality and discrimination. We have institutions like the BBC and the police accusing themselves of institutional racism. We have a criminal justice system that is weighted heavily in key respects including in sentencing policy against black and Asian immigrants. We have the civic recognition, but the implications of it have not been borne out.
I believe that some of the aspects of discrimination are economic, as other speakers have said. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to sport. I passionately support the Arsenal Football Club—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Morgan: My Lords, there are also other supporters including, I believe, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and Osama bin
1412
Laden—make of that what one will. Arsenal Football Club is a team of almost entirely black players except the goalkeeper. But they play before white supporters, not because the club practises discrimination, but because black people simply cannot afford the tickets. In many ways we have a kind of tokenism as regards black participation in sport.
On a somewhat more controversial note—I suspect that there might not be so many "hear, hears" on this point—I worry greatly about education. It seems to me vital that education should be a way of promoting multi-ethnic pluralism and getting our children to know each other. I went to a school in north London with very large numbers of Jewish boys. I had not met Jews before. I found it deeply enriching and the most educative part of my schooling. I worry very much about the divisiveness of schools, including faith schools, which were criticised on both sides of the House last week, not in the sense that they are run by religious communities, but in the sense that they tend to promote division, mono-culturalism and to divide children one from another. We have heard of alienation in terms of residence. I would be deeply worried if that were reinforced by alienation in terms of education. In my opinion we do not want to encourage this development more than we need.
Fundamentalism is a great problem in many ways. It seems to me as an historian that it is a more worrying problem in the world than communism ever was. After all, communism was a philosophy of inclusion. In my younger days I used to sing "The Internationale unites the human race". That was a very long time ago and noble Lords will be glad to know that I do not intend to sing now. It is deeply worrying if we promote institutions of divisiveness.
Like all other speakers, I am optimistic. I believe that things are improving and that being British means something; that our country is flexible and tolerant. We have not had a Le Pen or a Haider in this country to inflame race relations. Our view of citizenship is relaxed. We do not have a citizenship test and, with respect to a distinguished Member of this House, we do not have a cricket test and I hope we never will. Britishness means something to the Welsh, the Scots and, increasingly, to black British, Asians and Afro-Caribbeans.
My final point is this: what does Britishness mean to the English? After all, the English are 80 per cent of this island. It worries me deeply that the English, a tolerant, talented, wonderful people, have no particular articulation of themselves. England has been described, I believe, by Richard Rose as a state of mind or perhaps a geographical expression in the way that Metternich described Italy in the 19th century. England is difficult to define and difficult to govern in the sense that we have no regional system for England. Without articulating the English identity of 80 per cent of the people of this island, I believe that a stable, multi-cultural Britain will not yet have arrived.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I invite him to visit one or two Roman

1413
Catholic state schools and assess whether or not they have a strong concern with social justice and a global dimension.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, that is a very interesting. I do not object at all to the fact that they are Roman Catholic. My worry—intensified by what I know of Northern Ireland—is what a mono-cultural, mono-religious background can produce. That is increasing. I believe that the important thing is to bring children together at the youngest possible age to get them to know each other in terms of culture and religion and, in Wales, in terms of language.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, on seeing the list of speakers in this important debate, a friend of mine remarked, "Ah! You are going to insert into a string of distinguished speakers with some connection to the sub-Continent the view of the Continent". I believe that the Continent is making some contribution to multi-cultural Britain, indeed, even to the Arsenal Football Club, if I may say so, where the continental players are quite indispensable.
I am an immigrant. I came to this country and decided to settle here because it is a country of liberty. It is a kind of liberty which is rarely found anywhere else in the world. It is a tradition which has managed to resist the two great totalitarian temptations of the last century. It managed to resist them more effectively than almost any other country I can think of. It is a mixture of respect for others, of leaving space for individual initiative, of trust, and of being able to rely on certain bonds of tradition—breathing the air of freedom. Yes, diversity of cultures enriches a society.
The reason why I am speaking is my great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and what he stands for, which he has explained so well again this afternoon. There are not any really homogeneous societies, but those which think they are tend to be narrow minded, intolerant within and quite often aggressive without. The experience of having to live together—and wanting to live together—with people from different cultures helps civilised behaviour. There are, however, two conditions. One is that all must have equal opportunities to take part in economic, social and political life. Citizenship must be real. Several of your Lordships have spoken about this, beginning with my noble friend Lord Greaves.
The other condition is a more delicate and complicated one, and I want to spend a minute or two on it. It is that all must accept certain fundamentals of the society in which they live. On this there is, perhaps, no full agreement. I have read with great interest the report by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, entitled The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. I offer your Lordships a quotation from it, which is almost the sentence before the quotation that my noble friend Lord Greaves offered:
"Britain is both a community of citizens and a community of communities, both a liberal and a multicultural society, and needs to reconcile their sometimes conflicting requirements."
1414
I am not sure that I would put it in quite that way. I would probably prefer to say that Britain is a society in which a diversity of cultures can flourish to the benefit of all, but they do so only if the principles of its liberal order are accepted by all.
Those principles include the freedoms given under the constitutional traditions of the country—freedoms that are evolving, but always under the rule of law. In my understanding, however, they also include an enlightened attitude to state and society. I use the word "enlightened" deliberately, because enlightenment is a part of British liberty. All free societies have pockets of fundamentalism, but the open advocacy of and insistence on pre-Enlightenment views seems to me to be unacceptable.
One of the great questions is: how exactly do we define these common fundamentals if one wishes to live in a country of enlightened liberty? I was quite impressed when the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said in yesterday's debate:
"Some in this country disapprove of the religious slaughter of animals but it does not follow that that practice, central to the life of Jews and Muslims, should be banned".—[Official Report, 19/3/ 02; col. 1331.]
I agree, but that is not accepted in all countries. Indeed, it is a highly controversial subject in a number of continental countries. On one side, however, it is acceptable. I have greater difficulty—although I take the point about arranged and forced marriages—with the treatment of women in different groups. Not all groups in our society automatically treat women in the way in which I would like to see them treated in this civilised, liberal order.
The most difficult point is, perhaps, one that has to do with the law. I was greatly impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said. The separation of faith and law is one of the essential features of an enlightened order. There are, therefore, real problems with Sharia law, Rabbinical law and Catholic fundamentalism. There are real problems whenever law is made part of faith and, therefore, non-negotiable and not part of civil society and its institutions. I would hope that it is recognised that we can live together in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society if we accept that the law is common to all and that it is made here in Parliament by the institutions designed to provide it.
I agree very much with another statement made in the Parekh report, which perhaps—at least, by implication—recognises this insistence on the commonness of the law:
"Every society needs to be cohesive as well as respectful of diversity, and must find ways of nurturing diversity while fostering a common sense of belonging and a shared identity among its constituent members"—
that is, an identity under the law.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Like me, he is a first-generation immigrant. However, although he is an immigrant, I am sure that he does not get asked the kind of questions that I get asked, such as "Where do

1415
you come from? Do you go back there often?" Perhaps he does. I bet that the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, does not get asked such questions. I do, however, and I have great difficulty with it.
I also have great difficulty with the topic of this debate because from childhood onwards I tried to escape the identity of being Indian. I wanted to be part of the world, and to be myself. If someone points a gun at me in the middle of the night and asks, "What are you?", I will say that I am an economist. Indeed, until I came to your Lordships' House, I was never thought of as south Asian; I did not think of myself as south Asian. I am an economist, I am middle class, I live in a middle-class area, and I have a good middle-class job. Although I was obviously liberal and anti-racist, and in no way denying where I was born, I never thought of myself as belonging to an ethnic minority. When I came here, however, I was "outed". People started thinking of me as representing a community, but I do not. I am not here as a representative of any ethnic minority.
I hope that I can explain that I have great difficulty with the whole notion of multi-culturalism. As my noble friend Lord Parekh knows, I have expressed my reservations in a review that I wrote of his book on multi-culturalism. I want to argue that creating a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society is not necessarily the great thing that it is said to be. I am not saying that we should not be tolerant or that we should not recognise the value of different languages, cultures, practices and cuisines. I am saying that we ought to distinguish between the public space and the private space. One great difficulty created by many of the policies followed over the last 50 years is that we have confused that distinction.
People from ethnic minorities, and other people as well, find themselves trapped by certain labels which inhibit their mobility out of where they are starting from. This leads to the perpetuation of poverty in certain groups. After all, when we talk about ethnic minorities we are now talking about third and fourth generation people. There are persistent imbalances between the educational achievement of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, compared with other minorities. We labelled people, from the best possible motives, and insisted that their passport to certain public goods depended upon their producing that identity— housing, schools, their ability to find employment. It was done in order to help people. But once we have done that, we do not allow them to escape that labelling and become ordinary citizens.
Some noble Lords present may remember Lord Pitt. He was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. There is a story that, as he was going about his business in Hampstead High Street, a little boy was heard to say to his mother, "Mother, mother, there is a black man", and his mother said, "Hush child, that is not a black man. That is a doctor". I wish we could all become like that. I wish I did not have to carry my religion and my ethnicity on my lapel. That is not to
1416
say I want to deny those matters. I am not schizophrenic. But we labelled people with the best of intentions.
Originally people came from other countries to sustain industries which should have been shut down—the cotton and textile industries in the North of England—in any proper market conditions. But those people were brought in because they could be paid less than white people. Of course, since those industries were doomed to fail, those people were trapped in those regions and those regions are where they are trapped still. All the things they can get by way of public goods depend upon their identity and where they are located.
We have this horrendously depressed area across the Pennines. Both the economics and the politics are depressed. It is no good saying, "We are going to be multi-cultural", because the way to make Bradford better is to take a lot of Bradford people out of Bradford—just taking Bradford as an example.
The problem is that we are not following an egalitarian strategy; we are following a multi-cultural strategy. There is a difference. We do not see people in the way that my noble friend Lord Morgan described. It is true that we only formally recognise the civic nature of those groups, but none of their entitlements arose out of their colour. Although labelling arose out of a sense of helpfulness, it turned out to be a great immobilising strategy. And we must get out of that.
People do not appreciate how good a model the United States is for assimilation. Except in terms of Afro-Americans, it successfully integrated many people. The reason why they recently allowed Indians to head top US corporations is that they do not label people. Even for Afro-American blacks, their progress has been tremendous. We have not made that progress and we ought to ask why not.
7.3 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I was grateful to read, in preparation for this debate, the report, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, produced under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Parekh. In particular, like the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, I was struck by the way in which the report reveals that Britain has been always an evolving "community of communities". Perhaps that is changing more rapidly now than at some times in the past, but multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism are not entirely new phenomena for our country to face. Perhaps it is a wider and better appreciation of that would draw the sting of the very proper and eloquent complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
Among the many recommendations of the report, it requested a new commission on religion in public life to attend especially to legal and constitutional questions. Perhaps a new commission will be needed in due course. There is little doubt that we are in a period of quite rapid evolutionary change in the relation of faith communities to our society, and also at a more fundamental constitutional level.

1417
I should like this evening to contribute a few comments from the perspective of the Church of England and its historic establishment. The "establishment" of the Church of England refers to a complex, multi-faceted and rather unique set of relationships between Church and state and Church and nation which go back well over 1,000 years into Saxon times. It is not, as is sometimes imagined, a phenomenon with roots in the 16th century; it goes back much further. And Anglicans have always traced their spiritual lineage to those earlier times.
The particular form and evolution of the English establishment has taken its place among other relationships between Church and state in these islands, and also on a wider European canvas. The very notion of Europe itself is in one sense a Christian concept. Europe denotes that area of the Asian land mass where the Christian civilisation took root. Prior to the 18th century the area which is now normally labelled "Europe" would usually have been called, "Christendom". So Europe is more a religious than a geographical concept.
Many of the distinguishing features of European civilisation have inevitably been deeply shaped by the Christian faith—the freedom and uniqueness of the individual with his or her rights; the characteristic moral emphases of our culture; even science itself, perhaps the most potent force in our society. Modern science was born in Christian Europe in the 16th century. Historians of science have often pointed out that it was Christian notions of creation coming to the fore in that century which were a necessary prerequisite for the scientific enterprise to emerge.
Perhaps the commonly recognised distinguishing characteristics of our country—our reputation for justice, fair play and so forth—which the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, acknowledged and to which several Members of this House referred this evening, partly emerged because of the long and distinguished emphases upon the spiritual basis of monarchy and Parliament alike—warm beer and ladies cycling to evensong indeed, even if we do now have to add chicken tikka masala, whatever that is.
I should like to say a further word at this point about the monarchy itself. It is a subject which the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, largely ignored. But it is relevant to how we attempt to hold together an increasingly pluralist and multi-ethnic "community of communities".
Why has the British monarchy survived and flourished while so many of its continental counterparts have died and diminished? Clearly we have been blessed with some fine individual monarchs. But the particular way in which the spiritual and sacred character of the monarchy has been nurtured and expressed has enabled our monarchy to relinquish political power without losing its fundamental raison d'être.
The transcendent rooting of the monarchy, vividly expressed at the coronation itself, has been vital to its grace and dignity. That feature of our constitutional monarchy has been mediated through a particular
1418
relationship with the Church of England. Cut that relationship and perhaps the Royal Family would be much more vulnerable to being seen as just another rich and privileged family (if I may use that phrase). Most of our citizens will continue to prefer our constitutional monarchy, with its sacred and spiritual basis, to the alternative symbols of flags, national anthems and myths of national destiny, which tend to fill the vacuum elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described.
But if the establishment of the Church of England is to survive, it will need to evolve; to take account of the new dimensions of multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism in our midst. The precise character of the next coronation, I imagine, will need to be significantly different from the last. The Sovereign, I believe, can appropriately be described as a "defender of faith", as well as a "defender of the faith". I do not believe the two are in fundamental contradiction. Indeed, the Sovereign needs to be a defender equally of those who are agnostic or atheists. Authentic Christianity seeks to coerce no one against their God-given freedom and respects the dignity and rights of all.
However, just as one cannot really be religious without a religion, I do not think that we can recognise a spiritual basis to life in the structures of our society without mediating that through a particular faith community. That will bring new obligations and opportunities to that faith community. There is scope here, I believe, for the Church of England to be much more generous to the other faith communities in our midst, in relation, for example, to our buildings, but in many other ways as well. We have been slow out of the blocks in this matter and we are still lagging behind where we need to be.
We need to learn from the experience of other parts of the world. It has always struck me as significant that the mother house of Mother Theresa's Sisters of Charity in Calcutta is set in the precincts of a Hindu temple—or so I am told.
A more generous hospitality to other faith communities in various ways need not compromise our integrity at all, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford explained. Indeed, properly understood, it is part of that very integrity. At this point, I believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was absolutely right to say that better relationships between faith communities is a crucial part of the strategy to combat racism. I do not believe that the mainstream churches in this country—and let me speak here specifically of the Church of England—have yet fully grasped that challenge.
Some will say that it would be better to disestablish the Church of England and build a new order of society on secular and multi-faith foundations. Perhaps, but I doubt whether that is what our people, including most members of the minority faith communities, want. The Chief Rabbi articulated that very well in his Reith Lectures a few years ago.
From the perspective of the different faith communities, it was secular materialism which largely made the running in the second part of the

1419
20th century and has left us a social, moral and artistic legacy which hardly seems to inspire. Statistics of suicide, especially among the young, mental illness, family breakdown, and crime, reinforce the point. The challenge in the 21st century is to establish more clearly, on a renewed basis, the sacred dignity of life and of our obligations to each other in society. I believe that the new communities will richly contribute to that process.
I remain unpersuaded that disestablishment of the Church of England is the best way to facilitate this, but neither do I underestimate the challenge of changes of attitude which are still required in many quarters, and which the distinguished contributions to this debate so far have very clearly identified.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, as one who comes from Wales where the kirk has been happily disestablished, perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate a question.
In his account of disestablishment, the right reverend Prelate quoted the views, as I am sure he rightly saw them, of the various faiths, who number 19 per cent of the population. Eighty-one per cent of the population would not have been included in his sample.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, it depends entirely on who you count and which survey you use to get the particular proportions.
I gladly acknowledge, however, that there is a rich diversity of Christian expression in this country, to which the Church in Wales has made its contribution over the past 80 years. I am happy to acknowledge that and to include a dialogue with the other Christian denominations in the question of the future of church-state relationships.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, among the benefits to this country of multi-ethnicity I would like particularly to draw your Lordships' attention to the contribution made by writers, as alluded to by my noble friend Lord Parekh. To him I am grateful for opening this debate with such an excellent and enlightening speech.
As a novelist myself, a reviewer and former judge in the Booker and Whitbread Prizes among others, I have noted with intense pleasure and a growing sense of wonderment the works, mostly of a very high standard indeed, that have come to us from writers of Caribbean origin, those from Turkey, Egypt, the Middle East in general, from Africa and from the Far East. It is not to disparage these novelists—many of them giants, whose work will endure—when I say that in my opinion the most remarkable phenomenon has been the fiction output of those whose roots are in the Asian sub-continent. On them I shall concentrate this evening. I hope that noble Lords who share their provenance will forgive me if I mispronounce names. I can only assure them that, without much guidance, I will do my best.
1420
Paramount among these writers must be Salman Rushdie, who made waves early on in this Asian tide of literature with Midnight's Children, which won the Booker Prize. Since then he has three times been short-listed for that prize and was awarded the "Booker of Bookers" for coming top in a general contest of contributions over 25 years of the prize.
I think next of Amitav Ghosh and his masterpiece Shadow Lines, and of course of Arundati Roy, another Booker winner, with The God of Small Things. Of the Desais, Anita, with her prize-winning novels, and her daughter Kiran, making her debut with her tale of a guru, Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard. Several other Asian novelists figure in the short lists which span three decades.
In case it may seem—though I think this would be a false conclusion to draw—that these novels are too intellectual and highbrow to reach a wide audience, I mention here the internationally renowned A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth. In the best sense, this huge epic novel is accessible to everyone who enjoys reading and loves a good story. Essentially a serious book about India after independence and partition, it is also intimately concerned with family life and a mother's search for a suitable husband for her daughter. It is currently being serialised on BBC Radio 4.
All these novels—and I have described very few of the number published here each year—provide what fiction essentially should, that is, entertainment, excitement and suspense in the best sense of those words, as well as examining the human condition. They possess a freshness and originality sometimes lacking in the product of indigenous writers. They do much more than that, however, and this is where the true benefit they confer on our society makes its mark.
Whereas overseas publishers have for generations bought rights in books of British origin and published them alongside their own national works—often when doing so has necessitated translation—the number of foreign language books accepted by publishers here has always been small. Only the principal writers in their own countries, or the most popular and saleable, have found a market here.
The result of this has been that those of us who are not academics or who have never made a particular study of, say, Nigerian or Turkish literature, or works from Syria or Malaysia, have not only failed to appreciate that these countries too have a rich treasure of literature of their own but have learned nothing of the manner of living of the people who are these countries' nationals. This applies, or did recently, even to those who are our neighbours in Europe who are physically and geographically close to us.
It is the business of the novelist, if he or she writes of contemporary events, to present a picture of life as it is lived at the moment; of the houses people live in, the food they eat, the schools they go to, the faith they practise, their political situation, their tastes, their clothes and their customs. If we return to the Asian sub-continent, however, what have we known of the ways of the diverse peoples of this huge area except what we have read in geography books and in the

1421
works of Kipling, for instance, or E.M. Forster and Paul Scott? All of them, according to one's taste, are fine writers, but all of them British—indigenous British, even if domiciled or paying a long visit to India. Theirs have been the eyes and the ears of strangers in a strange land.
In the novels of those Asian writers I have spoken of, and in those of many of their fellows and contemporaries, we get the true picture. We derive from them insights into lives we never dreamed of; and we need not doubt their accuracy, for these are people writing about what they have known from infancy, what they grew up with and what their ancestors lived with.
I believe that this is an area of multi-ethnic contribution which has been neglected, few commenting on what has almost amounted to a literary revolution. I will not say "renaissance", for this talent and occasional genius were no doubt always there but untapped and unrealised. It has brought to die general reader, the woman or man on the Underground, if you like—how many people have I seen reading A Suitable Boy in the Tube? —a unique and otherwise unreachable source of knowledge of a group who live among us.
Knowledge of a society must help to bring about understanding. And understanding, even if it is a perception of the bad side of a way of life as well as the good, must lead to the sympathy and tolerance so essential when people from very different cultures are obliged to live side by side. After direct experience, something not open to all of us by any means, fiction is the best way of learning about our neighbours' religious beliefs and rituals, their marriage customs, their domestic habits, their ambitions and their aspirations.
Writers of fiction have been the ambassadors of those who have settled here in the United Kingdom, presenting their own rich civilisation and saying, "This is what we are like and this is what you must know if we are to live together successfully".
7.21 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, on securing this timely debate on important national issues that have tended to receive negative reports in the media. Our neighbours in Western Europe are also grappling with multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism. Some are keen to foster immigration of people from outside Europe, because demographic trends predict a reduction of 100 million people in Europe by the year 2050 if no immigration were to take place. That prediction comes from the United Nations population projections of 1998. The critical result of such a population decline will be the contraction of the workforce available to support the pensions of older retired people, a growing part of our population.
Germany has begun to feel the effects of this demographic change. In 1999, the German Government began offering full citizenship to non-European people for the first time in their national
1422
history. A seminar took place in the British Embassy in Berlin in November 2000, when German government officials met key representatives from Britain's multiethnic population to discuss issues of multiculturalism. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I were present, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland.
Our Government are well aware of the benefits of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural population that provides skills in short supply, such as doctors and other health professionals in the National Health Service. Since April 2001, immigration rules have been relaxed to allow foreign students graduating in our universities to obtain employment immediately, instead of having to leave Britain. According to Department of Health statistics for 2000, one in four of our doctors and one in six of our dentists is black or Asian, and we continue to look for more health professionals to work in the NHS.
The Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office published a report last month on Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market, from which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford quoted statistics. It shows that many ethnic minority men and women in Britain have higher rates of unemployment than white people. For those in employment, their salary is lower than their white counterparts in similar jobs.
Those issues are not new; they were reviewed by the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. Here, I declare an interest as a member of that independent commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and supported by the Runnymede Trust. The commission's carefully researched publication was the most comprehensive work on this subject for 30 years. Yet, when the report was launched in October 2000, it received the most negative and biased reviews by both tabloid and broadsheet newspapers that I can remember, because it mentioned the need for making the term "Britishness" more inclusive for ethnic minority people. Even government distanced themselves from the commission's report.
The report focused on cohesion, equality and difference. It asked searching questions such as,
"What values and loyalties must be shared by communities and individuals in One Nation?",
and,
"How should disputes and incompatible values between different communities be handled?",
and.
"How is a balance to be struck between the need to treat people equally, the need to treat people differently, and the need to maintain shared values and social cohesion?".
The Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain argued that Britain should develop both as a community of citizens and as a community of communities. Although belonging to different ethnic groups and having different cultural practices, all Britons would share common values of justice, abide by our laws, and have respect for individuals' dignity.

1423
In the past 18 months, it is evident that government have adopted some of the recommendations of the commission, particularly its emphasis on cohesion and common values. But it is regrettable that government have not given credit where it is due; namely, to the commission for its excellent and valuable contributions to the making of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and cohesive Britain.
Our vision of a cohesive and successful Britain where cultural diversity is valued cannot be built just on a set of common values. Our citizens from diverse backgrounds need to be convinced that they are valued by the way they are treated in their daily experience of life in Britain. Being treated fairly by employers, colleagues in the workplace, the police, the criminal justice system, and all public authorities, including the health service, is the proof that we all subscribe to common values of the equal worth of all our citizens irrespective of ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. This is the way that ethnic minority people and communities can develop a sense of belonging to Britain.
Last summer's disturbances in Blackburn, Burnley and Oldham reminded us that our vision is still to be achieved. People from different cultural backgrounds cannot be isolated from each other to live "parallel lives". In 1995, when I was director of the NHS Ethnic Health Unit, I gave a small grant to people living in Glodwick, an inner-city district of Oldham. The grant administered by Oldham NHS Community Trust paid for the rental of a terraced house in the centre of where people lived. This house became a one-stop shop for health, social services, and the police for the residents of Glodwick, most of whom were Pakistanis needing bilingual interpreters. Local authorities did not continue the support and allowed this very helpful facility to close after two years, even though local residents and public authorities valued it and wanted its continuation.
Therefore, I was not surprised by the troubles in Oldham last summer; and I told the review team from Oldham so when it sought my views by coming to your Lordships' House. Local and public authorities have a significant role to play, in addition to their duties to provide services. It is to help people to meet and to live together in harmony in imaginative housing schemes.
Finally, I believe that central government need to give a lead by declaring the benefits of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Britain and encouraging good practice. Beginning from your Lordships' House, the Government's support should be seen to influence for good the lives of people in our inner cities.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Parekh for introducing this Motion and especially for listing the eminent achievements of much of our community. Multi-culturalism and the issue of multi-ethnicity are both complex and exciting; and, indeed, most challenging. The process of change in our efforts to create a plural modern Britain has no room
1424
for complacency or stagnation. But there remains a lot of space and the need for honesty and candour. If any discourse on community relations is to be meaningful, it has to start from a point of introspection: a complete overhaul of all our theoretical assumptions, intellectual orthodoxies, practical experiments and the policies arising out of the 1980s and 1990s race relations industry.
The benefits of multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism to Britain and Britishness of are beyond debate. They are manifest in all walks of life in modern Britain, from the curries on our table to the hip-hop on our hi-fis and the shalwar kamiz on Mrs Blair's elegant shoulders. Discussion on multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Britain needs to be broader and more sophisticated than the narrow, exotic picture that I have just described. We must liberate that crucial agenda from its entirely secular fundamentalist understanding, because without the context, change will be slow—as it has been—and the result will be what we saw in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham.
As a Muslim woman of Bengali descent and a Peer on the Labour Benches, I must admit that I am often deeply unhappy and frustrated by the current application and understanding of both Britishness and multi-culturalism at the highest level. I agree with much of what my noble friend, my good friend and mentor, Lord Desai said. Also as a Muslim, I can only touch on the pain, anger and helplessness that I feel at the way in which current debate has managed to marginalise and alienate much of our communities. The almost total denial for decades of our identity based on our faith has been devastating psychologically, socially and culturally and its economic impact has been well demonstrated. For years Britain's 2 million or so Muslims—the largest group within the country's visible minorities—have been totally bypassed even by the best-intentioned community and race relations initiatives because they have failed to take on board the fact that a major component of their identity is their faith.
Such an identity demanded more than just the stereotypical and lazy imposition of simple cultural labels based on race categorisations. British Muslims, consisting of more than 56 nationalities and speaking more than 100 languages, have never been and shall never be happy about an existence and understanding that rarely goes beyond somosas, Bollywood and bhangra. The fact that the wholeness of my identity as a British Muslim is not accepted even among the champions of multi-culturalism is deeply depressing, but the situation is worse when compounded by the negation of my experience as a woman. In response to the description of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, of the equality of women in numerous cultures and faiths, I would add that no society has a monopoly on equity to its women and none of us—including those of us on these Benches—can be deeply proud of what we have contributed thus far. The pain is all the more unbearable when I see the Government, formed from my party, lose significant sense and direction over policies aimed at facilitating the emergence of a genuinely plural society.

1425
The Motion will be useful only if we have the magnanimity and wisdom to embrace the nature and blessings of the contributions that multiple faiths can make to our society. But to do that we must understand, appreciate and respect the fact that a large number of people in our society have much passion and aspiration to religious values. To ignore religion and the values for which it stands is therefore to ignore their innermost desire and fundamental human right to exist in the way they perceive to be right.
For me, the benefits of multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism to Britain and British society can be invaluable only if they include the nuances of our multi-faith communities. From Scarman onwards, too many reports have missed the opportunity to address that important facet of Britishness. I am therefore deeply grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his recent contribution by setting up a listening group to consider the issue of Muslims and Christians living together. No doubt the findings will be reported hack to the right place.
I long for the day when a shalwar kamiz-wearing mother of two—or of four or five—walking in my neighbourhood in East London is identified not only with oppression, curries or terrorism but with the love and spiritual beauty that built the Taj Mahal, the Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul and the hanging gardens of Baghdad—I could continue with that list.
We have come of age. Our contribution to Britain cannot be overstated. Our children cannot continually be asked to prove their loyalty. If integration were to be assured by living together, speaking English and marrying in Britain, Stephen Lawrence would still be here, not where he is, and Kuddrus Ali would not be in a wheelchair. We have a grand track record of contribution to Britain. We now need institutions to do their job. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, states that eminently in his report.
If we are serious about the future of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-faith Britain, it is time for us to own up and invest now.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for initiating this debate. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the name Patel is as British as one can get. No other name is more common in Britain.
Does the United Kingdom benefit from being a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society? Can anyone possibly argue that we do not? Yes, it may create problems, tension and a need to understand each other's cultures and values. That requires compromise from all of us and legislation to accommodate our being members of such a society. But there can be no doubt about whether multi-ethnic society benefits the United Kingdom.
I know a little personally about what multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society means. I am of Indian origin, born in Tanzania. My wife is English, born in Sheffield, but has lived nearly all her life in Scotland and thinks that she is now a Scot. I, too, have lived in
1426
Scotland for the past 42 years. I have a French son-in-law. That is a wonderful mix. If France beat England at rugby—unexpectedly—we join the celebrations. If Scotland wins the Five Nations Cup once, we remember it for ever. I hope that England will win the Test Match series in New Zealand.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the benefits of multi-ethnic society, but we have also heard how some of the ethnic minority citizens of our country feel undervalued and unfairly treated. The noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Chan, both referred to the contributions of ethnic minority doctors and nurses. Our health service would collapse if it did not have a large number of doctors and nurses working in primary care and in hospitals, mostly from the so-called developing world.
Many of those doctors work in inner-city areas and, in the case of general practitioners, often single-handed and poorly supported. Most have been here for nearly all their lives. In hospitals, they mostly work in non-consultant career grades, despite their experience and competence, and in unpopular specialties. Many feel discriminated against and are unable to fight the culture of paternalism and the old boy network. Somehow, rules and regulations imposed either by government or professional bodies end up disadvantaging them. That problem needs to be recognised and something needs to be done if we are to continue to value those doctors and nurses and they are to feel that they are fairly treated. In the context of today's debate, I must say that those doctors and nurses bring immense benefits to our country.
The health of people from the ethnic minorities—particularly inequalities in health —is another issue that must be addressed. We must consider the relevance of evidence-based medicine, the translation of knowledge of ethnic minority health into NHS practice and the impact of public health policy on minority ethnic communities. Diseases such as coronary heart disease, strokes and cancer and mental ill health affect ethnic groups differently. Culture, biology and environment affect the incidence of disease, but it is important that we make sure that healthcare delivery does not produce inequalities. Currently, there is a great deal of inequality in the care of people from minorities who suffer from ill health. We need better ethnic monitoring of NHS databases to quantify service use accurately, and we must study the quality of the care offered to ethnic minorities.
The hour is late, and much has already been said. I shall not prolong the debate. Most members of ethnic minorities regard themselves as citizens of this country and wish to play a full role in its development. However, they also wish for fair treatment.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Parekh for giving us such a good opportunity to discuss and call attention to the benefits of multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism to Britain.

1427
Last summer, we witnessed civil disturbances in several towns in the North of England. One of the towns affected was Burnley, which has been mentioned once or twice. Noble Lords may be aware that I had the privilege of heading the task force set up to look into what happened in Burnley last June and make recommendations that could help to prevent a re-occurrence. Unlike other reports, the report of the Burnley task force was the creation of Burnley people, through the local authority. I was approached to be the independent, voluntary chair of the task force. When I took on the job, I did not realise how long it would take or the amount of work that it would entail. The report is lengthy and contains numerous recommendations.
During those three days in June, young people from the white and Asian communities confronted each other in violent clashes. It is a little surprising, when we think about the event in the early hours of the morning that started it all. An Asian cab driver, who was going home, was dragged out of his cab and bludgeoned with a hammer. He was left bleeding on the road. We can all deplore what happened, but we must try to understand the motivations that led to those clashes.
The report of the task force was published just before Christmas. In the limited time that I have, I shall say a few words about some of the issues addressed by the task force that are relevant to this evening's discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, used the keynote words "cohesion" and "integration". As a task force, our key word was "listening". We listened to the people of Burnley, who had experienced the dreadful occurrences.
A questionnaire was sent to 45,000 households in the borough—every household. The report is in the Library, and noble Lords can find the questions in it. The significant thing is that we had a 10 per cent response rate, so the task force's conclusions can be seen as representing the views of the people who took the trouble to respond. There were public meetings and parish meetings. The task force met almost every councillor, including the leaders of all the political parties represented on the local authority. Almost 250 letters and e-mails were received from individuals, and there were detailed submissions from many voluntary and statutory organisations.
The consultation exercise has been described as a model for finding out what people thought—rather than what we, as politicians and civic leaders thought—and what issues needed to be addressed. Among the 84 recommendations in the report were a number that dealt with community relations. The consultation showed clearly that there was much more work to be done if we were properly to enjoy the benefits of multi-culturalism that we have heard about during the debate. I speak about Burnley, but I am confident that what we discovered can be found in other parts of the country.
Progress towards better understanding between our differing cultures is obstructed by the racist and grossly offensive activities of far Right organisations.
1428
I make no apology for bringing that into the debate. Such organisations are active in Burnley and, no doubt, in other places. An examination of the appalling leaflets and comments that are widely circulated in Burnley—circulated this very week—by such organisations will show that they are deliberately framed in inflammatory language. They seek to make minority ethnic groups the scapegoats for the economic and social deprivation that is evident in parts of Burnley. Such activity is not confined to the Daneshouse/Stoneyholme area of Burnley, it is also evident in south-west Burnley. People's fears are being stoked up by the stuff that is coming through the door. When my noble friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will confirm that local police forces are encouraged to use all their powers to enforce the parts of the Race Relations Act 1976 that are in place to deal with those responsible for the production and distribution of such dreadful publications.
Our consultation showed that local authorities and statutory organisations must improve their communication with the public, especially with regard to providing the reasons and conditions for funding neighbourhood renewal. In particular, when that form of funding is allocated to areas with significant numbers of families from ethnic minorities, such bodies must make it clear why the money is going in that direction. They must not leave it to the Right-wing groups to say that it is unfair distribution of the nation's wealth. That need was illustrated time and time again. The propaganda and distortions of the far Right had, in many instances, fallen on fertile ground. Votes of 20 per cent were recorded for what I would describe as neo-fascist organisations in local and other elections. We must heed the warning, if we are to stop such things recurring.
I hope that I have not given the impression that the people of Burnley are despondent. Overwhelmingly, they are full of hope and determination to overcome what happened. I wish that there was more time to speak about the wonderful people who served on the task force. There were five youngsters—three from the Asian community—the Bishop of Burnley, the Right Reverend John Goddard, and an imam, Jihan Ali. They made sterling efforts to draw people together and were with me at each public meeting, where we were able to counter some of the terrible stuff that people were reading from leaflets that had been circulated by far Right groups. The imam and the bishop are now organising regular meetings between the churches and mosques to further the ideal of multi-racial harmony in Burnley.
I met schoolchildren, some of whom have since visited the House. They were receptive to my suggestion for exchanges between schools—maybe a day's exchange, to start with, or maybe for a week or a term—so that people can learn about one another's culture and the way in which other people live. They were very receptive to that. It is essential that we do something of that kind to remove ignorance and fear. Our young people must be given help to do what they

1429
want to do. I shall quote from a programme drawn up as a result of the work of the task force. Under "Other things we want", they list,
"Burnley Youth Theatre to create a performing arts project involving young Asian and white men … more integrated/ residential youth work … more visits to each other's Youth Clubs … more training to help Youth Workers to help them tackle racist issues … the employment of more minority ethnic Youth Workers".
There is a list of things that young people have suggested should be done. The House would be well advised to take note of what is being said by young people in places such as Burnley, learn from it and do our utmost to ensure that what they ask for becomes a reality.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we have come to the concluding part of this debate. Perhaps I may say first how much I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. It is certainly timely.
I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in his response, but suffice it to say at this stage that those of us who participated in the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain were offended by the government response to our deliberations when the report was first published. I do not wish to rehearse those arguments again, except to say that the commission was made up of 22 distinguished individuals drawn from many community backgrounds and from different walks of life, all with a long record of active theoretical and practical engagement with race-related issues in Britain and elsewhere. Many of the report's recommendations are as valid today as they were when it was published. It was sad to see that the Government were quick to dismiss it simply because they were uncomfortable with a number of the findings.
I hope that that will not be the case today, because the debate has attracted contributions from such distinguished speakers of diverse cultural backgrounds. I suspect that this may well be the first occasion in the history of your Lordships' House that speakers from no fewer than nine ethnic minorities have contributed to a single debate. I shall start by saying that we need to move away from saris, samosas and spices and look seriously at the issues confronting the minorities in this country.
Britain has always been a nation of migrants. Migration and the global economy are interrelated. Evidence shows that economically-driven migration can bring substantial overall economic benefits both for growth and for the economy. Just take the example of the United States of America. The huge recent inflow of migrants, estimated at 11 million during the 1990s, has been a key to sustaining America's longest ever economic boom. The same is true of our economy. Let us not lose sight of the fact that migration to the United Kingdom is based on economic factors benefiting both the individual and the state. We cannot sustain a global economy by being Little Englanders.
1430
Perhaps I may add a few statistics to those produced by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, in his contribution. The recent census figures are yet to be published, but it is accepted that just over 7 per cent of the UK population is made up of the ethnic minorities. Immigration to the United Kingdom has never been a planned process. Most minorities have settled in Britain's major cities and conurbations. Over 70 per cent of the combined ethnic minorities are to be found in London, the South East and the West Midlands. Add to that some unique characteristics of the ethnic minority communities: in the United Kingdom population as a whole, women outnumber men, but it is quite the reverse in ethnic communities, where men outnumber women.
When we look at multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism, we have to look at other relevant factors. For example, the ethnic minorities belong to many diverse religions, as has already been pointed out by a number of noble Lords. Family structures vary among the different groups, as do language, employment practices and a number of other relevant factors.
Today's debate offers us an opportunity to examine ethnicity and multi-culturalism by taking into account events following the publication of the Runnymede report and also the conclusions reached by the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Much has happened since. We have had disturbances in our northern towns of Burnley, Oldham and Bradford. Damilola Taylor was brutally murdered. We see the impact of black on black crime. We have to accept that the world will never be the same after the events of 11th September in America. It is most important that the debate does not lose sight of this changing situation.
No one should underestimate the value placed by the minorities on their ethnicity and in their belief in multi-culturalism, yet there is confusion in government circles. It is evident that we are prepared to pay lip service to the objective of an integrated society without qualifying our stance on these important values.
I have gone through some previous government reports. The concept of multi-culturalism in 1965 was qualified by a number of concerns. One report stated that:
"It must be recognised that the presence in this country of nearly 1 million immigrants from the Commonwealth with different social and cultural backgrounds raises a number of problems and various social tensions in those areas where they are concentrated".
That is as true in 2002 as it was in 1965. It is clear that assumptions that have been made over the past 50 years have not been realised. Even before my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, then the Home Secretary, defined "integration" not as a flattening process of assimilation but as one of equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance, policy makers had assumed that Britain was a true melting pot, that all the many racial, cultural and religious groups would be assimilated into a new whole—a single nation with shared ideals, attitudes and values.

1431
But how wrong can we all be? Black and Asian groups have to a great extent retained their identities. Of course we now have cultural pluralism, but unlike previous migrations, this one is different because it is supplemented by the visual identity of the individuals. This confusion has continued from the days of early migration. The government stance in the 1960s had been based on the assumption that the Commonwealth immigrants would be absorbed into our community and that the good sense of the British people would prevail.
What we have failed to do is to reinforce among the population the fact that ethnicity and multiculturalism should not mean the loss of national characteristics and culture. We do not need a melting pot, which would deprive us of most of the benefits of immigration, which are very great indeed.
Cultures do not remain static and communities change. Conflict often occurs over matters of gender, generation, religion, language and a community's relationship with the wider society. There is nothing to be frightened about. We are already witnessing fusion in music, the arts, fashion and sport. The new emerging culture will be exciting and, to an extent, it will lessen the need to put too much emphasis on ethnicity and multi-culturalism. That is why we require leadership at every level. We look to the Government and political parties to provide that leadership.
The United Kingdom has an enviable record on race legislation. The principle of equality before the law is rightly embedded in our legislation. But as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has often pointed out, we should not be too carried away but should understand the narrow limits of this principle. The 1965, 1968 and 1976 Race Relations Acts, along with the most recent Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, have all helped, but they have not removed inequalities. Now, with human rights legislation in place, is it not time to look again at an equality commission based on a similar model to that established in Northern Ireland?
I wish to emphasise that, despite over 60 years of settlement of black and Asian communities in the United Kingdom, race relations still remain very fragile and many of the issues affecting those communities are discussed on an emotional basis. We live in a fair and just society and all reasonable people would condemn racism and racial discrimination, but we still find that many of the practices we adopt may lead to precisely such outcomes.
Let me add that it is not so much what the law or a declaration specifically says as our general underlying attitudes and values which, as they are held and expressed, are of such importance for our social well-being. Equality should never be undermined. In the final analysis, the emphasis in any policy determination should be the manner in which and the extent to which minorities' deepest feelings about their race, colour, national or ethnic origins are truly accepted within the community and by the policy makers.
1432
For as long as I can remember, I have expressed my concerns about the rights of the minorities: the right to live in peace, to receive an education, to get a job, to raise a family free from fear and, above all, the right to be treated fairly, without reference to race, colour, national or ethnic origins. These are the issues at the core of everything that needs to be done. They stand at the heart of every issue. No longer can a society endure in peace, really live with itself, really prosper in all ways, if in that society discriminatory practices still persist.
A number of issues now cry out for planned economic immigration to the United Kingdom: a shortage of labour, an ageing society and a diminishing workforce. Last night I attended a dinner hosted by the Asian Business Association. One in 10 businesses in London is now Asian owned. There are potentially huge economic benefits. Their record in providing service is second to none. A few isolated incidents of misdemeanours cannot take away the vibrant economy that the migrant community has created. Many of them are now contributing to charitable causes in the United Kingdom. This is the acceptable face of the ethnic communities in Britain.
Of course, to many of us, particularly the first generations, the challenge will be frightening. Look at what our youngsters are rejecting—class, elitism and conformity. But look at what we are gaining—interdependence, self-reliance, openness, liberty, diversity and pluralism.
It is evident that there is a conflict between the concept of what is appropriate and what is required. But, more fundamentally, after 50 years of settlement here we should be asking some pertinent questions. What kind of society do we want to take forward into the new century and the new millennium?
I am running out of time, but let me quote a politician whom I have always admired for his stand on race relations—the late Lord Boyle of Handsworth.
He said:
"Political wisdom consists of trying to narrow the gap between the value which men and women place on their own personalities and the value placed on them by the community in which they live: furthermore no community can afford for long to deny the application of this principle to racial minorities as well".
8.1 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for introducing the debate, I hope that he is very pleased with the result. I can count only eight out of the 19 contributors to the debate who might be called "English".
It is a considerable tribute to the development of both this country and Parliament that in this, the most traditional of all parts of the great British Parliament, there is a minority of English people to debate the important question of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. I include in those remarks the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who is Welsh. He and a number of other speakers—including the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—took the opening part of my speech from me in the sense that they all commented on the fact that Britain is not, and never has been, a homogeneous

1433
society. It has always been a diverse society of different races and different peoples. We know about the Scots and the Welsh, but I am never quite sure whether or not the Irish consider themselves British. Certainly a number of them do. We have not handled that problem well and I hope that on this side of the Irish Sea, at least, we can do rather better.
The big change in the world and in British society generally has happened over the past 50 years. Up until then it was not possible physically for large numbers of people to move easily about the world with any expedition and comfort. Since that time the world has become a very different place. Indeed, some say that transport is too available and that we move too easily. I do not have a problem with that. As the debate has shown, British society generally has developed and gained as a result of that change.
However, one point needs to be noted; that is, that if you change things too rapidly you create stress. This does not always happen as a result of changes in race or culture; it happens if you change very rapidly communities which are all of one race and culture anyway. Noble Lords should come to some of my towns and villages in Essex which have seen their populations double, treble and quadruple in a very short space of time—literally in three or four years— and see the tensions that that can create. While we do have some problems as a result of what has happened, this country has been very successful in dealing with these matters—although of course there are certain localities where there is stress.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for picking up on an important aspect of what is happening in this country; that is, that we must take care not to lose the essential character that has made it worthwhile for people to come here in the first place.
It is often said that this country does not have a constitution. I have always said that it does. The constitution is the body of the law. In addition to that, we have the common law on which the body of the law is based. The trouble with that kind of constitution is that we, as legislators, are constantly changing our constitution.
But that also is beneficial in this context because it has brought us the race relations and other kinds of legislation which try very hard—I pay tribute to legislators of all political parties in this regard—to treat everyone as equally as can reasonably be done. But it is an evolutionary process and that is why we, as legislators, continue in business.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to a point, which I found interesting and which caused me some concern, when he mentioned the changing attitude to immigration in Europe. The demographers—for whom we should have great respect and of whom we should take great note—have been showing for some time that the population in western Europe will very soon decline. Therefore it is tempting for us, as a developed part of the world, to say that we should— and, indeed, can— rectify some of the problems that that will cause by bringing in people from other parts of the world.
1434
That is perfectly true—but the demographers show that the global population will also go into decline. That of itself will create a different level of problem. It will mean that if we continue to accept wide numbers of people into our developed communities—as it is perfectly reasonable in every liberal sense to do—we shall be doing so at the expense of the rest of the world. That causes my conscience some problems.
I throw that in for what it is worth because it is something about which we need to think. It will have its impact on the problem we are discussing because, as has been said by many noble Lords, the health service, in particular, and many other aspects of our lives are now dependent on people who are not of immediate English extraction. But we have disadvantaged people within those communities who could—I hope we will have an opportunity to make this happen—begin to fill the requirements of society which we are already generating. We need to think very carefully about this problem before we start to find solutions from outside our own boundaries. I have always been of the view that we can do far more to help ourselves.
The education service was mentioned. It has its successes and its failures. I hope that the right reverend Prelates will not be upset when I say that I have some difficulty with church schools—partly because in my office I sit next to a colleague who has too much experience of Northern Ireland, where the faith schools have been so rigid that they are not a cure for the problem. Again, that is a situation that one would wish to see improved; but we need to examine these issues with great care.
In the end, the solution to the problems of our multiethnic society—I prefer that phrase to "multi-cultural", because we cannot as individuals be multi-cultural; we can only understand—if solution there be, will come through understanding, tolerance and mutual respect. If we can develop those characteristics, Britain will become an even better society than it is today. They are characteristics that cannot be developed by law. We can develop them by means of debates such as the one we have had today.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for introducing the debate and for stimulating what has been one of the most diverse, interesting and fascinating discussions on a report that I have ever had the privilege to listen to. It is always said that during our debates there are particular distinguished contributions. This time, all the contributions have been distinguished. They have dealt with many different aspects, not merely of the Parekh report, but of our national life, our cultural life and the problems that we confront: the issues of racism, the violence that exists in some of our inner-city areas, the passion with which people raise these issues and the central importance of understanding race and multi-culturalism in the 21st century.
I have made extensive notes. I do not know whether they are of value, but they help me to draw together some of the threads. I want to refer to some of the

1435
comments made by noble Lords on their experiences. I was particularly interested in the account by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of his experience working in the communities where he was an elected representative and in the points that he made about residential separation and the complexities of developing communities with greater integration through housing strategies. Those were important comments. They reflect the difficulty of creating the social cohesion which the report of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has at its core.
I was impressed, too, by the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford about his understanding of the community in which he works, and how he had to develop a whole new knowledge of a faith; and how, through that work, he had come to the conclusion that faith schools, notwithstanding some of the difficulties and challenges with which they confront us, were not part of the problem but were, in fact, part of the solution. He felt that much progress had been made in the last year since the disturbances in Bradford.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made some telling comments about the lack of cohesion, as she saw it, in the overall policy direction of the Government with regard to dealing with multiculturalism and the challenges that it provides. She spoke of the importance of providing good analysis and drawing on that so that cohesive strategies were developed. Importantly, she spoke of the value of leadership in that field.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, drew on his experiences in the United States, and asked us to look at the value of positive discrimination. Clearly, that is part of the wider agenda.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, reflected on some of the values that had been developed and the progress that had been made in his own work at the Ethnic Minority Foundation. He made an important point about the need to build community capacity in many ethnic minority organisations. In this area, government departments have a vital role to play. I was pleased to hear that he felt that government organisations were engaged in that role, because of the recognition that they give and the funding that they provide, so that many of those organisations can fulfil important service activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, reminded us of the distinct contribution of Welshness. He pointed to the ironies of Arsenal football team and its fan base not perhaps perfectly reflecting each other—although, in defence of Arsenal, I would say that the club has a very pro-active attitude to engaging fans from the immediate locality and ensuring that ethnic minorities do not feel excluded in that football ground. I pay tribute to the club for the value of that work.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, reminded us—if we needed reminding—of the wisdom in the report. He made an interesting argument about the separation of faith and law being one of the vital, critical features of civic society.
1436
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was a dissenting voice in the debate—nevertheless, as ever, an interesting and challenging one. The notion that the noble Lord could ever escape certain aspects of his personal identity is one that I find particularly challenging, as I am sure do most Members of this House.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to the point in the report about communities, recognising that and drawing ideas and inspiration from it. He spoke also about the role of the Church and its understanding of multi-culturalism. He made the point that Europe was more of a religious concept than a geographical entity. I shall certainly pass that piece of wisdom on to my son as he struggles with his geography lessons. It was an interesting point.
The speech which I personally found most interesting, and one that I want to read, was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. I shall study it with great interest. She referred to the neglect in terms of understanding the contribution by writers from a whole range of ethnic backgrounds to our culture and to our understanding of other cultures. We should not otherwise have had the benefit of hearing those points.
I was impressed, too, by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on the positive aspects of migration and the way in which demographers are looking at migratory shifts across Europe and the challenges that western economies, and the German economy in particular, are beginning to meet in examining the strengths and weaknesses in their labour markets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made an interesting set of observations about the process of change needing greater candour and honesty as we confront and develop our multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-ethnic community. The noble Baroness made a plea for the debate on multiculturalism to move out of the cul-de-sac and liberate itself from its current confines.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, reminded us of the complexities not only of his own family structure and national loyalties, but of the profound contribution that ethnic minorities make to our health service—a health service which, without their support, work, endeavour and imagination—would indeed suffer greatly.
I listened with great interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, with his hands-on experience of the Burnley task force. I was most impressed by the quality of the work that went into that report, its depth of understanding, and its approach in seeking to listen to the communities of Burnley with their different problems.
There is a point that needs re-stating; namely, the importance of taking on and confronting far Right incitement to racial hatred. Of course the Government deplore and condemn the activities of the far Right extremists who actively exploit the fears which sometimes divide communities. We have given the police every encouragement and support in prosecuting all types of incitement to racial hatred. Many far Right groups are cunning and stay just inside

1437
the law in many of their activities. They probably take careful legal advice in the way in which they attempt to whip up racial hatred and incitement through innuendo.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the anti-terrorism legislation that was passed before Christmas made important changes to the law on incitement to racial hatred. That Act increased the maximum penalty from two to seven years' imprisonment, which is a measure of the seriousness with which we regard those offences. The Act also extended their scope to include hatred directed at groups abroad. We shall continue vigilantly to monitor the activities of far right organizations—not just because we should but because it is right to do so.
Racism has deeper roots. For all the efforts oldie far right, we need a broader understanding of the part that race plays in our national life. The Government are determined to lead the national debate on community relations, shared values and identity—something that comes from the lessons of the Parekh report, in the way that it looked at the future of a multi-ethnic Britain and called for a re-evaluation of our national identity to find a common definition of what it means to be British today. We need an identity that can be shared and experienced by all members of our society. It is critically important to recognise the contribution made by the many different communities that make up the United Kingdom.
Britain has been transformed over the past two decades into a truly multi-cultural country. The contributions made by black and Asian Britons, as well as by people with Irish, European and other backgrounds, is plain to see daily. People from minority backgrounds contribute to industry, the public sector and the work of local authorities as well as to charities and culture—despite the discrimination that undoubtedly remains and prevents many people from making the contributions of which they are capable.
The Parekh report made an insightful and valuable contribution to the vision of a modern multi-cultural society. The Government place on record and welcome the contribution that the commission has made and can make in future. I know that the previous Home Secretary was extremely impressed by the report's detailed analysis and its recommendations. Last year, some 70 of the report's 130 recommendations were already part of government policy and thinking, which is an indication of the report's relevance. The idea of a "community of communities" is highly pertinent to the current debate about social cohesion and identity.
At the time of the report's publication, the Home Secretary commented that it highlighted the need for government resources to strengthen communities. One could add in parenthesis that the disturbances that followed in the summer were perhaps a demonstration of that need. We have put in that extra resource.
1438
When communities do not feel that they are bonded by common values and principles, we will see something of the segregation and distrust that contributed to the disturbances in some of our northern towns last year. It is as important as ever to emphasise the positive aspects of multi-culturalism and to create an environment in which all communities can thrive. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 provides a robust framework for the Government and all public bodies in anticipating and preventing racial discrimination in our service to the public. That legislation will be supplemented by efforts across government, co-ordinated by the Home Office, to ensure that public bodies promote community cohesion.
We recognise that central, regional and local government and non-governmental organisations have a duty to promote a strong and pluralistic society in which cultural differences are appreciated and seen as a benefit to communities. If we do not take into account the diverse needs of the many groups that make up our communities and harness their potential, we as a nation will be the worse for it.
The Parekh report contained a wealth of ideas for tackling problems and making race equality a core issue for our public services and other national institutions. Many of the report's suggestions—particularly for monitoring performance, consulting with minority ethnic communities and taking a more structured approach to mainstreaming race equality—are being introduced or have been achieved in part through the implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, though not necessarily in the precise terms of the report.
Regret has been expressed at unfortunate press comments at the time of the Parekh report's publication, which focussed on one narrow aspect and deflected attention from the report's many positive and constructive contributions to the broader debate. We must challenge racism and discrimination if we are to achieve a wholly successful multi-cultural society. I draw strength from some of the work by the Burnley task force, which seeks to mainstream infrastructure changes that need to be made, so that we can fairly deliver on promises about achieving equality.
The police, local authorities and other local service providers, regeneration partnerships, employers in the public and private sectors and the Government must work together to respond to the needs of all the people that make up the communities that we seek to serve.
I can probably deal with four or five of the six specific questions that my noble friend Lord Parekh put to me. He asked about our vision of a multicultural society. We seek to ensure that multiculturalism is supported and have for that reason developed funding schemes and streams across the country that try to connect communities and make them more self-confident.
We have tried also, particularly in the wake of September 11th, to provide more support and encouragement to Muslim communities, which felt themselves under pressure following that event. We

1439
have sought to ensure that our consultations with representatives of Britain's many and diverse faith communities reflect their vision of multi-culturalism.
Historically, the Government have looked at citizenship issues. A programme is being developed as part of the national curriculum to encourage young people to consider controversial issues and to challenge traditional stereotypes. That programme will play an important part in addressing some of the issues highlighted by my noble friend's report and his questions.
We want to promote into employment far more members of the many and diverse ethnic minority communities. Target percentages have been set by the Cabinet Office for each department of state and they must be met by 2005. Great progress has been made towards that. I know from personal experience that the matter has been tackled with some vigour within the police service, and each force area now has a precise target which it must achieve.
The Government are also seeking to promote ethnic minorities into senior Civil Service positions. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 introduced a new and enforceable duty on more than 25,000 key public bodies to promote race equality. It will also require them to prevent acts of race discrimination before they occur. The Community Cohesion Panel, to which the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, also referred, has not as yet been appointed, but its appointments will shortly be announced. The appointments will be determined by John Denham, the responsible Minister.
The process itself has been complicated. The Government have therefore sought to identify and contact a wide range of potential panel members, and to look at their range of experience in community relations and their knowledge of the issues raised by the disturbances. The Government have also looked at the many diverse reports on the issue, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. The objective is that the panel itself will support communities and advise government on the issues which were very usefully highlighted in the Parekh report.
I should like in closing to remind the House of how far we have come. Britain is a multi-cultural society. As the Parekh report makes clear, however, that is something that has not always been recognised in its institutions. People from ethnic minorities have made a massive contribution to Britain's prosperity and culture over many years despite the barriers of discrimination and racism. The Government have an active race equality agenda aimed at eliminating discrimination from public services. The recent legislation provides a robust framework to achieve those aims, and it is vital that we engage with communities to achieve the objectives set out in that legislation and secure meaningful change.
The reports commissioned following the disturbances in the North of England along with the Parekh report and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, regarding community relations in Bradford give us plenty of ammunition, food for thought and
1440
scope for further action. That whole set of issues is now being addressed as part of an action programme. Support is increasingly being given to public bodies to implement the race equality agenda. That is a job that requires not only positive thought, but action from every part of government and the private sector. Britain is enriched by the wide range of cultures and races represented in the modern British people. What we have to do is ensure that we reflect that fantastic diversity and celebrate and give voice to the new and emerging British culture so that we can satisfy and address the needs of all of our citizens. I believe that we can do that, and that all our citizens will be enabled to make a greater contribution to our national life.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for his report. It has stimulated an amazingly good quality of debate. I only wish that I was halfway adequate in responding to the very many interesting points that have emerged during the course of this evening's deliberations.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, following the excellent tradition of your Lordships' House, I shall be extremely brief. I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken in this excellent three-hour debate. They have been most generous with their time and ideas and placed me and your Lordships' House in their permanent debt. I am a little disappointed that we have not had anyone from the Conservative Benches other than my friend Lord Dixon-Smith, but I suppose that Wednesday evening is not a good time for those on the other Benches. We shall have to bear that in mind for next time.
I also thank my noble friends Lord Bhatia, Lord Morgan, Lord Chan, Lord Dahrendorf, Lord Dholakia, Lady Prashar and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Bradford and the Bishop of Chester for making extremely kind and generous references to my report. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Bassam for the extremely generous, courageous and kind words about the work that many of us put into that report. I am particularly delighted that he should have set the record straight and spoken well of the report. I am reassured.
My final remark is about my noble friend Lord Desai. He wondered about the vocabulary in which we have articulated our topic for debate, namely multi-ethnicity and multi-culturalism. All I can tell him is that we are all born encumbered with multiple identities which stay with us until the end of our lives. We emerge as full human beings not by discarding them but by expanding them and critically reinterpreting them. Given that that is the case, ethnicity and culture will always remain part of our lives. They will therefore always remain subjects of public as well as philosophical discussions. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Liverpool
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in opening this debate, I start from the premise that Liverpool is a great city, recognised as such worldwide because of its historic port and shipping activities, sporting achievements, artistic and musical heritage and pre-eminence in the world of entertainment, and because of the very many personalities whose names are synonymous with Liverpool, including Ken Dodd, Cilia Black, the Beatles—need I go on? Liverpool's international reputation is well established, and its rich ethnic mix— which includes the longest-established Chinese community in the country—bears witness to its international past.
Liverpool is also well recognised nationally as an ancient city granted its Royal Charter as a borough and a port as long ago as 1207 by King John. It has produced famous lawyers from F E Smith to Rose Heilbron and our very own Attorney-General. It has also produced famous doctors and famous politicians, from Gladstone to Harold Wilson, in addition to many of those who will contribute to this short debate. Liverpool certainly holds the record for an incredible number of firsts in the social and educational spheres and in the voluntary sector. For example, the very first citizens advice bureau was established in Liverpool, and the concept of soup kitchens began there. One of the first schools of tropical medicine was founded in Liverpool, and the first special school for handicapped children began there. The world's first underwater telephone cable was laid between Liverpool and 13ilbao because of their shipping ties. Those are only a few of Liverpool's firsts.
Like many great industrial cities and ports, however, Liverpool has experienced a post-war decline in its prosperity and a depletion in its population. It is now in the process of seeking a new identity for the future. This debate is intended to acknowledge and encourage all those who are working towards that future.
Noble Lords may well ask why we are having this debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and I have for some time been discussing the possibility of a "good news" debate. We had hoped for a slot last month, at the end of February, during "Liverpool Week", when a number of events were held in and around Parliament celebrating success on Merseyside. We also want, of course, to prepare and excite people about the 800th anniversary, in 2007, of Liverpool's city status. We also hope for a successful outcome to Liverpool's bid to be Europe's city of culture in 2008. Now therefore seems to be a good time for this debate.
Perhaps I should explain my personal involvement. Although riot born and bred in Liverpool, I can claim to have been a twinkle in the eye there. My mother's family is a Liverpool family, and she was a teacher there before her marriage. My father, then working for the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company, superintended the movements of the great liners such
1442
as the "Empress of Britain" and the "Empress of England" which, during the war, served in the convoys that provided the country with a lifeline. I have therefore known Liverpool all my life. One may therefore imagine my surprise and delight when, with that background, I was elected as Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool in 1979, in the first direct elections.
I was there at the time of the Toxteth riots and urged the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was then a European Commissioner, to provide European Community help and support. He did, as did the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who succeeded him. Ii was also at the time that Michael Heseltine set tip the Merseyside Development Corporation to open up the South Docks and to restore the Albert Dock to its present glory, which includes the splendid Maritime Museum and the Tate of the North. That led to the International Garden Festival in 1984.
The city has gradually been transformed and the work of very many organisations, such as the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the Merseyside Partnerships, the Merseyside Special Investment Fund, the Liverpool Biennial, and many other organisations, businesses and individuals have all contributed. If tourism is to be part of Liverpool's future, the foundations and infrastructure are clearly there and the environment can provide a jumping-off ground for new ventures and industries, as well as maintaining the many established industries that still exist in Liverpool.
I cannot let the occasion pass, especially in the context of Liverpool's cultural heritage and its bid for the city of culture status, without drawing attention to national museums and galleries on Merseyside, which are part of the transformation that has taken place in Liverpool. As a former trustee, I can say that everyone involved with the different parts of the museums and galleries on Merseyside has worked tremendously hard to ensure that the people of Merseyside can be aware of their heritage, proud of their past and able to show it off to others.
I can certainly recommend a visit to the Walker, with its magnificent permanent collection and the new galleries that are currently housing a splendid Romney exhibition and which are due to show the first exhibition of the paintings of Sir Paul McCartney later in the year. In addition to the Walker, there is the Maritime Museum, to which I have referred, and the Museum of Liverpool Life, which is currently undergoing yet another transformation but will be open again next year to show off many of the treasures that have been collected in the great port of Liverpool over the years.
There is a great deal more that I should like to say about Liverpool as a city of education, its sporting prowess and why it is one of the best places in the country in which to live, work, invest and visit. But time does not permit me to expand greatly. In any event, other noble Lords who are contributing to the debate will cover these matters probably far better than me. I thank all those who will contribute to the

1443
debate and say in passing how sad I am that the Viscount Mersey and the Earl of Derby are not now entitled to participate as they have both contributed a great deal to Liverpool life over the years. However, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Liverpool will be contributing to the debate.
By promoting the debate I am asking the Government to acknowledge Liverpool's achievements and efforts to emerge from its great industrial past, and to meet the challenges of the 21st century head on. I am also asking the Government to continue to support Liverpool's efforts and I hope that the Minister when replying can give us those assurances.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am an unqualified Liverpool loyalist, so I greatly welcome the initiative that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has taken in tabling this Unstarred Question for debate.
My comments will be brief, but I wish to draw attention to the circumstances in which I grew up, and to make a brief comment on the essence of Liverpool. I was born and brought up in Liverpool, like my father, my grandfather and my great-grandfather. My grandfather and my great-grandfather were born in Liverpool 8. I grew up in the 1930s and 1940s and went to Sudley Road council school near Aigburth Vale and then to Quarry Bank high school, Calderstones, from which I took my title. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say that I was taught in the scholarship class, as it was then called, in 1939 by Miss Budd. I am glad to say that Miss Budd is still alive and well, aged 103, and I pay tribute to her and all those who taught pupils like me. They were devoted teachers and we are greatly in their debt. As I have said, I took my title from Quarry Bank school and I am pleased to have the opportunity to say how much I benefited from my experience at Sudley Road and Quarry Bank schools.
Although it would be a very risky undertaking, I think that I could still ride a bicycle blindfold through the city as I once knew it. There have been changes but much is similar and I can identify with Liverpool at that time. We lived about four miles from the centre of Liverpool and I remember that I used to go down to town by tram, where there were all sorts of activities. I listened to orchestral music for the first time at the Philharmonic Hall, conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent. I went to the Christmas plays at the Liverpool Playhouse, a great repertory theatre. I visited the university, which is strong on history, medicine and architecture. I often went to the Walker Gallery to see its fine collection of pre-Raphaelites. I remember that I saw them for the first time as a teenager and was a little uncertain as to whether I liked pre-Raphaelites. As time has passed, I realise the great benefit of having visited such galleries.
I admired St George's Hall, where I saw the results of the 1945 election as a 16 year-old. Much later, I bought a fine print that hangs on my wall at home. There is also the Picton Library, where I studied, and
1444
the neighbouring William Brown Library. Earlier, in the May blitz of 1941, many of the buildings were badly damaged by high explosives and fire. One of the victims was the William Brown Library which lost nearly 300,000 books. I was standing in my garden one afternoon when I was about 12 when the sky suddenly darkened and large black flakes fell to ground. The burning pages had been carried upwards in the vortex of the blaze, and cinders with the faint imprint of language were now floating down four miles from the city centre.
I could refer to other aspects of how I lived my life there. I was a strong supporter of Liverpool Football Club. I played tennis and cricket and watched both in the fine parks. I supported what was called the Mississippi Jazz Band and other examples of popular music which led indirectly to the Beatles and to what has evolved since. I am tempted to continue my voyage of nostalgia. I hope that my remarks are relevant to the text of the Unstarred Question in the context of Liverpool's achievements.
I shall summarise what might be five characteristics of Liverpool, which are relevant to the nature of the city. First, Liverpool was a great sea port. It set its character in that respect. The port is at the heart of its identity. Secondly, Liverpool is a tough city. It made some people rich and some people poor. It was, and is, a city with warts and all. It was not, and is not, a genteel and soft place. Again, we must take account of that. That is part of the character it has become. Thirdly, Liverpool had a significant number of immigrants and many seafarers. It has had, and has, great ethnic diversity; what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred to as racial mix. That caused problems and we must recognise that. However, at the same time it gave Liverpool depth and variety and made it an exciting and cosmopolitan place. Fourthly—this is rather an obvious cliché—Liverpool has both continuity and change. As part of its inheritance, I refer to its fabric, its buildings. I greatly welcome the announcement yesterday of the partnership between English Heritage and the city council which is hoping to restore those buildings now at risk from the 2,500 listed. Fifthly, civic loyalty and civic pride are relevant. Liverpool has had its ups and its downs. There have been some bad years, damaging to its citizens and making it a by-word for local government disaster. But now the news is good. There is now a high quality of leadership. I hope that all parties will work together in putting the city first.
Liverpool is a unique place. It has been moulded and toughened by circumstances and has survived full of vigour. It is a great, resilient city. I hope that the Minister will give a warm and unambiguous endorsement to our message.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for tabling this Unstarred Question. She made a positive and well-informed speech which eloquently set the scene.

1445
This is a rare and welcome opportunity to flag up the significant social and cultural developments that have been achieved by the City of Liverpool. I declare my interest by virtue of the Chair that I hold at Liverpool John Moores University; as a director of its Foundation for Citizenship; a director of the Merseyside Special Investment Fund and patron or officer of a number of voluntary organisations and charities in Liverpool. Perhaps adding to the list of firsts that the noble Baroness laid before your Lordships' House, the NSPCC, of which I am president of a local branch, was founded in Liverpool. The noble Baroness also mentioned the previous involvement in your Lordships' affairs of the Earl of Derby. His wife is the president of Zoe's Place, the first hospice in the country to care for dying babies, following in the footsteps of the work begun by the NSPCC a century ago.
It will be 30 years ago in May, while a student in the city, that I was elected to Liverpool City Council and subsequently served as its deputy leader and chairman of its housing committee. In addition to my time in local government, I was privileged to serve for 18 years in another place as Member of Parliament for Liverpool Edge Hill and for the Liverpool Mossley Hill constituencies. I am glad to be able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that the two schools he mentioned, Sudley Road and Quarry Bank, Calderstones, were both in that constituency of Mossley Hill.
There is no doubt that the 1980s were a bleak decade which the city lived through and that the following decade was spent in reclaiming lost ground. Tonight we meet in happier circumstances, able to celebrate significant progress and achievements in a new chapter of Liverpool's life.
Although there always will be plenty more to do, I warmly congratulate the leaders of the city council and the local community on forging new partnerships and creative relationships. Both Mike Storey, the leader of the council, and Gideon Ben Tovim, who leads the Labour Opposition, have behaved in a constructive way in addressing the needs of the city. That has altered the outside world's perception of Liverpool and created a climate in which new investment and change have become possible. Earlier in the month the city at last shed the unwelcome and invidious title of levying the highest council tax in the country, and the council's 3 per cent tax reduction has been generally welcomed.
Tonight is a chance to celebrate a number of Liverpool's achievements, but real challenges remain. Although the city's economy is steadily improving, it still lags behind both the North West and the UK average when measured against a number of indicators. The ILO unemployment rate in Liverpool stands at 6·8 per cent compared with 5·2 per cent across the North West and 3·2 per cent nationally. GDP per capita for Liverpool is £10,886, which is 86 per cent of the UK average. Average growth is 3·8 per cent, compared with 5·3 per cent for the UK.
1446
But the good news is that Liverpool is bucking the current UK trend of increasing unemployment with the number unemployed and claiming benefit falling for several consecutive months. The city has moved from 67th to 35th in the UK's top locations to do business and ranks joint third with London in the UK inner-city 100 index of fastest growing businesses.
Over the past four months the Liverpool Business Centre has taken over 300 inquiries for industrial and office space totalling some 250,000 square feet. The sale of the Cunard Building for around £18 million, £3 million ahead of the guide price, and the sale or the Port of Liverpool building, also underline the buoyancy of the local economy.
There have always been two tales to tell of this city. Too often we hear only the negative stories. These are some of the facts of life in the greater Liverpool area today. More than 15,000 people are employed in the automotive sector alone, with over £2 billion investment in the past 10 years. It was a particularly great achievement to secure the new Jaguar car for Merseyside. Retail growth in the city centre location is 11·4 per cent, twice the national average, and the fastest growing in the UK. Liverpool is the number one call centre in the UK, with a further 700 jobs announced in November. Twenty-two thousand people are employed in leisure and tourism, with 19 million visitors spending £600 million annually. Each year 4·5 million people come to the Albert Dock alone, and many see there the moving exhibitions on slavery and the Irish famine that are commemorated in the Maritime Museum. An application for world heritage status has been sought for the waterfront and for part of the city centre. When he replies, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is any up-to-date news on the status of that application.
The Port of Liverpool is handling record levels of cargo, some 13 million tonnes per year. As a Liverpool MP I was involved in the successful campaign to create a free port in Liverpool. I am glad to tell your Lordships' House that it is now the largest in the UK. Next month the new ro-ro terminal for freight and passengers will open, entrenching a cultural and economic link with Ireland.
The construction industry is anticipated to be involved in building work worth £1·4 billion over the next five years. The £8·7 million FACT centre (the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology) which is due to open in the autumn will be Britain's principal electronic arts agency, while the Kings Dock Arena development and the Paradise Street development will herald further regeneration and jobs. Only last week Mrs Cherie Booth QC and Yoko Ono unveiled the John Lennon statue at what has become one of the fastest growing airports in Europe. Last year there were more than 2 million passengers. Approximately £50 million of investment has been committed in the last four years.
The strengthened relationships between the Government Office on Merseyside, the European Union's Objective One Programme, the Chamber of Commerce and the associated private sector

1447
businesses and the local authority have all made these achievements possible. Some questions still remain to be resolved and, again, when the Minister comes to reply perhaps he can say when the DTLR response to the business case for the proposed Merseytram link to the city's cultural sites will be made.
I should like to say something further about the city's cultural achievements, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred. Before boarding the train at Lime Street on Monday I purchased the new publication of the Liverpool Echo entitled 100 Liverpool Facts. The Echo has enthusiastically supported the city's bid to become the City of Culture. This supplement, which I shall lend to the Minister after the debate, brilliantly sets out a compelling case for Liverpool. The recent launch of Liverpool's bid at the London Tate Gallery—at which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and I were able to be present—led by the indefatigable Professor Peter Toyne, set out why Liverpool really is "the world in one city". I hope that that bid is successful.
Last month I celebrated Chinese New Year in Liverpool with my goddaughter and her family, to some of whom I taught English as a student volunteer on an immigrant language scheme 30 years ago. We were sitting in the shadow of the magnificent Chinese arch at the entrance to China town. Nearby, in the summer, there will be the Hope Street Festival, in June the Mersey River Festival, the Comedy Festival in July, the Beatles Week in August and the biennial arts festival in September.
This year the Liverpool Biennial—a privately inspired event—will bring together five core strands. But also as a centre for popular music, film, broadcasting and sport Liverpool is among the country's leaders.
There have been some fascinating spin-offs from this. The Greenhouse multicultural play and arts project, for instance, began with two women identifying the need for multi-cultural play activity in Toxteth. It now has a turnover of almost £1 million with a participation of over 5,000 people. The city's two universities and its college of education attract between them some 50,000 students. The institutions, their staff and students make an incalculable contribution to the life of the city.
Higher Education contributes in numerous ways to the city's economy and its social life, but also in a city where turn-out in elections has reached dangerously low levels it has been engaging in renewing civic life. Over the past four years I have staged a series of almost 30 public lectures on behalf of Liverpool John Moores University. Some of your Lordships have participated in these. Named for the Liverpool abolitionist poet and MP, William Roscoe, these have attracted audiences of up to 1,300 people. The theme of those lectures has been citizenship.
The quality of the lectures and the debates that have followed are another aspect of the vibrancy and vitality of the city. They show a city ready to engage in
1448
profound and difficult questions, in addition to being a city that knows how to enjoy itself. In the words of one of its most famous sons, what it needs now is "a little help from its friends". In the past its reputation was marred by confrontation. Today it deserves to succeed.
Tonight's brief debate is a welcome opportunity to underline its impressive achievements and its newfound confidence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the chance to say so.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am tempted to say to myself, "Follow that". I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for asking this question and introducing the debate. I am particularly privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, whose contribution to the welfare and development of Liverpool over the past 30 years or more has been well demonstrated by his speech just now.
I first remember the noble Lord when he was chairman of South Liverpool Young Liberals, if I remember correctly. In those days he was a rebel to those of us in establishment positions in the Young Liberals nationally. But, I have to say that he has come on a bit since then. I particularly remember him as chairman of the housing committee on the city council in a previous period of Liberal administration on the city council. He was in those days a radical and innovative chairman of that committee in very difficult circumstances. He was a model for many of us at that time.
Liverpool is a special place. I am one of the small minority of people in today's debate who is not a Liverpudlian, or who has any particularly close connections with the city. Most of my connections with it have been in going to help my political colleagues in elections there. Despite that, they sometimes win the elections.
However, there is something special about Liverpool. There is a vibrancy, a feel, about the place, which is shared by some other British cities. One thinks of Glasgow as being a similar city. The people are a bit different from people everywhere else. The tragedy of the city is that it has been in decline for so many years. Its population over a period of 45 years has fallen from around 1 million to 400,000. That is astonishing. Many of those people moved out on overspill schemes and so on, and they, their families and descendants now live in places such as Skelmersdale, Huyton, and Kirkby.
Nevertheless, despite that, for many of us who live in other parts of the North West—as I do—Liverpool is a beacon, and always has been one, for what can be done in very difficult circumstances. It also performs one other very useful function for those of us in the North West: it acts as a counterbalance to Manchester. It prevents Manchester thinking that it runs everything all the time. That is a very useful counterbalance for those of us in the more northerly parts of the region who sometimes find it difficult to get a look in.

1449
Liverpool is also a city which has an intense sense of pride. The spirit of regeneration in the city—not just a physical but a spiritual and a civic regeneration—is very noticeable and marked. One Member of our Benches tonight was bound to stand up and express some pride in the fact that the present civic leadership of the city is Liberal Democrat. The achievements of the present Liberal Democrat administration of Liverpool in the four years since it took over are quite astounding. I would not be able to say that of all the councils in the country that we run—do not ask me for names—but as regards Liverpool the administration is an inspiration to the rest of our party and it should also be to the rest of local government. That administration has shown what can be done.
Nowadays, people say that local councils no longer have any powers because everything goes to partnerships or is centralised in Whitehall. Liverpool is a very good example of where in a big city at least an enterprising and progressive civic leadership can actually achieve a huge amount. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it followed a very difficult period which included an era when it appeared that the people running the city council were engaged in some sort of latter-day class war and were at great risk of bringing the city to its knees.
Liverpool is not a rich place on the whole and yet it has had the highest council tax in the country. One of the direct achievements of the council is that it has been able to hold the level of council tax for three years. This year it has been able to reduce it by 3 per cent, even allowing for increases in the precepts from other bodies. That is a great achievement. If that were taking place at the cost of cutting services, it would not be an achievement at all, but it is not. The council has been able to find the magic formula to cut costs and at the same time put into effect very significant increases in services.
I would like briefly to say what has happened in the Education and Lifelong Learning Service, as it is called, in Liverpool. Noble Lords may remember that in May 1999, there was a damning Ofsted report on the education administration of Liverpool. Ofsted itself now cites Liverpool as the best example of a turn-round in performance and expertise. In fact, Ofsted is now using people in Liverpool as an example of good practice for other authorities in the same circumstances. The school effectiveness work of the authority has just won the Local Government Chronicle education team of the year award. The intervention work for failing schools in the city is outstanding. In May 1999 there were 17 schools in Liverpool under special measures. At the end of August this year, it is confidently expected that that number will be reduced to zero. In terms of pupil attainment in public examinations and tests, the results have improved every year to record levels.
I do not believe that anyone in Liverpool is complacent about the situation. People are saying that it is improving from a low base, but from a situation in which the administration was a shambles and morale was at rock bottom. It is being turned around. Liverpool even has its own primary-age modern
1450
foreign language programme with a three-year project developing nine centres of expertise. That is typical of what is happening in the city.
When we on these Benches look at Liverpool we can be proud. But it is also a beacon for local government generally. It is not just old-fashioned local government. Nowadays, one cannot run a city or a council in the old ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, one has to be prepared and able to work with other people. One has to work in partnership with others whether one likes it or not. A great many people do like it. One has also to provide genuine leadership rather than simply administering everything oneself. That is what is happening in Liverpool. Obviously, it is not simply down to the leadership of the council, but down to everyone else it works with, although the leadership of the council is a vital part of it.
I finish with two useful quotes. One is from the right honourable Tony Blair, MP, who, my note says, is the Prime Minister. He said,
"The last time I was [in Liverpool] there was a real buzz about the place. People can see that things are beginning to happen".
Nick Raynsford MP, the local government Minister, said,
"I have been impressed by the city council's commitment and determination to transform services for the people of Liverpool … which are already beginning to bring change for he better".
If noble Lords believe that all I am giving here is a party political broadcast, I also give genuine credit to the Government. Despite the fact that this major city is in Liberal Democrat hands, they have recognised good council leadership and have been able to work hand in hand with it.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also wish to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for asking this Unstarred Question on Liverpool. My task is made the more difficult because of the erudite speeches of noble Lords who were born and bred in Liverpool. However, I declare my interest as an academic paediatrician who worked for 17 years in the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine until 1994. I hold an honorary chair in ethnic health in the Department of Public Health of the University of Liverpool. I have also been the Elder of the Liverpool Chinese Gospel Church for the past 23 years.
Having lived in the Wirral for 26 years, after moving from London, and having worked in Liverpool for most of that time, I have observed great improvements and achievements in that great city and among its people. Sadly, Liverpool and its people continue to receive a bad press from sections of the media based in the south of England. Tonight's debate is, therefore, important in that it gives us the opportunity to review and celebrate the real Liverpool. I shall focus on issues of which I have personal experience, and which demonstrate the best of the city.
Liverpool was the world's premier port 150 years ago, and it continued to prosper until after World War II. The city has an area equal to that of Greater London, but its population has declined to about

1451
450,000 from 750,000. Many talented sons and daughters of Liverpool have moved to other parts of Britain and the world to seek their fame, but some have recently returned to invest in their home city. A good example is Sir Paul McCartney—a talented Liverpudlian who returned five years ago to establish the Music and Performing Arts Institute at his former school next to Liverpool cathedral. Students from all over the world have competed to enrol in this reputable institute, and some of its graduates are now making their mark in the world of popular music.
Another cultural achievement for Liverpool has been in the making of films for the cinema and television. Because of its historic houses, buildings and streets, it is a much sought-after location for film crews and famous studios from Hollywood to India. The architecture of these locations spans the Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian eras. Every week, a film is being made in the streets of Liverpool to be shown on television and cinemas around the world. Liverpool has also developed two other universities besides the University of Liverpool, which was established during the reign of Queen Victoria. All three universities complement each other and attract more than 50,000 students from all parts of the world. My noble friend Lord Alton has described the achievements of Liverpool's John Moore's University, which I admire for taking over many large buildings around the city and developing them into teaching and research centres for subjects that are not available in the University of Liverpool. For example, it has established a bachelor's degree course in public health for non-medical practitioners. Liverpool Hope University, based in Sefton Park, has established courses in multi-cultural and ethnic studies based on Liverpool's multi-ethnic communities and their history.
In 1981, Liverpool faced one of the darkest periods of its history, with the riots in Toxteth between her inner-city population of black and ethnic groups and poor white people and the police. Houses and other buildings were burnt down and tensions were high between young black Liverpudlians and the police. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, visited Toxteth and was horrified by the dereliction that he saw in the housing stock, and by the exceedingly high unemployment of local people lasting more than a generation. I was privileged to participate, with a large number of people from Toxteth and other parts of Merseyside, in the regeneration of Liverpool set in train by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who became Minister for Merseyside.
Between 1981 and 1994, I was involved as an advocate, initially for Liverpool's Chinese community. In 1986, this advocacy was extended to the residents of Toxteth by the establishment of the first community clinic in England catering for the needs of people, including minority ethnic people, who wanted to know more about inherited blood diseases such as sickle cell disease, thalassaemia and the red blood cell enzyme, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. This clinic, run by a
1452
specialist nurse, Dorothy Zack-Williams—a black American woman married to a Liverpudlian—is based in a primary health centre, the Abercromby Health Centre. I continue to support this clinic by advising Dorothy, who receives calls for help from all over England, including London.
Toxteth also boasts the very modern Liverpool Women's Hospital, the last to be opened by the late Princess of Wales. It is appropriately located in the inner city where many needy people live, and employs a significant proportion of local people at various levels on its staff. All Toxteth families use the hospital, including refugees, and it has focused on the obstetric needs of female refugees who have suffered from female genital mutilation and who can now safely be delivered of healthy babies.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, alluded to the existence of so many black and ethnic minority groups in Liverpool. This is unique, because many of them have been in England for several generations. Liverpool is, therefore, a living social laboratory for the study of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural communities. This opportunity has been ignored for too long, resulting in many black Liverpudlians feeling disfranchised. This is ironic because most black Liverpudlians have one white parent and all have been born in the city. But with better educational achievements of black Liverpudlians in the fields of law, art and sociology, they now feel confident and secure enough to speak with the police without resorting to threats of physical force.
Other ethnic minority communities have also influenced life in Liverpool. Let me take the example of the Chinese community, who first arrived in the city in the mid-1850s. Today, if you look Chinese, no one will ask you where you come from because they assume you are local. Further, the Chinese community has influenced Liverpool to be twinned with China's main port, Shanghai. And the government of Shanghai donated the million pound enormous Chinese arch that stands at the entrance of Nelson Street, the heart of Chinatown. This is the largest Chinese ceremonial arch outside of China.
For the past decade Liverpool City Council has supported and publicised the 15 days of celebrations of the Chinese New Year in partnership with the 10 long-standing Chinese community organisations in Liverpool, including the Chinese masons and the Chinese Christian Church. The traditional dragon dance of the New Year is performed exclusively by white Liverpudlians. Similarly, the Chinese lions are also each made up of two white men. This transference of Chinese cultural activities to the white Liverpudlian community must be unique in Britain and in other parts of the western world.
That surely is an example of cross-cultural appreciation unsurpassed in Britain or anywhere else in the world. For those and all the other achievements described by other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister will support Liverpool in becoming the European City of Culture.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Hooper for giving us the opportunity to focus our thoughts on the city of Liverpool this evening. She gave us an excellent synopsis of the many flavours of Liverpool and I learnt a lot, both from her and the other speakers who either live or have greater connections with that city than I have.
I say at the outset that my only direct involvement with the city of Liverpool is that I am patron of a charity called Cancer Resource Store. It helps cancer sufferers and their families who live on Merseyside to obtain medical, nursing, counselling and other care. It provides an invaluable service in an area where, sadly, the incidence of lung cancer is considerably above the national average.
My duties take me to Liverpool only infrequently. But I am always made to feel extremely welcome whenever I visit. I am somewhat reluctant to tell your Lordships about my family tree, but as I am the holder of the title of Liverpool I should like to explain that the Earldom was first granted to my great-great-great-great grandfather in 1796. He held many senior posts in government but I believe it was given in recognition of his initiatives while President of the Board of Trade developing the country's world trade and shipping. As the maritime port of Liverpool was the main beneficiary of this, it was felt appropriate that he should take the name of that great city. His son later became Prime Minister, which I hasten to say is a feat unlikely to be achieved by his great-great nephew.
Nevertheless, I am happy that their past endeavours afforded me the privilege of having a seat in your Lordships' Chamber which enables me to speak on this subject this evening. I am happy to support my noble friend, especially as I believe that Liverpool is in the process of undergoing something of a renaissance. As has already been said, it is mounting a robust hid to he selected as the culture capital of Europe in 2008. The bid will be submitted at the end of this month, with a short-listing in September, and a final decision to be taken by the Prime Minister in March next year.
So what are Liverpool's strengths? It is well known nationally and internationally as a creative city that has bred and exported world-class musicians, writers, film and television programme makers, actors, artists, personalities and, last but not least, comedians. I believe that the so-called creative industries in Liverpool now account for just under 5 per cent of all Merseyside jobs—that is, 16,000 people—and those industries generate an annual turnover of over £485 million.
It is a famous city of learning, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others. It is the home of the Walker Art Gallery. It is the home of Europe's largest Anglican cathedral. It is a multi-faith, multi-cultural and vibrant society. More generally, and very encouragingly, Merseyside unemployment figures are falling at a faster rate than any other location in the UK.
1454
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, also said, businesses are finding it attractive as a regional location. A recent Best Locations for Business survey, conducted by the Occupier Market Intelligence Service, showed that Liverpool had moved up 39 places to 28th position— an impressive move up a ladder by any standards.
It is surely Liverpool's long history as a maritime port, however, which gives it its richness of humanity and architecture. The Albert Dock, which was restored and opened as a tourist attraction in 1988, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, is testimony to that and now attracts millions of visitors every year.
Yesterday marked the launch of a campaign to conserve Liverpool's rich architectural heritage, which has around 2,500 listed buildings. Part of this effort will be to compile a comprehensive heritage map of the city by 2006. More or less in tandem with this, I believe that Liverpool Biennial is producing a contemporary culture map of Liverpool in collaboration with more than 50 private sector partners.
The appetite of the people of Liverpool for art and culture is growing. I read that in a recent MORI poll more people in the city said that they had visited a museum or gallery in the last six months than had watched Everton or Liverpool play football—which is surprising to some. While on the subject of football, I cannot let the opportunity pass without congratulating Liverpool on last night's win over Roma, which now puts them in the quarter-final of the Championship League. Things are definitely going Liverpool's way at the moment.
At the Heritage campaign launch yesterday, the chairman of English Heritage, Sir Neil Cossons, said,
"There is no other city equivalent to Liverpool…you can walk through Liverpool and see why it was the great seaport it was, and the tremendous commercial dynamic is reflected in shipping offices, the banking quarter and the three wonderful buildings on the waterfront".
As I have already said, there is a lot going for this city.
I believe that it was an inspirational decision to give the redeveloped city airport the name of John Lennon. He was undoubtedly a genius both musically and artistically and that his name should live on in this way does the city nothing but credit.
I was lucky enough to meet him once with the other members of the Beatles. Not many noble Lords will be aware of this but in the long distant past I was a drummer with a pop band and we were asked to stand in for them and do what is called a "warm-up" on a television programme called "Ready Steady Go!" at Teddington Studios. We met afterwards backstage and I remember him telling us, with a wink and a smile, that with a lot of practice we could only get better. A backhanded compliment if ever there was one, but it typified his Liverpudlian sense of humour.
As I reach my conclusion I make no apology for repeating that I believe that we are witnessing the renaissance of Liverpool. The city's 800th birthday is in 2007. What a wonderful birthday present it would be for it to be selected as the Cultural Capital of Europe in 2008. There is some stiff competition, but I believe that the indomitable spirit of Merseyside will win through.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, may not have been an elected politician in his career, but he certainly knows how to push all the right buttons—for example, congratulating Liverpool Football Club and confessing to have been on the same bill as the Beatles, would, I believe, get him through most public meetings.
Like other speakers, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, with her experience of service to Merseyside, for initiating tonight's debate. I am also pleased that my noble friend Lord Rodgers chose Liverpool as the topic on which he has got back into the saddle as a speaker in this House. Like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his past service to Liverpool, and for the contribution that he continues to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us that Liverpool still has some way to go in terms of economic recovery. My own impression is that Liverpool no longer has a chip on its shoulder about Manchester or Leeds. Indeed, there is a general celebration in the North that those three great cities are growing, recovering and building together.
Why have I put down my name to speak tonight? My father was born in Old Swan in 1899 in Oceanic Road, and my mother was born six months later across the way in Oceanic Road. They were brought up in pre-First World War Liverpool. Although they later moved to Blackpool, my early days were dominated by tales of their childhoods—stories of the Cast Iron Shore, Biscay Bay, the Adelphi, Nanny Conners' lodging house, selling the Liverpool Echo on the day that the "Titanic" sank, Jackson's Rope Works, the Sunlight Soap Works, the Glass House in Old Swan; and, indeed, the policeman who, according to my father, cleared the streets simply by saying, "Clear off!" It was many years later in this House that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, suggested that my father's version of "Clear off!" might have been bowdlerised for my ears.
When I visited Liverpool as a child in the late 1940s and early 1950s it was with a sense of awe at the power and majesty of the city. I recall the excitement of the trip to New Brighton on the ferry, the talk among my family of the Mecanno, the Automatic, Crawfords biscuit factory, and, of course, Littlewoods and Vernons. Then, in 1981, as a north-west MP, I was asked to go on a round table discussion initiated by Granada Television. It was a terrible and traumatic experience to feel the bleakness of an uncared-for city. This was a city of the Empire—an Atlantic city—which was now facing the wrong way as Britain turned its face towards Europe.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, observed that the 1980s was a bleak decade for Liverpool—with its industrial militancy, racial tensions, high crime rate, low educational standards, low skills base, and a shrinking population. As one Liverpudlian once put it to me, it was a "Naples without the sun". Many of those problems were self-inflicted wounds.
1456
In the early 1990s, I was commissioned to assess from a public relations point of view what Liverpool could do to reposition itself. I was actually in Liverpool on the day Mrs Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister. If there had been a vote in Liverpool, Michael Heseltine would have been elected by a large majority. The question that I kept hearing was, "Will Heseltine get it?" The reason, quite frankly, was that Michael Heseltine had shown interest in the city during those bleak times. He had demonstrated that he cared and had shown initiative. I believe that that is still appreciated on Merseyside.
But even 10 years ago the building blocks of "renaissance", as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, were there. I should mention Liverpool's marvellous architectural heritage. A number of speakers referred to the new initiative to protect it that was announced just yesterday, and reported in today's edition of the Guardian. The quote from Sir Neil Cossons is worth repeating:
"There is no other city equivalent to Liverpool in terms of high quality 19th century architecture".
He goes on to remind us, as did my noble friend Lord Rodgers, that St George's Hall is Europe's finest neoclassical building. Sir Neil made an important point. He said:
"Historical buildings should be the key to regeneration, not an obstacle".
I would go further. I would say that economic regeneration and cultural and social regeneration go hand in hand.
I am pleased to discover that I share with Tony Blair the opinion that there is a buzz about Liverpool again. I was there just after Christmas and again saw improvements in the public buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I were talking about how John Moores University had at last removed that dreadful eyesore of a hotel that was left derelict for decades. Reporters would come out of Lime Street station, take one look at it, write their story about Liverpool's decline, and get back on the train.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chan, about the drive of the education sector and from a number of speakers about the magnificence of the art galleries, and Liverpool's music and pop heritage. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, reminded us of one aspect of sporting heritage: football, where two clubs can have a fierce rivalry without some of the poisonous relationships that bedevil the rivalries between other clubs. Fans, whether blue or red, can go to each other's grounds and go to the pubs afterwards to discuss the game. Long may that continue. Of course, Liverpool also has the Grand National and golf. Tribute has been paid to the John Lennon Airport, which is another imaginative initiative.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that the regeneration programme, which has been led locally, has been supported nationally. That is greatly appreciated in Liverpool. A strong and adaptable skills base is growing. When I went to the reception given by John Moores University, I was told that students want to stay in Liverpool after graduating. It

1457
was pointed out that Ford, a pretty hard-nosed company, did not decide to build Jaguars in Liverpool for the love of it, but because it makes good, sound business sense.
Liverpool has a cultural richness and diversity and the environment is improving all round Liverpool. It has both countryside and sea. It has good communications, although we all know that the West Coast Main Line could do with improvement. As has been said, there is a well-led local authority that is restoring civic pride by example. I recently attended a briefing given by councillor Richard Kemp about public/private partnerships, which seem to be succeeding more in Liverpool than in London, say. There is a joint venture with BT on payroll and human resources. Street cleaning, lighting and highways are all being provided by joint ventures, as are car parks and street parking. There is a genuinely non-ideological approach to public/private partnership, with no inferiority complex on the part of public providers but acceptance that funds and know-how exist in the private sector which benefit the city and its inhabitants.
I cannot finish without paying tribute to another factor which during the 1980s and 1990s built that recovery. I pay tribute to Bishop Warlock and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard. It is suitable that the two cathedrals in Liverpool are linked by Hope Street, because the bishops recognise that Liverpool's greatest asset is its people. They are funny, irreverent, tough, resilient and, as the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, reminded us, very creative. They are citizens of no mean city. My mum and dad would have been very proud of Liverpool today. I know that I am, and I wish it well.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, perhaps I may say first that at one stage during this interesting debate I felt that I would be interrupting a mutual admiration society between the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches. But my noble friend Lord Liverpool broke the mould, so I can too. Perhaps I may also gently point out to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that my noble friend Lord Liverpool and I have been elected. It is because we have been elected by our hereditary friends that we still serve your Lordships' House.
Like all the preceding speakers, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing the debate about Liverpool and its culture. It is an enormous subject, and we could have spent much more time discussing Liverpool's centres of learning and centres of art, such as the Walker Gallery, which has been mentioned on several occasions.
Liverpool was, of course, extensively damaged in the Second World War. It took a long time for effective regeneration even to start. I repeat the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Hooper and others that we must thank my noble friend Lord Heseltine, who, sadly, is not in his place this evening, for the imagination, initiative and sheer energy that he put into starting the regeneration process in Liverpool in the early 1980s.
1458
During my research for the debate, I came across the following description of Liverpool. I was scared that someone else would produce it. Liverpool is described as,
"A small and picturesque port nestling in the mountains".
It comes, as your Lordships will probably not know, from a short and not very distinguished opera by Donizetti, called "Emilia di Liverpool. Emanating from Naples, it has not proved easy to translate into English, especially as England in the 1820s, viewed from Naples, was a distant land with distinct romantic overtones. It has been sung with Joan Sutherland in the name part and performed by the BBC. History does not relate whether it has been performed in Liverpool.
As had been said by several noble Lords, Liverpool's history can be said to have begun effectively in the reign of King John, when a Royal Charter was granted, mentioning 168 merchants. Not much progress appears to have been made with the port through the Middle Ages. Indeed, Liverpool was in decline during the reign of Elizabeth I. However, as soon as a trade route to the new American colonies developed across the Atlantic, Liverpool's prosperity was assured. Even by the early eighteenth century, Liverpool dominated transatlantic commerce. Principally, that meant the slave trade—sadly—then cotton and sugar coming in from the Americas to England. Of course, the shipping of cotton goods From the north-west of England to the colonies came soon after. Then it was immigration into Britain from Ireland and emigration from England to the USA. Liverpool became a great port, which it still is. All that activity produced a cosmopolitan but overcrowded, unhealthy and turbulent city of some 850,000 people in 1931, declining to 425,000 in 2001, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said.
That history produced an ideal breeding-ground for creativity. That has also been mentioned by noble Lords. At present, 4·7 per cent of Merseyside jobs—some 16,000—are in what one might call creative industry, generating £485 million per annum. Arabella McIntyre-Brown says in Liverpool: The First 1000 Years—a splendid book that, I am sure, most noble Lords will have read:
"Liverpool is not really an English city: from its earliest days as a port, Liverpool has attracted people from other places; people with an appetite for the new and the different; people with the courage to travel and explore; people with ideas and people with the guts to back them. Risk takers; pioneers; entrepreneurs; inventors; reformers. This is not a place for quiet contemplation, but for doing, changing and trying".
As we all know, the occasion inspiring the debate is the Liverpool Biennial contemporary arts festival, which runs from 14th September until 24th November this year. However, as several speakers have also pointed out, a longer-term target is the city's bid to become the European capital of culture in 2008. We have heard a great deal about that bid in the contributions made to this evening's debate, in particular the efforts being made by the city itself. If Liverpool wins—some 17 or perhaps 19 other cities

1459
think that they may have a better chance of being chosen—it will be a major boost to the arts as well as to the city's general commercial activity.
Winning the bid would also serve as a great encouragement to tourism in the North West. That area has just endured a desperate year and it will take a long time for the tourist industry to build itself up again. If Liverpool wins, then in 2008 not only will there be visitors from abroad, but also visitors will come from the rest of the United Kingdom.
This has been a diverse and wide-ranging short debate. It has informed the House and, it is hoped, it will inform the general public. It has certainly informed me. I have to say that the range of statistics provided by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, slightly lost me, but I shall enjoy reading them in Hansard. As a result of what I have learned about Liverpool, I should very much like to visit the city and hope that I shall be able to arrange to do that soon. I have visited Liverpool only once; by sea from Canada. I do not know it well.
I look forward to listening to the Minister's reply.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, I owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for having introduced this important topic. There has been a certain eclectic quality to the contributions which suggests that perhaps I ought to be able to represent some eight or nine government departments in order to respond to all the points that have been raised. At one stage I had thought that I could have left out the Foreign Office, but then the noble Lord, Lord Chan, corrected me on that point by mentioning the Chinese arch.
Questions have been asked of every other department during the course of the debate but I am not equipped to offer effective replies. First, I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I have no answer to his question on the tramway link. That has somewhat taken the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by surprise, but I promise that once I have contacted the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the issue I shall write to him. I also cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, too closely down the by-ways of local government. I hope that he will forgive me for that.
I hope that I have not been wrong in this respect, but I had thought that, given the timing, the main thrust of the debate would relate to the question of Liverpool's bid to become the European Capital of Culture in 2008 because the deadline for submission of those bids falls on 31st March, a point made by several noble Lords. I have not the slightest doubt that Liverpool will submit its bid in time. I am not sure whether it has yet been delivered but I am reassured that it will be sent shortly. Many of the contributions to tonight's debate have been designed, I believe, to strengthen that bid. I am not in a position to adopt anything but the most benign neutrality on the point, as no doubt will be recognised on all sides of the House.
1460
However, noble Lords have certainly succeeded in making a strong case of the virtues of Liverpool. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, stressed with his customary force the important aspect of Liverpool's architectural heritage. It is one that all will greatly respect. No one should underestimate the change in the economic circumstances of the city. We are all well aware of the comparative reduction in the transatlantic sea trade and the development of the European trade. That means that where Liverpool stood 100 years ago, Felixstowe stands today. But even my greatest friends in Suffolk are not prone to advocate the architectural glories of Felixstowe. We all recognise that the great architectural inheritance of Liverpool built over those great years is a major feature of the city and is not a disadvantage to a city bidding to become a capital city of culture.
I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, speaking with his customary force and fluency from the Back Benches as he had from the Front Benches. I cannot follow him too far down the road of Liverpool 8 because I have no ancestry at all connected with that area. The best I can do to correct that deficiency is that my eldest son went to Liverpool University and lived in Liverpool 8. So we were working in the opposite direction, but what a great experience it was for him. I hasten to mention that this was a year or two after the great difficulties of the city. We appreciated at that time how fast the city was making a recovery, and due tribute has been paid today to the recovery of the city from those difficult days of the early 1980s.
Primarily, I wish to respond to the broad theme that in 2007 Liverpool will celebrate its 800th anniversary and that it hopes to crown this in 2008 by being the European capital of culture based upon its unique heritage, which combines a diverse population, maritime history, commerce, industry, music, the arts and, of course, sport.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for emphasising the character, humour and the popular culture of Liverpool, which is one of its great glories. There is a tendency on occasion when one is considering the cultural advantages of a city or region to think only in terms of high culture when we should respect how much popular culture means to the vibrancy of a place. After all, in a democracy, it reflects the culture of a far larger number of people than those who enjoy high culture—although we hope increasingly to ensure greater and greater access to our wonderful cultural opportunities for all our citizens.
That is one of the great features of Liverpool's artistic resources. We applaud the fact that the Tate Gallery in Liverpool has made strenuous efforts to be socially inclusive, to open up its treasures and to inspire in its remarkable works the interest of children and those sections of the population who may not otherwise enjoy the opportunity. It is a great tribute to the Tate that it has broadened its appeal. It has set an example which many other art galleries in the country may wish to follow. So that, again, is another great advantage of the city.

1461
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also mentioned the theatre, which he enjoys. He will also recognise that lottery grants to our regional theatres have been significant over the past year. The Liverpool Theatre has benefited to the tune of a £6 million investment. These resources are long overdue in terms of our regional theatres. There has always been a problem in Britain of over-concentration on the incredible resource in the West End, but we also need to cherish those regional theatres to which so many of our citizens have readier access. Again, Liverpool enjoys such an amenity.
Although we shall be awaiting developments in regard to the bid over the next 15 months, Ministers have been active in looking at Liverpool's position. My noble friend Lady Blackstone recently re-opened the Walker Art Gallery following the very significant redevelopment of its facilities in a scheme costing £4·3 million. She also discussed the plans for the Liverpool Biennial at the Tate Gallery and visited the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts.
Earlier this month, the Minister for Sport was also in the city. He had the enormous benefit of going to the match at which the lights failed for the first half hour. It has been suggested to me that he might claim credit for switching the lights on. I am not too sure that he did that, but he certainly enjoyed the match. What was reflected in his visit—and last night's triumph was another notch in those terms—was that Liverpool is associated right across the nation with sporting prowess, particularly in football. While not wishing ill to any other side in the Premier League, as well as extolling Liverpool FC's achievement, I think we all hope that the city retains a Premier League status for both its football clubs despite the present trials and tribulations.
We should emphasise the way in which Liverpool has been developing in terms of cultural works. A new post of Assistant Executive Director for Culture has
1462
been created, giving strong emphasis to the role of culture as a driver of services across the city. There is no doubt that the city is reflecting what we all recognise; namely, that there are new drivers in the economic development of our cities and of our regions.
The noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Alton, referred to higher education in that respect. That is an important dimension in the age of lifelong learning. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred to the important role of educational institutions in developing the skills of our nation and enhancing not only our economic development but also the abilities of our citizens to benefit from all aspects ofthe cultural life of the great cities in which they live.
In addition, there is no doubt that we recognise the cultural advantages that this country has in its many great cities, among which Liverpool is outstanding. These factors are increasingly valued both by tourists from abroad and by our fellow countrymen—who are able to travel more easily than in the past and who value the riches which a city like Liverpool is able to offer.
I have very much enjoyed the debate. I refer to the obvious fact that we regarded the debate as being centred primarily on Liverpool's proper expectations and ambitions to fulfil itself in terms of being the EU capital of culture. That will be a significant event for all of us. We all recall with enormous pride just what that meant to the city of Glasgow on the occasion when it enjoyed that privilege. If Liverpool proves to be the fortunate city, I have not the slightest doubt that all the features identified in the debate will be enhanced and developed by that opportunity. I wish the city well, while at the same time saying that perhaps at some distant day I shall be able to come to this Dispatch Box and congratulate the city on such an achievement.
House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill
Wednesday, 20th March 2002.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 64, line 8, after "must" insert ", after appropriate investigation to establish the facts,"
The noble Lord said: It might be said that the amendment was debated the last time we met or that the last time we met, when I had gone, this was debated. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, put forward his amendment suggesting that the employers should be under an obligation to investigate promptly. The Minister would not accept that for a number of reasons to which I shall turn later. Our amendments—the four with which I am concerned today. Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 106 and 110—are not quite the same. They require an appropriate investigation and for the worker to he provided with a summary of that investigation—and before the process begins. Whether or not there is a very significant difference between these different sets of amendments, not all the arguments were developed last time. That gives us an opportunity—it certainly gives me an opportunity—to see whether I understand what the Minister was telling us.
If I remember rightly, he said first that we did not need the first amendment—and he would probably say the same about ours. I hope not, but he might. Then he said that it is all in the ACAS code, and asked why we want it on the face of the Bill? The Minister said that it is, in any case, the existing law—it is practice—and that if anybody came in front of an industrial tribunal and had not had an investigation, he would lose the case. Everybody knows that existing law requires that to be done.
If that were not enough, the Minister said that the words we used were confusing: it would not be clear what the employer had to do, because he would be doing a wide range of different things and we had not specified in some way what we expected him to do. Finally—the absolute killer—he said that we would have to send for lawyers. He said that if that amendment were passed—no doubt he could say the same about ours—there would be a lawyers' paradise.
I will deal with the ACAS code. I would like to know in what way it would be unclear. It is not clear to me that our amendments in particular are unclear. Moreover, the fact is that we are not just concerned in these amendments with what goes on in tribunals. This point has been made before and has been made in particular about Clause 25. That is why Clause 25 is so
CWH 198
important. It is not about what goes on in tribunals because not one dispute, not one grievance and not one disciplinary action in 500 gets in front of an industrial tribunal. It is about what employers and workers do when they do not go in front of tribunals or anything else. It is about what the ACAS conciliators say is the normal practice in cases where disputes are settled before they get to tribunals.
The first point to make is that we are not just concerned with what goes on in tribunals; we are concerned with setting out standards which can be observed and which can be accepted as being fair and reasonable to all those workers who do not even get to tribunals. We are trying to make policy. The Bill is trying to make policy. It is trying to make policy for conduct in industrial relations. That is what it is centrally about. It is what all employment protection is about. It is trying to create standards in the community, whether people go to law or not.
That is why, in our amendments, we want the worker to have an investigation. The Minister said the other day that he thought it would be ridiculous to try to take a reasonable decision without investigation. But we like employers to know that; we like to put that on the face of the Bill. And we like there to be a summary so the worker knows what he has to answer.
Once again, I am sure it will be said that these things are all in the ACAS code—at least they are in the present ACAS code. We are not certain whether they will be in the next ACAS code. I would like the Minister to tell me—perhaps to promise me—that they will he in the new ACAS code. They are certainly in the present ACAS code at paragraph 10f, i, and j of the code, and their heading is Essential Features of Disputes Procedures. All the things that we suggest and other things are there in the ACAS code.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton asks whether they will be amended. We do not know, and that is really what we are saying. We are saying that these are reasonable amendments. We are saying that their basic justification is the essential for natural justice. Everybody is entitled to know after an investigation what they are supposed to have done, and that should be put in any minimum procedure.
"Minimum" is a very funny word. Anybody who is told that these are the minimum criteria, particularly in respect of something which limits his opportunities and his freedom, is bound to say, "That's all I have to do then. I only have to do what's down there. If I've done that, I'm all right". There is much more in the ACAS code. In the ACAS code, for example, one is not supposed to sack people, or dismiss people, unless it is a matter of gross misconduct, and one is supposed to use suspension wherever one can. We have tabled amendments to deal with that.
However, if something is now put in law on the face of a Bill, it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to think to himself, and for some of his advisers to tell him he is perfectly justified in thinking, "This is all I have to do. This is the law. This is the minimum to which they have interfered with my managerial prerogatives.". We are saying that we want more than

CWH 199
that. We are saying that some, at least, of the further things, which are essential for equity and fairness and natural justice to be carried out, ought to be on the face of the Bill. These amendments are a small example. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In a sense, any mention of the ACAS code, or the existing case law on the outcomes of tribunal cases, is in my submission quite irrelevant to the amendment, or indeed any answer to it. This is partly because the amendment comes at this stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain that submission. If one looks at Clause 34, it is very difficult to discuss the Bill without looking at its very carefully contrived machinery altogether. It is a very specific and carefully constructed machinery. If one looks at Clause 34, we find that if the employer does not complete any of the procedures in Part 1 of Schedule 2, he may be regarded—shall be regarded—as unfairly dismissed, where that is wholly or mainly attributable to failure by the employer. Clause 34 is nothing to do with the ACAS code, nothing to do with the outcome of proceedings in tribunals, or precedents in the past, or cases that my noble and learned friend may cite to me. It is to do with Part I of Schedule 2. The employer simply has to complete Part I of Schedule 2 in order to escape Clause 34, which inserts new Section 98A into the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What is Schedule 2? For the answer, we have to go back to Clause 30. Clause 30 makes Schedule 2 an implied term of the contract of employment. That is rather a bad proposition. Perhaps I may amend it. Clause 30 turns an obligation to observe the statutory disputes procedures, which of course are to be found in Schedule 2, into a term of the contract of employment. I quote Clause 30:
"Every contract of employment shall have effect to require the employer and employee to comply, in relation to any matter to which a statutory procedure applies, with the requirements of the procedure".
The procedure is in Schedule 2. It does not appear in any precedents laid down in previous cases and it is not even in the statutory code. Of course, if a case went to a tribunal and the matter was argued out to the end, then under the proposition to which my noble friend adverted in our previous arguments on 18th March—namely, that of an employer who did not investigate anything but simply dismissed an employee—an employer might well lose the case.
This is where Clause 33 is so important. The object of Clause 33 is to prevent certain types of case ever reaching a tribunal. A number of our amendments today take the answers of the Minister in another place—with which I am sure my noble and learned friend will be in agreement—for granted by hypothesis. A number of our amendments today will be moved on the basis that those arguments are right, as is this one. My noble and learned friend may well say—he would be right to do so—"Ah, but Clause 33 is about grievance procedures, and the question of an
CWH 200
investigation by the employer is at least primarily about disciplinary procedures, which is not dealt with by Clause 33".
If my noble and learned friend follows me to the ACAS code—that famous document—it points out that frequently, or at any rate sometimes, a disciplinary matter raises both a disciplinary procedure and a grievance procedure. Therefore, in the course of a grievance procedure, an employee may well be saying, "But you took these steps without proper investigation—that is part of my grievance". The matter will be raised in a grievance procedure context. Therefore, whether or not an employee is prevented from ever reaching the tribunal by Clause 33 may well be inherent and central to a grievance procedure step.
As that is so, the discussion concerns whether the employee ever reaches the tribunal, not what the precedents of the case law in existence say. It is not what the ACAS code says but whether the employee is ever allowed—as Clause 33 puts it—to present a complaint to the tribunal. He is prohibited from doing so if he has not complied with the step required under Schedule 2.
As this clearly impacts upon some grievance procedure steps, it is therefore extremely relevant to both employers and employees. As my noble friend said, the employer may well be entitled to say, "I am required under Clause 32 to comply with Schedule 2". Schedule 2 does not mention any investigation. It does not even impliedly suggest an investigation; it deliberately abstains from mentioning it. That is the first reason that it should be there for the employer.
An employee, in bringing a case based on a grievance problem, may well find that he is prohibited from presenting a case even to the tribunal—he is shut out, his mouth is made dumb by Clause 33—because he has not complied with the requirement in Clause 33(2) or, indeed, the other conditions in subsections (3) and (4) to which we shall come and to which we wish to move amendments. So the arrangement applies both ways. Both an employer, who did not take advice, and an employee, who has a perfectly good grievance, may well have perfectly good grounds for saying, "Why on earth didn't you somewhere mention, at least for the avoidance of doubt and for both employer and employee, the need to investigate?". I doubt if my noble friend will argue that there is absolutely no doubt in relation to this or succeeding amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have listened carefully to what has been said about the amendment, which would add the phrase, "after appropriate investigation to establish the facts" to the schedule. It seems to me—I am nervous of using the word—that that smacks a little of "nannyism" or "nannying". It is such a long time since I had a nanny that I am not quite sure of the phrase. That would make that amendment prescriptive because we all know that, if an employer failed to carry out an adequate investigation, he would destroy his own case that the dismissal—or, for that

CWH 201
matter, another decision depending upon the dispute—was reasonable and in good faith. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that he did not know that and that this approach would make it clearer.
There are innumerable cases that are ruled that an employer can rely on facts which are known to him only when he makes his decision, and he cannot rely on acquired information. Therefore, it follows from prudence alone that it would require an employer to make sure that he had his facts right before he started. The idea that it must be written in that he knows he must adequately investigate, assumes that nobody knows anything about the sort of procedure that should be followed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, himself recognised that in his Amendment No. 109, to which we shall come later, which requires a written statement to include,
"the facts known to the employer".
If we have to spoon-feed at every stage and put into it what he has to do, it follows that he must know the facts before he gets involved in this; or, if he does not, he will have to lose the case that would give grounds for dismissing his defence.
Lord McCarthy: Surely, it is a matter of who you are nannying. You are not nannying the employer if you take these things out. You may be nannying the worker and saying to the worker, "These are your rights, these are what you are entitled to have". Perhaps the employer knows more about the law. Perhaps the employer has lawyers to advise him.
On the other hand, there are many cases in tribunals in which workers win the argument because the employer has not done a proper investigation; however, you have to go all the way through. Now you are putting up a barrier to getting there and also saying, "We shall erect this thing called the statutory procedure, which we have never had before. It is the minimum procedure in relation to which the employer can reasonably say—it may not be law—'That is all that I have to do"'. You are not nannying him. You are helping the worker if you put something on the face of the Bill where the employer cannot use that device.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said in his opening remarks that the amendment is similar though not identical to the amendments that we discussed at the end of our sitting on Monday. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, encapsulated what the issue is between us in relation to this matter. The statutory procedures seek to set out a minimum requirement that employers (in relation to dismissal) and employees (in relation to grievance) have to go through. It is not intended to affect in any way at all the principles that govern reasonableness. As I made clear on Monday afternoon, if there is not an investigation, in virtually every case that would make the dismissal unfair under the usual provisions of the unfair dismissal law.
However., this is seeking to define a minimum requirement that has to be gone through. In order for that to be effective—in order for that effectively to give
CWH 202
rise to an automatic unfair dismissal, which is what the consequence is of not complying with the minima—it must be clear what is required in relation to it.
Would Members of the Committee look at the amendments against that proposition? Amendments Nos. 97 and 106 would oblige the employer to undertake an "appropriate" investigation before instigating disciplinary action. As I said, we have tried to draft the minimum procedure in the Bill as a series of discrete concrete actions. This achieves clarity. We have kept to a minimum the qualitative tests of reasonableness or appropriateness. Both Amendments Nos. 97 and 106 would add such qualitative tests, immediately depriving the minimum standards of their efficacy, which involves making it clear whether or not there is to be an automatic unfair dismissal. It would create a new level of uncertainty in the procedures. It would cause difficulties and give extra scope for disputes to arise concerning compliance with the procedure.
The purpose of the procedure is to make clear what is required as a minimum without in any way detracting from good practice. My noble friend Lord McCarthy said that this was not just what happens in the tribunal; it is also about what happens on the ground in relation to the vast number of dismissals that never get anywhere near an industrial tribunal. Of course, the ACAS code of practice will still apply just as the statutory minima will apply, and we do not accept the proposition that if we put in a statutory minima, that is all that will happen and people will ignore the ACAS code of practice. It will become clearer and it will improve standards.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy asked if investigations in future would involve the ACAS code. He asked me to promise that they would. It is important to point out that ACAS is independent; we cannot tell ACAS what to include in the code. However, there is no reason why it should not deal with the issue on investigations in the same way as the existing code.
Amendments Nos. 98 and 100 require the step 1 letter to contain information about the investigations undertaken or the facts which have been established. Again, they are drafted in open-ended ways that make it unclear what information the letter must contain. Again, that would introduce confusion and uncertainty into the procedures. There is also a real danger that many employers would feel obliged to enlist the services of a lawyer when drafting the initial letter. The letter itself may need to be long and detailed if the amendment were agreed to, and the three-step procedure would become excessively bureaucratic if we went down that road.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. There may be an overlap between discipline and grievance, as he pointed out by drawing attention to an extract from the existing ACAS code. We intend to ensure in regulations that the circumstances in which each of the statutory procedures applies is clear. With respect to my noble

CWH 203
friend, he was saying that the position was not clear in the Bill. We accept that, but it will be made clear in the regulations.
My noble friend said that the purpose of Clause 33 was to prevent certain cases from reaching tribunals. That is not a fair characterisation of the arrangement; it will ensure that the grievance procedure is gone through before a tribunal case is brought.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. I find it difficult to understand what he has just said. Clause 33 says:
"An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—

(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies, and

(b) the requirement has not been complied with".

So, of course, I appreciate that both points are surely equally true. The one does not exclude the other. What the Minister said is right; namely, the measure aims to try to get the requirements in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 to be completed. But it also says that if you have not done that, you are prohibited from getting inside the door of the tribunal.
May I make the second point so that it is not inconvenient for the Minister? The point which gives rise to this is that a disciplinary procedure can give rise to the raising of a grievance— and I am referring to paragraph 48 of the ACAS code, if I may quote what it says:
"Sometimes a worker may raise a grievance about the behaviour of a manager during the course of a disciplinary case. Where this happens and depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to suspend the disciplinary procedure for a short period until the grievance can be considered. Consideration might also be given to bringing in another manager to deal with the".
Is the initial thinking of the Government to adopt that and put it in the schedule— that where a disciplinary procedure gives rise to a grievance the matter should be suspended? Because if that is going to be put in, it really should go in the Bill. This is a matter of primary principle, not of regulation or tittering about with the detail.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards the first point raised by my noble friend, he gives an exactly accurate account of what Clause 33 does. It sets out certain requirements that have to be complied with. If the requirements are not complied with, then the employee will not be in a position to present a complaint. That is an exactly accurate account of it. The issue is not whether that is right but what the purpose of Clause 33 is. I said that the purpose of Clause 33 is not to prevent certain cases reaching tribunals; it is to ensure that the grievance procedure is gone through before a tribunal case is brought. Therefore, that was the issue between us there.
CWH 204
On the other issue about overlap between discipline and grievance, again I accept entirely the practice set out in paragraph 48 that was mentioned. To which procedures the statutory procedures in Schedule 2 apply will be determined, as I have said, by regulation.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister made two points to which I must reply. One I will not reply to at any length because it is going to run through our debate throughout the afternoon and that is the Government's refusal so far to admit that one is not just regulating and legislating for people who get to tribunals; standards are being established. Therefore, they cannot just say, "When you get to a tribunal it will be all right because they have the ACAS code and they know about all these things". That is not just what this matter is about; it is creating a completely new concept of minimum standards. We do not know how many employers will say that that is all they are going to do. We know that many employers do not do much; that is why we are having a statutory procedure in the first place because a large number of them do not have any procedures at all, do not find it necessary to have procedures and have probably never heard of the ACAS code. We are saying that this matter is not just about what happens when one gets to a tribunal. It is about the general practice of industrial relations and the principles which operate when people are dismissed or fail to get their grievances remedied. The issues involved in that, however, will come back all afternoon.
The Minister's second comment related to language. We have used three words. They are deeply ambiguous, apparently. I have no difficulty with "summary". "Appropriate" is simple enough in the sense of something being inappropriate or appropriate. The Oxford English Dictionary has no problem with that. I think we all know what "investigation" means. However, here we have a race of employers who will apparently "fall down" when faced with the unbelievably complicated words; "summary", "appropriate" and "investigate". Now look at the Bill. It mentions "conduct". I think that is a worse word; there is no definition. The Bill mentions "characteristics". What a vague word, but, apparently, they will ride round that. The Bill also uses the words "circumstances" and "contemplate"! Yet we are being told we cannot have our amendments because they are intrinsically difficult to understand. This is nonsense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 99:
Page 64, line 10, leave out "dismissing" and insert "suspending or dismissing (and in the case of contemplation of dismissal explaining why he does not contemplate suspension)"
The noble Lord said: There are three amendments grouped together here— Amendments Nos. 99, 107 and 111. We have come to something else that we want to put on the face of the Bill. This is about suspensions.

CWH 205
I suppose that the word "suspension" will probably be said to be too ambiguous to be put on the face of the Bill, but we are asking for two different things. We are asking that there should be an option. As in the ACAS code —and this is what the ACAS code suggests— it should be suggested to the employer on the face of the Bill that before he dismisses he should contemplate the possibility of suspension.
The doyen of conciliators at ACAS, Dennis Boyd, who has now long since retired, used to say that the single simple measure of employer "civilisation" was whether they knew about suspension. He said that about two-thirds of British employers never seemed to have heard of suspension but they went straight to dismissal. Suspension is the mark of a civilised dispute procedure, so we will try to put it on the face of the Bill. I refer also to Amendments Nos. 99 and 107 in this regard. At the point when he decides what to do the employer should consider what I would call the suspension option. Amendment No. 111 says something slightly different because the employer is asked to state to the worker why suspension is not an appropriate step. Nevertheless, these amendments, in their various ways, are attempts to place the suspension option in the dispute procedure.
Why do we want suspension? Why does someone like Dennis Boyd think that suspension is the mark of civilisation? The notion of suspension arises in three circumstances. First, it is where there is a prima facie reason to suppose that the worker or workers have committed some form of gross or serious misconduct or failure in performance which, if it is proved, could well justify dismissal. This is a serious issue; we have to get the investigation under way. We put the worker in a suspended condition on full pay and find out whether this prima facie case is in fact proved.
The second case, which is a very common type, is where the debate or the disagreement is not between the worker and the employer at all but between a group of workers, or two workers who have a dispute between them which may in fact have taken a physical form and they require to be separated. It is necessary to find out who started it and who said what to whom. In order to have a little time to find out such important things, instead of saying they will both be sacked at the same time—as some employers do, who say, "I am not going into this"— there should be the concept of suspension. The employer should be encouraged as an act of civilised industrial relations to consider the possibility of the suspension option.
The third type of case where suspension comes in is at a very high level in management where there are allegations which strike at the root of trust or confidence, or where there is the possibility of commercial loss and no one quite knows whether the commercial loss has taken place. Dismissal might be very expensive on the part of the management because it might turn out to be justified. Actions would be taken in courts outside the industrial tribunal courts and therefore the wise course of action is to punish nobody until there have been long and careful investigations and the use of suspension.
CWH 206
This measure should be on the face of the Bill. We realise that it is not as common as it ought to be. We realise that more people investigate than use suspension in a creative form. But if you are going to put something in as a minimum, and if you are going to try to influence the conduct of industrial relations, to place the notion of suspension just as an option on the face of the Bill is the first element of civilisation in dispute procedures. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: There are other cases where suspension is the only way in which an issue can be approached in a civilised way, and unfortunately there are often such cases nowadays. They are cases of sexual harassment where there is an allegation by one employee against another and where suspension is the only way to proceed while there is an investigation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This is a very, very serious amendment. It goes to the root of how the Government are going to approach this matter. Only two nights ago a leading scholar in the field of employment law, Professor Hepple, said at a meeting of the Industrial Law Society in regard to these parts of the Bill— not the other parts of the Bill:
"This Bill is a moment of crisis for employment law.".
The reasons he developed in his talk relate very much to what we are discussing this afternoon.
The ACAS code mentions the need to take a number of steps before the employer proceeds to anything like dismissal. There is no difficulty if one is in touch with real life in knowing the difference between dismissal and suspension; at any rate, suspension which is not a disciplinary suspension. In a dismissal, the employer creates a situation in which the worker does not take home his wages; at any rate, in dismissals for misconduct, which are the most serious issue in debate.
It could be that in a disciplinary suspension there is argument about whether any payment should be made or not. However, as the ACAS code makes clear, before any of those rather serious and savage disciplinary consequences are reached for, a number of steps should be taken. The ACAS code, in paragraph 15 for example, says:
"The worker should be given first a formal oral warning".
Then it goes on to say that secondly the worker should be given a written warning and that dismissal should be proceeded with only at the end of the road. In paragraph 13 the ACAS code states:
"In certain circumstances, for example in cases involving gross misconduct where relationships have broken down or where it is considered they are a risk to an employer's property or responsibility to other parties, consideration should be given to a brief period of suspension with pay whilst an unhindered investigation is conducted. Such a suspension should only be imposed after careful consideration and should be reviewed to ensure it is not unnecessarily protracted".
As my noble friend has said, this is a civilised approach to human relationships where the worker's family depends on him bringing home his weekly pay packet. Why should not that be mentioned in what is put forward as minimal procedures; the failure to complete which can cause a worker ever to get to a tribunal, which employers are going to rely upon for

CWH 207
dismissals, as, to be fair, Clause 34 makes clear? Why should it not be part of fairness that dismissal should not come if suspension is proper?
It may be the actual words we use do not make that clear enough, but in our submission— and this is the first major point for this most important amendment—the employer and the employee should have it brought to their minds by civilised minimum procedures that suspension is something that ought to be considered and that if it is not engaged upon the employer should say why. That is all in accordance with the ACAS approach. What is wrong with that? The argument that is said to be against that is that it introduces an element of uncertainty.
I do not know what the Government think Schedule 2 has in it. What does it have in it? It has the requirement of meetings. It is not at all clear what a meeting is. We shall come the question of whether a meeting is a hearing later on but the Government seem to think that the two words mean the same thing. What is a meeting? In explaining why he chooses to contemplate or decide to dismiss, the employer will obviously have to explain, certainly in the case of a first offence where one does not normally dismiss, why he did not merely suspend.
There can be argument about a requirement in Schedule 2 statutory procedures as to what are reasonable steps to attend a meeting. It becomes an implied term of the employee's contract of employment that he must take reasonable steps to attend a meeting. The employer says, "Come on Thursday"; the employee says, "I can't come on Thursday". Do you think there will not be arguments about whether he should go or not? Do you think that is not uncertain?
The Bill then provides that he must inform the employer. What is enough for that? Can he shout at him, must he put it on paper? Do you think there will not be argument about that? Do you think that that is not uncertain? The employer must send a copy of the statement to the employee. How must he do that? Can it be by e-mail, orally or in writing? Do you think there will not be argument about that? Must it be by first-class post? Preferably not. Is it enough to give it to him, or send it? What is "send"? Do you think there will not be argument about that? The meetings must be at a time and location that are reasonable. Do you think there is not going to be argument about that; whether the meeting was set at a reasonable time and location? It is then stated that in certain appeals a manager who is more senior than the first manager has to deal with the matter. Do you think there is not going to be argument about who is senior to whom in the management structure?
All of these things are a feature of the construction of the Bill which is jurisprudentially flawed in a very fundamental way. The flaw is that throughout the Bill those who constructed it think that if they put down propositions, which will be propositions of law but propositions that have to be applied to facts, it will be obvious what they mean. When somebody introduces a different proposition, they say, "Ah, you can't tell
CWH 208
how that will apply to the facts— it will be all uncertain.". It is that kind of attitude to making legislation which has crept into especially Schedule 2 but other parts of the Bill.
There will be many disputes about what is already in Schedule 2. I missed out one: steps have to be taken by both sides without delay. I cannot think of anything more open to dispute and uncertainty than the question whether someone has acted without delay. My noble friend Lord McCarthy is always late. I always say that he is in delay but he always says that he is there in good time and I am there early. We often have disputes about it and I doubt whether my noble and learned friend would say that they were disputes without any basis in facts.
The Minister must realise that the Government have put forward in Schedule 2 minimum procedures which enter into the contracts of employment of every worker in the land and which are there to guide employers. And thank goodness they are; we are all in favour of all employers being guided as to what they should do in regard to disputes. We are not against that and I have to go on saying that because it is almost misrepresented in our position.
Of course, we believe that employers should have to follow proper procedures. These are not fair procedures— that is what is wrong— and they are certainly not procedures without any element of uncertainty. I refer to procedures such as the requirement to act without delay; to have a proper time for meetings; a proper location for meetings; to send copies; and to take reasonable steps. Of course, if one wants to argue about the application of such standards to facts, one will do so— and one will do so quite reasonably from one's point of view if one feels hard done by.
First, the amendment is an attempt to put into the schedule the most elementary standards of proper procedure. We have been very modest and we have not put in a demand the employer should issue a warning. We have not put in a demand for a first warning, second warning and third warning, which one finds in the ACAS code. We have just put in suspension. He should consider suspension, and he should say why he did not operate suspension if he did not do it. What we have said is nowhere near as uncertain as things that are in Schedule 2 already.
I wish to add a further point. During the course of what I have said, Members of the Committee may have thought it rather odd that I pause to spell out words or to make clear what I am saying orally. There is a reason for that. I am not now making a complaint and above all I wish to say, in capital letters, that I am not in any way complaining about Hansard. It does us all a great service and does everything it can to report what we say. Hansard provides the record of Committees, as it should, and there are many people out there in the real world who are actually reading what is going on. Although we have been dismissed up into the Himalayas with this Grand Committee, there are those who cannot put on their cramping tools, or whatever it is, to get here, or get into the lift, and who

CWH 209
cannot spend the time to come and listen as it actually happens. But they are reading it in this moment of crisis for employment law.
Now, Hansard informs me that it does not have the resources—and so this is directed through the Government in charge of this Committee to whoever is the proper authority; I am not sufficiently expert to know— that it should have to provide us with a shorthand writer— not a shorthand logger but a shorthand writer— to take down what we are actually saying.
I used in my youth here, 30 years ago, to think it was really rather absurd to have what we are saying taken on to a tape and typed up, and also to have a shorthand writer. How wrong I was. The experienced shorthand writers of Hansard are the guarantee that the next day one can make sense of what has been said.
Because we do not have a shorthand writer— and I have taken this up with my noble and learned friend's colleague, the Chief Whip, who is considering the matter, but I wish to place it on record—some of the records of the last three days' discussion have been gobbledegook. Had we had an experienced shorthand writer, it is my belief that that would not have been the case.
I am not trying to slow things down, as somebody suggested to me last time after we had risen and we had reached the lift. I am trying to say that there may be errors in the record overnight, although they will be corrected no doubt in the published volumes for years to come and historians will study them. In the overnight record, there are things which it is almost impossible to expect a shorthand typist with a tape to get right. However, had we had a shorthand writer from Hansard, with their great experience and their great ability to take what is actually said in front of their face and get it into the record, we would have been better served.
Although the Committee has no Divisions— and in that respect it is different from the Chamber— I understood that it would be served with rules that were precisely the same as the Chamber, short of Divisions. Now, that appears not to be so, and I will put it on the record, I stress again, not in any criticism of Hansard. Quite the contrary. Hansard is being prevented from doing its job properly through not having the resources of shorthand writers.
I do not expect my friend to comment on this at the moment if he does not want to. I simply place it on the record. And perhaps I may say that I have had requests from Hansard, even this afternoon, to send them up written extracts. However, I have been unable to do so because I need them for amendments which are just to come. I believe that a shorthand writer would have got them without any doubt at all because of the experience and expertise that such people have shown and have served us with so well over the years.
I hope that that will not distract from my main arguments on this amendment; namely, that this is an amendment for civilised standards and it is not uncertain, especially given the standards of uncertainty that are already in the schedule.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Lord sits down—I am not going to say anything about his amendment— I would like to agree with him. I approach this matter in the same spirit as he did—with no serious sense of complaint about the Hansard writers— but what the noble Lord said is correct. In fact, Members of the Committee may have noticed that I asked my noble friend Lord Rotherwick a few moments ago to go up to Hansard. I was reading what was said on Monday about an amendment, on which I agreed with the noble Lord. There is a look of surprise on the Minister's face. I was pointing out that on the many times that the Minister had spoken, he referred to the wide powers in the Bill. I am reading Hansard now and it refers to the "wise" powers given to the Secretary of State, which completely alters what I said. I felt some sympathy with the noble Lord who was speaking a moment ago.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may agree with my noble friend on two particular points. First, it is incredibly important that the record of these proceedings is accurate. It is obviously not in my hands to deal with that hut I thoroughly endorse what my noble friend has said about the importance or the record being accurate.
Given this opportunity, I also thoroughly endorse what my noble friend said about Professor Hepple, who is an incredibly respected employment lawyer. When I was a student, he made a great difference to my knowledge of employment law.
Let me deal with the subject matter of the amendments in this group. I have no difficulty with the principle of the amendments, which is to encourage employers to suspend rather than dismiss immediately, or to encourage employers at least to focus on the possibility of suspension. I point to the link with the ACAS code, which makes it clear that in cases of gross misconduct, employers should consider a brief period of suspension before dismissing. My noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Turner drew attention to the circumstances in which actually using the power of suspension can be of great importance.
As Members of the Committee will know, the code does not require suspension in every case, thereby recognising that it might not be right in every circumstance. Moreover, the amendment would go beyond the good practice set out in the code, in requiring the employer to set out the reasons why suspending is not the chosen option. It would impose a new obligation on the employer to no great effect, once, that decision had been taken.
It is not the purpose of the procedures set out in Schedule 2 to act as a checklist of options for employers. These are statutory minimum procedures and they should be as clear, precise and straightforward as possible. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn is correct— no doubt there are possible disputes about such words as "conduct" or "sending". Disputes could be created about practically anything

CWH 211
but we are seeking to keep the statutory procedures as clear and concrete, precise and straightforward, as possible, so that people know where they stand.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy referred to the fact that possibly as many as two-thirds of employers have never even heard of suspension. My noble friend also said, earlier in the proceedings, that a great many employers had never heard of the ACAS code. I do not know whether the two-thirds figure is correct, but I do know that a great many employers have not heard of the ACAS code. Does that not make the point for the minimum standard? It is precisely because so many employers have never even heard of the ACAS code— perhaps they have not even heard of ACAS— that bringing in basic minimum procedures which have to be followed brings, as a matter of realism, some minimum standards to employees which they do not have at the moment. We are seeking to face reality and to do something which is achievable, which will make a difference to those many employees and which will affect the ignorance of those many employers. It does not in any way detract from the standards set out in the ACAS code but it does bring some minimum standards.
Amendment No. 111 would impose a requirement on the employer to inform the employee why he was not suspended instead of dismissed. As I said, this would add an entirely new obligation on the employer. It goes well beyond existing best practice guidance. The ACAS code, which implicitly recognises that suspension may not be appropriate in all circumstances, places no similar obligation on the employer.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 107, taken together, seek to ensure that employees are never dismissed instantly. Instead, the only sanction which an employer would take before the procedure is completed is to suspend the employee. I have already explained why I believe the procedures cannot go down—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect, Amendment No. 111 does not say that the employer should not and cannot dismiss. It requires him to say why he has not suspended instead of dismissing, which is quite different.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The point that I am making is that Amendments Nos. 107 and 111, taken together, seek to ensure that employees are never dismissed instantly. I hope that I made that clear. Instead, the only sanction which an employer would take before the procedure is completed is to suspend the employee. I have already explained why I believe the procedures cannot go down this road. It is not our intention to change the law on instant dismissal. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister knows very well that one can always pick holes in a particular amendment. One can look at the words and say that they are not helpful. However, it is important to decide whether the principles— the impulse behind those amendments— are matters that one can support. We would not
CWH 212
complain; we would be overwhelmed with gratitude if the Government were to say, "We don't like your words. This is not in the ACAS code". In fact, there is something very similar in the ACAS code but I shall not go into the words in that code. I am not saying that the ACAS code is perfect.
There is a difference between picking up— "nitpicking up", one might say— the way that amendments are written and combining them so that they become worse— why do we not say that one will be taken and not the other?— and simply expressing general support for the idea that placing "suspension" into the minimal procedure is a matter which the Government will consider and will try to find a way of embodying in the Bill.
That is all that we ask. We ask for that kind of consideration to be given to the amendments that we shall be moving today rather than for the Committee to focus on the precise words— that is, whether they are ambiguous or not ambiguous and whether they take us a little before or past the position of the ACAS code. After all, the ACAS code has not been changed since 1972. It has had two major revisions but all that has been done is that the apostrophes have been moved about. It has not really been changed at all. Perhaps the ACAS code is a little behind-hand.
We want Ministers to say what they think of the thrust of our amendments, what they consider to be behind the amendments and whether they believe that they can accept them. There seems to be a very real danger in the minimum procedure, which is very short. Perhaps we should have made more of that; the Government are not taking it on board at all. For example, the modified procedure on grievances— we are not really debating that matter— has no provision for appeal, and that is monstrous.
The procedure is minimal. People who have never had, or who do not believe in, procedures find that such procedures have to be included in the employment contracts of their employees. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is always saying, that is the great innovation in this Bill. These procedures do not have to be put in; they go in or are implied, which is very unusual. People will say, "All right, so now they're shoving things in our employment contracts, are they, without so much as a bye or leave? It is not even like the ACAS code. We shall be taken into account if we reach a tribunal".
These provisions are going to be shoved into our employment contracts without us being told what is in them and why, or why we should observe them. Many employers may quite reasonably say, "They'll get nothing more than that". There might well be a kick-back effect in which thousands of employees who have no procedure will be subject to the minimal procedure. That will in fact be a lower level of treatment than they are receiving now. That is a very real possibility and it is one of the points that we shall probably continue to make. However, for the moment, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 101:
Page 64, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) At the meeting the employee should he given the chance to state his case and answer any allegations that have been made.
( ) Except in cases of gross misconduct no employee should he dismissed for a first breach of discipline."
The noble Baroness said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friends Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Gladwin of Clee, and at their request, I beg the leave of the Committee to move Amendment No. 101 and to speak to Amendment No. 104.
We are now discussing procedures which should be followed and which are set out in Schedule 2. We have spent a lot of time on it this afternoon already. The first part of the amendment states that an employee faced with a disciplinary charge should be given a chance to state his case and to answer the allegations. The second part stipulates that, except in cases of gross misconduct, no employee should be dismissed for a first breach of discipline.
In case it should be argued— as I think it has been already— that it is obvious that where there are disciplinary charges natural justice decrees that an individual should be able to state his or her case and to answer the charges and that there is therefore no need to put this in the Bill. I would point out— as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has already done— that we are here considering situations in which an employer has not previously had any procedures. The Government acknowledge that by saying that about 6 million employees will now have procedures where none previously existed.
The Minister accepts that we are not dealing with people who are familiar with the kind of procedures taken for granted in many large firms where there is union recognition, collective bargaining, some knowledge of ordinary industrial relations procedure and, often, a knowledge of the ACAS code. It is therefore necessary to spell out these requirements on the face of the Bill.
The second part of Amendment No. 101 makes the entirely reasonable point— already spoken to by my two noble friends— that no employee should be dismissed for a first disciplinary offence except in a case of gross misconduct. As has already been stated, that is in line with the ACAS code of practice. In case of minor infringements, it is recommended that employees should be given a formal oral warning. If the infringement is more serious, a written warning is recommended. Minor cases of misconduct and most cases of poor performance may best be dealt with by informal advice, coaching and counselling rather than through disciplinary procedures.
Those are entirely reasonable provisions set out in detail in the ACAS code. Amendment No. 104, with which Amendment No. 101 is grouped, follows naturally from what has been said. It simply states that in arranging and conducting meetings and deciding the form of any disciplinary action, the employer should have regard to the ACAS code of practice.
CWH 214
I hope the Minister will agree that those are entirely reasonable propositions which are already in the ACAS code. He told us:
"We will be asking ACAS to revise the code in due course to ensure that it recognises the statutory procedures".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. CWH 194.]
As my noble friend Lord McCarthy has already said, I hope that in revising the code regard will be had to the very reasonable propositions set out in the amendment. It is quite reasonable for us to say that if there is to be a revised code we would like to know what is going to be in it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 101 has two components. Its first element concerns the need to ensure that the employees are allowed to state their case at meetings which are held under the dismissal and disciplinary procedures. We do not need that wording. Paragraph 13(2) of the schedule already states:
"Meetings must be conducted in a manner that enables both employer and employee to explain their cases.
That requirement applies to all meetings held under the disciplinary or grievance procedure. It seems to deal adequately with the point that my noble friend Lady Turner makes on the amendment which she moved but which was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Gladwin of Clee.
The second element of the amendment concerns imposing a new requirement on the employer not to dismiss any employee for a first breach of discipline other than in a case of gross misconduct. My noble friend rightly says that that amendment reflects the guidance in the ACAS code which encourages employers to operate a graduated system of sanctions, including oral and written warnings, before taking the ultimate step of dismissing a person.
I believe that the code is the correct place for this kind of guidance. As I explained, we are not using the statutory procedures to change by the back door the underlying law on unfair dismissal, or to alter the requirement on employers to act reasonably.
If we accepted the amendment, we would be offending against that principle. We would be creating a new rule in statute by which unfair dismissals would be judged in the future. Again, it is not an appropriate amendment to accept.
Amendment No. 104 seeks to import into the schedule a reference to the ACAS code. In this context, the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures would be particularly relevant.
I have made clear again and again, as I am sure has my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, that the ACAS code will remain very important. Inevitably, the code will need some revision when the Bill becomes law, but any employer wishing to ensure that he acts fairly when following procedures that may result in the dismissal of an employee will need to take the code into account just as he needs to at present.
However, the cross-reference proposed in the amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

CWH 215
Act 1992, the ACAS code may be taken into account by an employment tribunal whenever the tribunal considers that any of its provisions are relevant to any question before it. I am sure that employers and others would also turn to the codes for guidance, whether or not there is a cross-reference in the schedule.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I will read what my noble and learned friend has said, but perhaps he could go back a little in his comments on the amendment. Did I understand him to say that he did not want to put what he objected to into Schedule 2, because what is put in Schedule 2 might govern the outcome of a decision on the fairness or unfairness of a dismissal? Is it therefore correct that what we put into Schedule 2 may be taken into account by a tribunal in judging the unfairness of a dismissal? Would that not be a good reason for including civilised standards?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. I said that we would be creating a new rule in statute by which unfair dismissals would be judged in the future. We believe the right principle is that dealt with in the obligation to act reasonably, to which question the ACAS code would be relevant.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I note what the Minister has said in response to what I believe to be reasonable amendments. I still believe that we are dealing with new procedures which will apply to people who have never had any sort of procedure before. I therefore believe that it would be far more appropriate if a little more detail were included in the Bill in relation to the ACAS code. However, I will withdraw the amendment now, and it will be up to my noble friends to consider whether they wish to raise the matter at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 64, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Where the employee does not accept the decision of the employer, at his request the issue shall be referred by the employer to an arbitrator, who shall be a person either—

(a) nominated by agreement or under the provisions of an agreement between the employer and a recognised trade union of which the employee was a member at the time of the employer's written statement, or

(b) in default of such agreement, appointed by ACAS, who shall make an award within seven days."

The noble Lord said: The group contains a vast number of amendments. They are all very similar, but not the same. I shall understand if one or two Members of the Committee have not got right to the bottom of what I am trying to do. In fact, the very excellent
CWH 216
people who draw up our Marshalled List of amendments and groupings persistently refuse to put in Amendment No. 103.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That may be my fault.
Lord McCarthy: It is in and I intend to speak to it because we have to have eight amendments to achieve what we want to do. They are Amendments Nos. 102, 113 to 116, 119 to 120, and then Amendment No. 123, which defines mediation. The assumption is that we all know what arbitration means.
Therefore, we have eight substantive amendments, but what are they trying to offer? They are simply offering one choice. They are extending worker rights— that is, ex parte rights— so that an individual worker, faced with attempts to progress a claim of grievance or faced with an attempt to change a decision on discipline— perhaps dismissal— will be able to say unilaterally, ex parte, at a certain stage in the proceedings, "I should like to have mediation", or "I should like to have arbitration". We need to table eight amendments because of the way in which the Bill is written. There is one set of procedures for discipline and another set for grievances— I have never understood why— and there are two forms for the standard procedure and the modified procedure. Therefore, if one wants the option of the four different types of procedure, one needs eight amendments. That is why they have been tabled.
One might ask: why are we trying to provide the worker with the option of mediation and/or arbitration; what is the idea behind it? The answer is that it arises out of desperation. It comes from someone who is committed to the belief that we have to do something about the growing number of tribunal cases. I am the last person to think that we can ignore that problem, but we have not even started to deal with it. We have yet to deal with some of the issues that are in the pipeline concerning the latest directives and the further directives. And we have yet to get the measure of what will happen because we have, quite rightly, reduced the qualification time from two years to one year. Therefore, we have not even started to deal with the growth in the number of cases going through tribunals.
As the alternative to obtaining something other than the employer's last offer declines, the number of places outside the public sector where one can obtain any form of mediation, arbitration or independent assessment on a discipline issue declines year by year. Even if in a wages case workers are convinced that their employer's last offer is a barefaced denial of their legal rights and there should be no debate about it, the only place where they can go to obtain an improvement on what the employer is offering is a tribunal. In that case, in my opinion, the problem will not be dealt with unless we do what the Government do not intend— that is, we make the provisions horrendous, particularly Clause 25, so that virtually no one is able to reach a tribunal. If we do not do that, the number of tribunal cases will rise.

CWH 217
I am not, in any event, that enamoured of tribunals. They never, or very rarely— that is, in fewer than 3 per cent of cases—provide the real solution, which is suspension, re-engagement or re-employment. They rarely provide anything such as that. A tribunal will sack a person and give him compensation. When one seeks industrial justice, it is a very poor remedy to be awarded only a few pounds. Therefore, I am not a great friend of the tribunal system. It is an excellent system in the absence of anything else, but I want to try to return to domestic settlement.
Domestic settlement really can fit the case. It is very educative for employers, as it is for trade union officials, to become involved in these matters and to find out how people are disciplined, what is the best way to go about it and how to address grievances. Unfortunately, one will not turn back the growing number of tribunal cases by this one-sided system.
We have tried to make minimal improvements in what is on offer to workers outside the tribunals but have received no support from the Government. We have tried to ask, "Why not put in an investigative function?" They say, no, it is in there already, but of course it is only there when you get to tribunals. Why not put something in about suspension? We will hear what the NI mister says— that is a terrible thing. There is no attempt to put anything into this domestic system which is going to make it a real alternative where workers can feel that they might be able to get something more than the employer's last offer.
I come in desperation to some form of independent assessment, not an appeal which goes to another manager, a higher level of management, but an appeal that goes to somebody outside. In order to make it as acceptable as possible, I do not impose the need for arbitration because many employers will say that they do not want arbitration, they do not like arbitration. The Prime Minister was very much against arbitration until we had a few railway strikes and he changed his opinion. But I am not looking for arbitration because of an outburst of industrial disputes. I am saying that if the Government do not want arbitration, why not have something more modest than that such as mediation? I happen to think that mediation— not just because I have done a bit of it—is one of the best ways outside the legal procedure of dealing with the kinds of disputes that end up at tribunals because you are getting somebody outside who proposes something which at least comes somewhere between the two sides and which tries to resolve those parts of their dispute and disagreement which they feel most strongly about. They will listen to this person, partly because there is a technique involved here. They themselves are listened to by the mediator. After that mediation there is a recommendation and they can go away and think about it. Mediation very often can solve these disputes. Very often after mediation you can go on to get arbitration because three-quarters of the dispute are settled by mediation and then you can get arbitration on the rest of it.
The Government may ask, "What about ACAS; they could do that"? But ACAS offers conciliation, not mediation. It does not like making recommendations
CWH 218
and it particularly does not like making recommendations which are in a sense legally binding or legally driven. So we have to have another system, a system which ACAS can run but which runs in parallel. The Government might say, "We have a mechanism where people can go out to arbitration". However, you have to get the employer to agree. This is not a case of ex parte but of joint action. That is why— as I understand it— there have only been 10 cases so far. We should give the worker an ex parte right either to mediation or to arbitration.
If the Government think I am going too far and say that my four amendments on arbitration are too extreme, I hope that they will consider my four amendments on mediation— they are alternatives. I want to make an inch of ground. I want the Government to realise— and if they do not realise, I want them to stand up and tell me that they do not realise—that they are not going to get the shift which we all want to see from a growing number of legal determinations to a workplace-based system unless they make that system more attractive. If they do not like my proposals for making it more attractive, let them think up some of their own. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As my noble friend said, these amendments are all closely linked. They all seek to introduce a third party element into the statutory procedures. I recognise and accept that third party involvement in dispute procedures may help in some instances. They work where both the employer and the workforce are committed to them and agree there is a place for such outside involvement.
However, these amendments seek to impose such third party intervention in all procedures, wherever the employee wants it, in organisations of all sizes and in relation to each and every grievance or disciplinary issue. We have the deepest misgivings about this approach in principle.
First, it would greatly complicate the procedures, adding in effect at least one further stage to the statutory procedure. It would significantly increase the cost of operating the procedures.
Secondly, I suspect that the introduction of what would be compulsory arbitration or mediation would undermine the rest of the procedures. It would in effect reduce the incentive for parties to resolve problems bilaterally. Employees would often be tempted to invoke a third party involvement in search of a better settlement. And employers may become unwilling to make a reasonable offer because they feel the matter will, anyway, be referred to the third party.
Thirdly, I am unconvinced that compulsion produces effective arbitration or mediation. ACAS currently provides its services only where both parties voluntarily agree to its involvement. The parties are then much more likely to implement the awards of arbitrators or follow the recommendations of mediators. Those advantages might be lost if access to arbitration or mediation became a unilateral right of

CWH 219
the employee. It would lead to wasteful expenditure on arbitration and mediation because the conditions for effective third party involvement are not met.
Fourthly, it is unclear how these additional procedures would fit into the legal system. These arbitrations or mediations would deal with disputes which involve legal rights, at least in some measure. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the acceptance of arbitration or mediation somehow ousts the freedom of employees to make tribunal applications. I would think not. This again could lead to wasteful expenditure. If an employee did not like an arbitrated award or a mediator's recommendation, there would be nothing to stop him or her making a tribunal application about the same complaint.
Finally, having set out our views in principle, there are real practical difficulties in pursuing this approach. The amendment would generate a substantial increase in the number of arbitrations or mediations which are undertaken. There are hundreds of thousands of grievances or disciplinary actions each year. In each case, the employee would be entitled to involve a third party if they did not like the employer's decision. If the employee took up this option in a tenth of cases, we would see an enormous increase in arbitrations and mediations. There simply are not enough skilled people to undertake these duties. Likewise, if my noble friend envisages that ACAS would be responsible for providing these services, the cost to ACAS of doing so could be vast.
That probably deals with all the points that were made. Arbitration, mediation and conciliation should be left firmly in the voluntary arena. Parties cannot be forced down that path without creating serious distortions and inefficiencies. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Wedderhurn of Charlton: I note what my noble and learned friend says. There would be a cost but what my noble friend has said has not really been answered. This would have legal consequences. It would perhaps he otiose to try to spell them all out. The moving of these amendments does not disagree with a great deal that my noble and learned friend has said. But the central point is, do the Government really think that the end product of imposed statutory procedures should be the employer's last word? The end product is, as my noble friend has said, always the employer's last word because that is what the procedures involve. Schedule 2 leads to one result in the end always as regards both standard and modified procedures, but especially modified procedures. Modified procedures are a disgrace. In all the procedures the end product is the employer's last word. Now, is my noble and learned friend really saying that the Government considered whether something else could be added so that there would be greater confidence in these procedures, that at any rate in some kind of extreme cases there could be a stage where some other judgment was brought to bear? Or
CWH 220
are they insisting, because the CBI insists, that the end of imposed procedures must always be what the employer says?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope I have made our position clear, which is that we think there should be a statutory procedure as a minimum procedure. We think as a matter of principle that it would be wrong to include in that procedure any third party intervention for the reasons set out clearly in the submissions that I made.
Lord McCarthy: It would be all right for the Minister to take that view if he did not have all his other principles. The Minister has a principle that investigations cannot be included in the Bill, or suspensions or all the other recommendations and improvements that we are trying to make. I am saying that if we cannot have any of these things, the Government cannot really, honestly, sincerely believe that they are going to turn back the flood or whatever the Minister called it. I believe that he referred to the tip of the iceberg. The Government will not be able to do anything about the tip of the iceberg; they will be like the poor old "Titanic" if they do not do something. The Government may turn down my rather more extreme ideas, but they must come up with something; otherwise, they will find, in two years' time, that the numbers are still going up. The CBI will come along and ask, "Now what you are going to do? You said you would have a significant impact, but you have had no impact". That is the problem— the Government will have to do something more.
I turn to money and how much the arrangement will cost. I do not think there would be a great deal of arbitration, but there would be much more mediation. It would not be very expensive because, with a slight change to the instructions to ACAS, it could provide mediation. It does not like to provide mediation in this context because it is very close to the legal determination produced by the courts. However, it would be quite easy for ACAS, when workers want that, to provide mediation. I am not suggesting that one should shove mediation as an instant remedy, and I am not saying that one would not want people to negotiate or to conciliate and bring ACAS in. However, before ACAS lets the matter go, there is a significant moment in every dispute of this kind; that is, when the ACAS person involved decides that there is nothing more to be done by conciliation.
Conciliation is a term of art— one is not making recommendations or proposing things. People are simply being put together to see how much common ground can be found. It is not the practice at the moment, at that stage, to say, "Would you like some other third person to come in and tell you what he thinks you should do?" That is not a vastly expensive exercise, and I do not believe that a great number of workers will want it. They might want to go on at that stage and have their day in court. However, if that is impractical and if one thinks that that is impossible—if one cannot try it out even as a kind of pilot— I say

CWH 221
to the Ministers, "You had better put on your thinking caps and think of something else. I have done my best". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 64, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 65.
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the modified procedure in Schedule 2. I am delighted to see that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness. Similarly, although it is not grouped with this amendment, Amendment No. 117, which is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also touches on the same point. My amendment touches on the deletion of the modified procedure in relation to dismissal and disciplinary procedures. Their amendment, which we support, touches on the elimination of modified procedure with regard to grievance procedures. I do not propose to trouble Hansard with rising to support Amendment No. 117, because most of the remarks that I make on this amendment will apply equally to the deletion of the modified procedure on the grievance procedure.
It is a very simple point— we do not yet know what the modified procedure will relate to. However, for the purposes of the discussion that is taking place outside the Committee, it is assumed that the arrangement is designed to apply in cases of gross misconduct. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated at Second Reading that he believed that the modified procedure should apply in the case of the standard procedure in the place of work and when people assaulted others and had to be immediately dismissed. He said that that was a common incident.
We take the view that in this context a sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut and that, if the procedures are to be modified in the proposed way by establishing a modified procedure, doing so to cover the limited number of dismissals in which an employee's behaviour is both flagrant and unambiguous is inappropriate in the context of the Bill. The Government should think again about the modified procedure if our suspicion is right that they intend to bring this in with a blanket application to cases of gross misconduct.
If we look at the standard procedure under dismissal and disciplinary procedures, are we really saying that an employee, even in cases of alleged gross misconduct, is not entitled to a meeting to take place before the action of dismissal is imposed upon him? Do we really not accept that, as a primary obligation of the employer— even in circumstances, as the Minister indicated at Second Reading, in which there has been a fist fight on the floor of a factory or, indeed, over a computer system— the standard procedures as set out in Chapter 1 should not apply? If the
CWH 222
Government intend to introduce the modified procedure in this way, it is far too extensive; they should think again and withdraw Chapter 2.
5 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: We support the amendment and we want to extend it, as the noble Lord has said, so that it adds to the point of our amendment and so that it covers grievances as well as dismissals. The noble Lord accepts that that should be the case.
The whole issue of the modified procedure is a strange and queer one. I have read the debate in the other place on the Bill in Committee and on Report, although they were very short but I have never found a sustained defence— an explicable, clear, logical defence— of the reasons why the Government want to have a modified procedure. However, I may well have missed it.
Let us be clear about what a modified procedure is. It is sub-minimal. The minimal, God knows, is minimal enough. In the case of the grievance procedure, it is worse than sub-minimal; it practically goes through the floor. Not only do you not get a meeting, you do not get an appeal. All you get is a letter. You cannot go more sub-minimal than that—you would disappear. It has never been explained to us why we have to have this particular procedure. We have statements, instances and insinuations.
For example, people said that that would be rather useful for cases of gross misconduct. Cases of gross misconduct are usually extremely controversial and the consequences are extremely serious, because you get marched out of the firm unless suspension is used. So why you should have a shorter, briefer, sub-minimal procedure to deal with an issue of this importance and controversy, I do not understand. However, that is not really what the Government have justified.
A justification, such as it is, was set out in Committee by Mr Alan Johnson, on 13th December. He said:
"We envisage that the modified grievance"—
I stress that he uses the word "grievance" and that he is talking about the grievance procedure—
"procedure would apply to a situation where an ex-employee wants to raise a grievance with a former employer, probably in terms of a constructive dismissal case".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 12/12/01; col. 161.]
We all know that you cannot have a constructive dismissal case unless you have been dismissed. So this worker is outside the firm; he has been sacked and he thinks that it will be proved that he has been unfairly dismissed. The practicalities of his special situation make it difficult to envisage that face-to-face communication would have much of a role. Members of the Committee can see that. The worker is annoyed. The worker believes that that is what constructive dismissal means. The worker believes that the employer has conspired to offer him or her a succession of non-jobs, and a succession of pressures, so that in the end it amounts to dismissal. It goes to the root of the contract and the employee is saying. "I

CWH 223
think I've been dismissed". In that circumstance, an employee may not want to see an employer, but that is up to the employee.
The practicalities of this special situation make it difficult to envisage that face-to-face communication would have much of a role. Who are we to say what the individual worker wants to do? I know someone who is just about to bring a case for constructive dismissal. The one thing she wants to do is to get at the management who suspended her for four months. She wants to tell them what she thinks of them but they will not talk to her. She would love to have this lever. However, she would not get it because the management would shove her into the minimal procedures, or sub-minimal, and then they could say, "Oh, we're not meeting you".
I cannot see that this is a defence at all. We make no provision for meetings to occur in the modified two-step procedure on a grievance, but why not? In this context, it makes sense to require communication to be in writing. Who is the Secretary of State to require that communication should be in writing if an employee would rather go and give the employer an earful? Who are we to say, "No, no, no, go away and write it down"? In the modified grievance procedure, both those steps must be put in writing because the employee has left the company and there is no face-to-face communication.
I really do not understand that. If the Government were to say that the worker does not have to have a meeting, does not have to have a face-to-face confrontation, and can in fact make a submission in writing if he wants to, fine, but that could be done under the existing procedure. I do not see that the modified procedure gives the worker anything. I believe that it takes everything away and it does so in a way which would be very attractive to some employers. There is nothing on the face of the Bill— only a word or two that Alan Johnson said in Hansard— to indicate precisely when the employer can give sub-minimal treatment. Any employer could say, "I think this is an appropriate case to be dealt with sub-minimally". Those concerned will receive nothing more than a letter; they will not have a meeting and there will be no appeal.
That is monstrous, quite monstrous. Surely if the Government think about it, they could do away with those modified procedures and everybody could come in through the same door, minimal though it is. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If I may, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 105 and 117 together. Amendment No. 105 is the application of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to get rid of the modified disciplinary procedure. Amendment No. 117 tabled by my friend Lord McCarthy, is intended to get rid of the modified grievance procedure. When will the modified disciplinary procedure be needed? It will be determined by regulations, mainly made under the power provided by Clauses 30 and 31. We have made
CWH 224
known our intention already as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said. It will apply to cases involving gross misconduct.
The wording in the modified procedure assumes that it can apply only in situations where a dismissal has already occurred. It will therefore apply only to instant, or near-instant dismissals; that is, at the time of the alleged incident of gross misconduct or very shortly thereafter.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will know that instant dismissal is a relatively rare occurrence. Plainly, it is one that should not be taken lightly by the employer, but it occurs in extreme circumstances. At such times it may be inappropriate to hold the full three-step procedure before the dismissal occurs, with or without the suspension of the employee.
Cases of instant dismissal may well be judged unfair by a tribunal on procedural grounds. However, tribunals do not treat all cases of instant dismissal as axiomatically unfair. There is no golden rule of that kind. In fact, as a consequence of our proposal, dismissals will be automatically unfair if the employer has not followed in the disciplinary circumstances the two-step procedure in the modified procedure. Among other things, that would give the employee the right to a meeting to appeal against the dismissal. The practical effect of our proposals is to increase employee rights in such extreme situations. It does not take them away.
It is alleged that the modified procedure would encourage employers and the tribunals to treat all cases of gross misconduct as justifying an instant dismissal; that employers would feel free to ignore ACAS guidance on the treatment of gross misconduct. As we know, the ACAS code advises that most cases of gross misconduct should not result in instant dismissal, but should first be subject to an internal procedure before a decision is taken.
The schedule does not change the obligation on the employer to act fairly when dismissing. We are not diminishing employment rights. If it is currently unfair to dismiss an employee instantly for certain types of gross misconduct or in particular circumstances, that will remain the case in the future.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I did not hear the answer at ten past five, I do not know. It is a long day. Is the Minister saying that putting on the face of the Bill a statutory procedure which allows an employer instantly to dismiss an employee with no explanation, with no investigation, with no meeting and with no appeal is adding to workers' rights?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am saying that the process does add to workers' rights because the position in relation to the instant dismissal is already to be judged by the normal rules in relation to unfair dismissal. By applying the modified procedure to such a dismissal, those are additional rights that would apply to the employee.
As now, the ACAS code should be taken into account by the tribunals when assessing whether the employer has acted reasonably and fairly. Though this is a matter for ACAS, we would not expect ACAS to

CWH 225
revise its guidance significantly on gross misconduct, though of course it will need to refer to the enhanced rights for employees who are instantly dismissed.
In other words, the modified procedure should be viewed as underpinning reasonable behaviour. It sets out a new procedural standard below which employers should not fall in any circumstances. However, it does not absolve employers from the need to follow more elaborate procedures where necessary. This may well involve employers suspending employees while investigations take place. It may well involve meetings with the employee before a decision is taken.
The modified procedure is necessary. It deals with special cases where it may not be appropriate to follow the full procedure, requiring former employees to attend hearings. However, it does not reduce the standard and I say this again— against which tribunals will judge the fairness of employer actions in cases of gross misconduct.
It may be helpful at this point for me again to stress— and this is the strand that runs through all these debates— that so far as dismissal is concerned, the purpose of the statutory procedures is simply to require suitable minimum procedures to be followed when employees are dismissed. I fully understand that my noble friends would like us to change the law relating to unfair dismissal so that it is always unfair to dismiss instantly. However, I hope that it will be apparent to them that, much as they may regret it, that is not our intention. Rather, it is to leave the underlying law of unfair dismissal as it is while securing that procedures appropriate to the nature of the dismissal, whether it is on notice or summary or instant, are required to be followed.
I hope in the light of those comments, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will withdraw his amendment.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord McCarthy deals with the modified grievance procedure. The modified procedure, as my noble friend points out, places very limited obligations on employers and employees. It is entirely written and does not require the parties to meet.
The schedule does not specify the circumstances within which the modified grievance procedure would apply. That will be a matter for the regulations. However, we have stated our intention to apply the procedure to circumstances where a former employee has a grievance against his employer following the termination of employment. Grievances of that kind are by no means rare. For example, they can occur where employees think they have not received the correct holiday or redundancy pay when they have left a company.
In those circumstances we feel that it would be unrealistic to impose requirements on the parties to meet to discuss an issue. Indeed, some former employees may find it extremely expensive or practically difficult to meet their employer. Consider the case in which an employee has resigned because he or she has moved to another part of the country.
CWH 226
Rather, the procedures simply require the employee to raise the grievance in writing; the employer is then required to reply in writing. Those steps should help to elucidate an issue. They might even themselves result in a resolution of the problem—for example, there might have been a misunderstanding about the facts. In some cases they might also lead to further voluntary steps by the parties to sort out the problem.
Our consultations have shown a general acceptance of the need for a modified procedure that deals with cases of that nature. In light of that explanation, which I believe meets most of the points raised by my noble friend, I hope that he will not move his amendment when the time comes.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Razzall: Before the Minister sits down, will he give us the benefit of his comments on the following matter? As I understand it, the point that is being made about Chapter 2 as regards dismissal and disciplinary procedures, which I understand, is that no change purports to be made to the law regarding unfair dismissal for gross misconduct. Indeed, no change will be made, and therefore the employee who has been dismissed is subject to modified procedure and has not had his or her rights diminished to sue the employer for unfair dismissal.
I turn to another point— if I did not raise it, I suspect the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy would. One of the problems in this regard is that if we start from the proposition that we want to encourage workplace resolution of such problems— if we want to implement the modified procedure in those circumstances rather than a standard procedure— that is likely to increase the risk that an unscrupulous employer will simply dismiss somebody, and apply the modified procedure, and therefore say, "Your remedy is simply to sue me for unfair dismissal". As we know, many people—for all sorts of perfectly understandable reasons—do not do that.
The concern that we have is that this is going to encourage the blackmail element among employers— they will seek to use this procedure and force either financially weaker or emotionally weaker employees into simply having to go to the employment tribunals to pursue their remedies. However, were the standard procedure to apply, there would be a greater application of workplace resolution to those disputes.
Before considering whether to withdraw my amendment, I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the fact that that question is very clearly put. The noble Lord does not deal with the case in which instant dismissal can be justified. In effect, he is suggesting that there can never be circumstances where that would be lawful. As I understand it, he is saying that before you can dismiss whatever the circumstances, unmodified—that is, Part 1— procedures have to be gone through. Therefore, he is saying that we should change the

CWH 227
fundamental law because the fundamental law is not currently that instant dismissal is axiomatically unfair. It may well be in very many cases.
In effect the noble Lord is proposing in his amendment— or in the question that he asked— that you can never instantly dismiss. We are not intending to change the law to say that you can never instantly dismiss. That is the issue that he has to deal with, but he has not dealt with it in his submissions.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect to my noble and learned friend, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, does not have to deal with that because it is not, in my submission, the case— I hope that my noble and learned friend will look at this very carefully— that the abolition of the modified procedures logically or necessarily entails the proposition that no instant dismissal can never be fair. The two propositions do not flow one from the other. At least, if it is said that that would be so in the context of the government schedule, it would be so only because step 2 in the standard procedure of the disciplinary procedure is that no action is to be taken except by way of suspension— suspension is the only case that is mentioned— before the meeting.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No instant dismissal.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I shall read the passage for my noble and learned friend. In the disciplinary procedure that they constructed, it states,
"the meeting must take place before action is taken, except in the case"—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Exactly.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: But that is their construction. They cannot put a proposition in the Bill and then tell us that the logic of our propositions must be confined— must be within the propositions they have constructed. That is not the way that argument reasonably takes place. My noble and learned friend is displeased with that, I see, because, of course, they cannot think of any other reality, except what they have put in the Bill.
Let me try again. I assure my noble and learned friend that our amendments— the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, does not involve a different case— have been constructed with very great care, both as to substance and to form. If we had meant to move an amendment that said that instant dismissal should always be unlawful, we would have done so. We have not done so, and it is not implied in the proposition that the modified procedures are some kind of cover or curious and indirect way of moving such an amendment.
Indeed, my noble and learned friend said that the modified procedure on grievances deals only with former employees. Well, it does not say so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The regulations say that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Oh, so we now find that out from the regulations. For goodness' sake! We
CWH 228
are fed up with this business of knowing only when we get to the regulations— we want to know from the Bill what it means. If "employee" on page 65, line 32, means "former employee", why should Parliament have to wait for a regulation to know what it is putting on the statute book? It really is intolerable that the Government should put Parliament in this position and then say, "'employee', in this particular line, means only 'former employee', but we will not put that in our Bill. We'll only tell you that when some regulation is passed at some time". What kind of Tudor state of mind have the Government got into as regards secondary legislation? That really will not do.
Those were the first and second of my four comments on what my noble and learned friend said. What he said earlier was that Schedule 2— the modified procedures— underpins reasonable procedures. In a sense, that is our objection. It is about underpinning reasonable procedures with unreasonable procedures and making them the minimum. We do not think that the minimum should involve unfair and unreasonable procedures. The core of our case is that those provisions are unfair and unreasonable. They do not even mean what they say, because "employee" means not "employee" but "former employee". They are obscure, they are uncertain and they are a disgrace.
I trust the tribunals and the courts in this regard; contrary to what some people say about me, I should trust an appellate court to do its best not to apply what the modified procedures insist are the implied terms of every contract of employment in the land.
I do not know when my noble and learned friend first came across this matter— he has had so many other things to deal with. I have a great deal of sympathy with him. However, he is quite capable of having seen the Bill in its formative days— in those days long ago when the CBI insisted that we must cut tribunal applications by 40,000. The Government then conceded that and now try to forget that they ever said it. All of this is all part of that. I do not believe that a court would think that it was reasonable that Parliament was made to pass a Bill through the apparatus that the Government control, in relation to which "employee" really means "former employee" and reasonable procedures were to be underpinned by unreasonable procedures.
I turn to increasing workers' rights in a formalistic sense. Of course, to imply any right to minimum procedures is a change in workers' rights. But if you change workers' rights with the right to have procedures completed, and those procedures are unfair and unreasonable, workers will not thank you for increasing their rights; nor will their unions be happy. If you want people to stop work instead of taking cases to tribunals, then go on with the modified procedure because that is what will happen.
People will not suffer this type of treatment at work. This is 2002. We shall be discussing previous cases in a moment. It really will not do to put on the statute book modified procedures of this kind. My noble friend Lord McCarthy explained why they are worse than

CWH 229
minimal, and I plead with the Minister to take back to the department the proposition that the modified procedure should be reconsidered. If I do not misremember, when the Committee last sat, he said that Schedule 2 would be reconsidered. Would this not be a good point to reconsider?
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may say what I believe the Government are saying so that we may clarify the position. The other day I was forced to quote Shakespeare. Now I feel like quoting the Bible: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do". On this occasion I do not believe that they know what they are doing.
The Minister said—I believe that I quote him correctly—that this is a suitable minimum procedure. A suitable minimum procedure must be an advance in some sense. It must be an attempt to improve something, not an attempt to go backwards. It is a suitable minimum procedure, just as we have a suitable minimum wage. That is what is claimed for this part of the Bill.
What does it allow the Government to do? It allows them to provide the employer with the right of instant dismissal or instant dismissal of a grievance; for example, a grievance concerning sex discrimination, because that is what that would be—the worker would be complaining about sex discrimination—or concerning race discrimination. Therefore, employees may well find themselves acting under the terms of the suitable minimum procedure whereby they would face a decision by the employer which the employer would not have to explain. No reason or explanation would need to be given and, unless it was a dismissal, and it was only a case of sex discrimination, there would be no appeal. That is what the suitable minimum procedure provides and we are told that it is an advance.
Let us suppose that an employer were to do that, or let us suppose that an employer, as often happens, does something and then someone complains, sends for a lawyer and says, "This is what I did. Tell me whether it was lawful". Let us suppose that he had a good solicitor who told him, "I don't think you would have much chance if you got to a tribunal, my dear chap, because they would say that this was not a reasonable response. You did not have an investigation; you did not do this; and you have never allowed any appeal. That is not proper". What would the employer say? Apparently, the Government believe that the employer would instantly say, "Oh I see. I am terribly sorry. Let's reverse engines". That is not what many employers do.
People who work on tribunals will tell you that there are some very distinguished, important companies which systematically break the law, systematically go to tribunals and systematically pay because they do not want the principles of justice to become the principles on which they treat their employees. I refer to very distinguished companies—public sector companies. What will they do when their lawyers say to them, "No, I am afraid that does not mean that you can ignore the ACAS code, sir. It does not mean to say
CWH 230
you can take no notice because the ACAS code will still be taken into account if you get to a tribunal"? The employer will say, "I'll give the bond"-I return to Shakespeare again-"I'll give the bond and nothing but the bond. They are not getting any more out of me". That is what this Government—a Labour Government—put forward as the suitable minimum procedure. They really should think again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 108:
Page 64, line 32, leave out "misconduct" and insert "fundamental breach of his obligations".
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 108 is somewhat technical. It centres on the word "misconduct". There has been a lot of debate in which the word "misconduct" has been used and it is used in the Schedule 2 minimum procedures. As those are suitable procedures, it seems, for imposition into every contract of employment, it is very important to know what they mean.
I appreciate that they cannot be known in full until we see the regulations, to which we have objected. My noble and learned friend will tell me whether I am wrong, but I apprehend that the regulations are unlikely to define "misconduct" further. We are then left with "misconduct" in the Bill. This amendment suggests that the word "misconduct" is unsuitable to have in the Bill because of the difficulty of knowing what it means.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I confirm that the regulations are not intended to define "misconduct". Thus, the assumption on which my noble friend is proceeding is correct.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am delighted but also disappointed. I am delighted to have made the right assumption; I am disappointed because I thought my noble and learned friend was intervening to accept the amendment and to cut short our debate. Unhappily, the second was wrong and so I proceed to move the amendment.
The word "misconduct" is peculiarly uncertain. I want to be careful because obviously the word has been chosen deliberately and on careful advice and it is not intended that regulations should in any way affect its meaning. In some debates, and indeed in some amendments, the words "gross misconduct" are used. The phrase "gross misconduct" is not used and that is not to be its meaning. Lord Justice Scrutton spoke of "gross negligence" as negligence merely with a vituperative epithet, therefore "gross misconduct" is misconduct with a vituperative epithet.
It arises in the civil law, where "gross neglect" or "gross fault", lata culpa, is contrasted with levis culpa and levissima culpa at the other end of the scale: in other words, slight fault, ordinary fault and gross

CWH 231
fault. "Misconduct" for civil lawyers would include all three. Although the common law has been more sensible in not adopting those three as legal categories, it nevertheless reflects a similar difficulty in respect of what is meant by "misconduct".
It has been a matter of great debate in various circles, but most people have assumed that
"misconduct which has led to the dismissal"—
I quote from the schedule—means "misconduct that justified the dismissal". Of course, not all misconduct justifies the dismissal. If the meaning is "misconduct that did justify but other misconducts that did not justify the dismissal", the provision will not apply in every case where the employee has been properly dismissed. The modified procedure then becomes even more extraordinary.
On the basis of it meaning "misconduct which justified the dismissal", we have to look at the provision even more carefully. There has been a whole list of cases where the courts have, very sensibly, gradually modified their approach to what kind of misconduct justifies a dismissal. In 1845, in the case of Turner v Mason, a maid, who against her employer's express order left the house to visit her dying mother, was held to be properly dismissed for misconduct. In the robust manner of judges of the day, Baron Alderson said that the pleadings did not even show that the mother was likely to die that night and that it was most improper misconduct to leave the house.
In dealing with employment law, I am always insistent to say that the courts should move on. Although they still cite Turner v Mason, they do move on. But the question is—one could put it as a sort of quiz—in which of the following cases in 1969 and 1974 did the misconduct justify the dismissal? I see that Members of the Committee are agog to know the answer. It is the case of two swearing gardeners.
In 1969, an employer and his wife returned from abroad and found that the garden was in a terrible state. The gardener was in a rebellious mood and the law report discloses that he refused to obey any of their orders, saying, "I couldn't care less about your bloody greenhouse or your sodding garden". In Pepper v Webb, was that sufficient in the light of all the circumstances to justify his dismissal? "Yes", said the Court of Appeal.
That precedent was cited and relied upon in 1974, in the case of Wilson v Racher, where the head gardener, the law report discloses, gave vent to oaths which were even more fearsome. I spare noble Lords' blushes by saying the most quotable response to the employers' instructions was, "Get stuffed". He was at the time working with an electric hedge cutter in the rain and feared for his electrocution. He was goaded and shouted at and his language, said the Court of Appeal, was grossly improper. But, it said, it was not something which deliberately flouted the contract's essential conditions. And that, of course, has become the modern test.
CWH 232
I have used the alternative phrase because I think it is clearer in a statute; that is, a fundamental breach of the obligations in the contract. If that is what the Government mean, they must say so in this minimum set of procedures; in other words, someone who has committed a fundamental breach of his contractual obligations, which gave rise to his dismissal. First, even that, the modern test, is rather more uncertain than the old one—but that in this case is an advance—and, secondly, it can give rise to enormous difficulties of decision.
As Mr John Bowers says in his admirable little book on employment law:
"Dismissals relating to misconduct cover a multitude of sins".
He continues with pages of cases, of which I will mention two. The first is the case of Macari v Celtic Football and Athletic Co Ltd, that great Scottish football team now at the head of the Scottish league, reported in 1999 in the Industrial Relations Law Reports, page 787. Macari was given a variety of instructions by his employers, including an instruction to attend more regularly at the football ground and to report to the managing director on a weekly basis. For all sorts of reasons, all of which he claimed were quite justifiable, he was alleged not to have done that. The question arose whether he had engaged in breaches by way of misconduct, which led to the repudiation by the employers properly of his contract.
One of the advantages of the law in this area is that Scottish law and English law have proceeded to march hand in hand, without any great difference of principle on the contract of employment. The Court of Session said he had. Lord Caplan said this at page 798:
"The employee has a duty to accept the directions of the employer, if such directions are not illegal, are within the scope of the employment and are reasonable. Thus, to take an extreme example, if the managing director had ordered the football manager to polish the players' boots this would not have been within the scope of the manager's employment. Indeed, if he had ordered the pursuer to reside for an extended period outside Scotland that would not have been an enforceable instruction".
He continues:
"The instruction must be reasonable and not result in undue exploitation of the employee. A direction that the employee perform work that would result in him working 48 hours without sleep"—
and this is, I pause to say, before the maximum working hours regulations—
"may not be reasonable. However, these qualifications to the validity of an employer's directions must be assessed objectively".
I cite that because it gives the flavour of the problem of what is meant by misconduct that justifies a dismissal.
Of course, when we come to industrial action, or the consequences of industrial action, industrial action is always a breach of the contract of employment as English law stands—a matter to which this Bill gives an added importance and to which we shall return in the light of a future amendment.
In the case of British Telecommunications plc v Ticehurst, 1992, Industrial Cases 383, a manager had joined-as some junior managers and even middle managers often do these days—in industrial action, and had come back and was not, in the eye of the

CWH 233
employer, sufficiently willing to give an undertaking properly to supervise the work of her staff. Was this misconduct? Was it misconduct to the extent that it allowed the employer to stop paying the wages and, in effect, dismiss the manager? A court of appeal held it was a fundamental breach of contract that allowed the employer to withhold the pay, which was the issue on which the case was fought.
I cite these cases as it is about time that some real cases were cited on this matter of Schedule 2 because these are the sorts of dispute that trades unions face every day, that lawyers have to advise on and which Schedule 2 does not face. Schedule 2 is not a part of real life. It uses phrases and words which, once again, those who put forward the Bill think will be obvious in application and have not thought through in terms of their problems.
The length of the list of the problems of misconduct has not been adequately represented in my submissions. The noble and learned Lord looks at me to suggest that it has, because he knows. He is privy to the legal secrets of the problem. I am very glad that he has joined us in the Committee but it does not make it unnecessary for me to explain the matter to other noble Lords who may not have the great advantage that he had, and that I had, to join in a common collegiate background of our learning in a particular university where we had the advantage of seeing all the detail of this. It is important that other people should understand just how difficult it is.
So, it is our submission that "misconduct" is not an appropriate legal word in this schedule. If it means misconduct for which you are lawfully dismissed and also misconduct for which you need not lawfully be dismissed, then it is peculiarly inappropriate and it vitiates the notion that the noble and learned Lord and the Minister in another place put forward—that it will always be the former employee who is involved. The employee may insist on coming to work and it may be that it is held that his dismissal was wrongful, that the repudiation was wrongful and, indeed, as in that small percentage of cases in a tribunal, it may be that his reinstatement is ordered. I know that it does not happen often. It happens regularly in Italy, and that is why Mr Berlusconi is proposing that rights to reinstatement should be cut down and slashed. We do not have to bother with that here because employers scarcely ever get an order for reinstatement against them. It is the primary remedy in Britain that does not work.
If the measure means both misconduct that can lawfully give rise to dismissal and misconduct that cannot lawfully give rise to dismissal, it is peculiarly inapt. If, however, it means misconduct that can give rise lawfully to a dismissal, it is even more inapt because it is impossible to know what it means in the schedule, and it should be replaced by a term of art. It is supposed to be a term of art. I am sure the Minister will reply but he shakes his head. I say that "misconduct" here presumably is a term of art. If it is not meant to be a term of art, I do not know what it is meant to be at all. If it is meant to be a term of art, it is a badly constructed term of art and should be
CWH 234
replaced by a proper legal category. This is had law. It will give rise to bad practice; it will give rise to confusion; it will give rise to uncertainty. Nobody knows what misconduct in Schedule 2 under the modified procedure Step 4 means.
The Government really should look at the terms that they use in the Bill, and if they want to put in new law as the basis of an imposed procedure, they must do so. After all, there are further dimensions to the uncertainty; I mention one of them.
The employer in unfair dismissal law does not need to prove in the ordinary case of unfair dismissal—and this is on a disciplinary procedure—that what he did is objectively justified. He needs to prove that objectively what he did was reasonable in the sense that it will fall within the band of reasonable responses of all sorts of different managers of the day. We should have moved an amendment scrapping that test, but we have not done so because we have been so modest in our amendments. It is a matter of straight law that the courts have said that what the Act means is that the employer must dismiss where a manager falling within the band of managers of the day might well have done so. I refer to good managers, bad managers and middle managers.
This extraordinary test, which has been much discussed in recent cases but has been revived in the Court of Appeal in the last two years, would mean that misconduct would be even less certain as we do not know at all what it means in terms of a particular set of facts. It is in the application of the legal concept to the set of facts that it should be replaced in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am no expert on law, but I would just remind my noble friend that the Minister talks about 600,000 workplaces that have no procedure at all. In my experience, many of them do not have any contract of' employment either. Therefore, the requirement of the Bill that calls for a contract which sets out the rules for an employee does not exist. For there is no assumption of what misconduct is.
In the sophisticated places where they have a fairly lengthy process and procedure for dealing with discipline, dismissal and, on the other hand, grievance procedures, there is usually a paragraph or a page which describes conduct and misconduct.
I believe that to use the word "misconduct" here is unwise. I do not quite understand why we talk about conduct in the standard procedure. Paragraph one states:
"The employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged conduct or characteristics, or other circumstances, which lead him to contemplate dismissing or taking disciplinary action against the employee".
That is fair enough, but the modified procedure states:
"The employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged misconduct."

CWH 235
That leads us into all kinds of highways and byways which, if the procedure is set out on the face of the Bill, will cause problems. I consider either the amendment proposed by my noble friend or the phrase used in the standard procedure to be far better than the use of the word "misconduct", which means different things to different people.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With the greatest respect to my noble friends, this matter is much simpler than has been suggested. The modified procedure deals with cases of instant dismissal for misconduct. Regulations will make that clear or will specify it. Therefore, Step I requires the employer to describe the misconduct which has already led to the dismissal. It does not make assumptions about whether the misconduct is a breach of contract or a fundamental breach of contract. That is for other people to decide if it becomes an issue. It is not a term of art; it simply says that the employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged—it is what the employer alleges—misconduct that led to his or her dismissal. It is as simple as that.
One may disagree with the Government about whether it is right that there should be this modified procedure. However, one matter that is critical is that it should be clear and simple with regard to what is required. I do not believe for one moment that replacing the word "misconduct" with the words "fundamental breach of his obligations" makes it clearer. I believe that it makes it much less clear and much more legalistic. I do not accept that the word "misconduct", which is not a term of art, causes difficulty in terms of comprehension.
My noble friend treated us to an incredibly impressive run-through of the cases on the issue of what constitutes gross misconduct when gross misconduct has been accepted by the courts as the test for what equals a breach of conduct justifying dismissal. That is what the cases were to which he referred. That is what the Lou Macari line was dealing with. At least, that is how I understood them.
My proposition—it is very simple—is that Step 1 should describe what is in the letter following instant dismissal; that is, the employer should explain the conduct which led to the dismissal. That is clear, straightforward and simple. The legal consequences of that can be dealt with elsewhere.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I interject with great respect only to correct him. The cases concerned do not relate to "gross misconduct". I imagine that that involves the civil law. The cases concerned relate to what is meant by "misconduct". The words "gross misconduct" do not appear in these judgments. The words "gross misconduct" may appear somewhere, but none of the decisions to which I have referred have anything to do with gross misconduct. They do not define the concept of "gross misconduct". The Minister really must not misrepresent those cases. They define the approach that is to be taken to a fundamental breach of contract
CWH 236
which makes dismissal, or, to be more exact, which makes the employer's treatment of the breach a repudiation of the contract, lawful. The category of gross misconduct is not used. However, let us not worry about that. I interject merely to correct the Minister. I have other points to make but he has not finished yet.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have finished.
Lord Davies of Coity: I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee when he talked about the enormous number of employees, running into millions, who have absolutely no safeguards, no internal agreements and no provisions to redress the circumstances with which they may be faced as a result of being dismissed.
The emphasis that has been placed on the amendment is the interpretation of "misconduct"; alternative words have been suggested to be used in place of that word. My understanding of the Minister's account—let us see whether I have got this right—is that the emphasis is not so much on that word in legalistic terms. Adverse action by the employer as a result of a misdemeanour or whatever could be involved; the word is there, but the essential element in this regard is not to place an employee in further difficulty but to ensure that an employer not only has to fire somebody but has to explain to him why he is doing so and to give that employee the opportunity of redress within his company.
As I see it, that may lead to two things—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. If some employers have a knee-jerk reaction to conduct by an employee, they will dismiss. But if they know they have to justify it in that way, they will think twice before dismissing. If they have to provide an appeals procedure, that will again perhaps deter them from turning to dismissal.
That means that an obligation is placed on the employer to be much more responsible than many of them currently are. That is where I see the advantage in this regard. I turn to what the word means in legalistic terms and whether my noble friend Lord Wedderburn sees that as a disadvantage. If an internal procedure is involved, that does not necessarily impact on the legal requirements that are taken account of in industrial tribunals, to which in some cases this will lead. Of course, if it leads to an industrial tribunal case, the employer will have to demonstrate that he has gone through this exercise to get over the first hurdle. If he has failed in this regard, he will lose his case straight away.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble and learned Lord admit that the more we discuss the detailed contents of the modified procedure, the more dubious its advantages look? I do not believe that the Government have yet explained clearly to us why we need the modified procedures at all. All the problems that have been discussed, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said, would be dealt with more easily if one had access to the standard procedure.

CWH 237
The Government have now come out with the argument that the issue is not about people leaving a firm in that sense. As the Minister said in another place, it involves a combination, as I understand it, of alleged gross misconduct with a gravity and an immediacy that justifies instant dismissal. Gross misconduct to such a point where instant dismissal is discovered justifies a shortened procedure. That seems amazingly illogical to me, but never mind. The Government have not thought through why they need a modified procedure and why they now need it to deal with gross misconduct requiring instant dismissal.
In tribunals and in the legislation dealing with rights at work and unfair dismissal, a distinction is made by the tribunals between conduct and capacity. You can have a fair dismissal if your conduct is in some way wrong or lacking in what the employer is entitled to demand and you can have a fair dismissal if your capacity fails or was not adequate. Do the Government consider that this modified procedure applies to gross failures in conduct and capacity?
I give an example. Suppose—this is often the case—a worker is suddenly unable to perform in a way that he was supposed to perform and had performed in the past because of some illness or some incapacity, and the employer says, "You can no longer do the job. I am dismissing you on grounds of incapacity". Can you use the modified procedure for that, or does it involve just conduct and not capacity? If so, for goodness sake why?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In relation to the points made by the noble Lord, I will resist the temptation to set out my argument because he mischaracterised my argument in a number of respects. So far as the circumstances to which the modified procedure would apply, as I indicated in an earlier submission, it involves gross misconduct and instant dismissal.
6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend but I am very sorry that he will not meet head-on my noble friend's points. We will read Hansard with interest but I do not think that he covered them.
I want to comment very briefly on four matters before I withdraw the amendment because it has been so stoutly and—I say this with great respect—stubbornly rejected by the Government. I have been looking, because I happen to have them here, at the judgments that I mentioned, but I cannot find the relevant judgment. If I am wrong in that I will write to the Minister.
Secondly, I know that I am a lawyer—I have that in common with my noble and learned friend, and we suffer the disadvantages that people refer to us in these rather unfavourable terms; people use words such as "legalistic". I would remind Members of the Committee that they are making law; they are not just drawing up some vague document. To say that one should not approach that in terms that they refer to as
CWH 238
"legalistic" but which I should prefer to call "adequately legal" is a lack of responsibility towards Parliament. We need to know what the law means.
I have not injected this before, and the Minister will be able to refer to it in relation to subsequent amendments. However, to save time I will mention it now. The Government are inviting us to leave the Bill in a situation in which the courts will have to use the new principle—it is new to me but it happened a long time ago—raised in the case of Pepper v Hart. That is to say, where the courts cannot understand the law in a statute they are able to look at parliamentary debates. That used to be improper but the House of Lords in its wisdom decided that there were cases in which that could be done.
The Minister in another place kept saying, "It is all right, you will understand what this means not only because of regulations but because of what I say it means". The courts can only do that if they adopt the rare practice of going behind the Act and referring to parliamentary debates. Is it really the desire of the Government that these uncertainties should be left so that the courts have to decide by reference to parliamentary debates? I suspect that my noble and learned friend will say no to that. I suspect that because of what he said in his opening remarks—I hope that I will represent him fairly. He said, on this amendment and in regard to the notion of misconduct—my noble friend Lord Gladwin said that that could well involve conduct, but his point has not been answered—that regulations would make the position clearer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Not in defining "misconduct".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Not in defining "misconduct". Therefore, regulations will not tell us what "misconduct" means, but somehow they will make the general position clearer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They will set what the procedures apply to—but it will not define "misconduct".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: They will not define "misconduct", but will tell us what the procedure will mean in its application. The procedure says:
"The employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged misconduct which has led to the dismissal".
That will not tell us anything about misconduct. I do not really understand. However, I shall understand when I see the regulations; so will the employers; so will the trades unions; and so will the employees, who are all agog to know what their new rights and obligations will be under this Bill when it is passed. However, they will not know—they will be told what the procedure means when the regulations appear. And they still will not know what is meant by "misconduct" because, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has said, it is not at all clear that it includes lawful dismissals and unlawful dismissals. However, I understood the Minister rather differently from my noble friend. I understood the Minister to say that

CWH 239
lawful dismissals and unlawful dismissals were included in this procedure. That makes the situation even worse.
There really is no case for these modified procedures. They are confusing, although the noble and learned Lord said that it was important to keep the them simple. That was his basis. So, in order to cure the confusion we must introduce another simple confusion. Simple confusions do not cure other confusions; they make them worse.
I do not say that my form of words is correct; I simply took the words from the judgments. I believed that the judges might know something about the law on this and so I thought I should do that. If the Minister does not like "fundamental breach of his obligations", which he read out in a somewhat harsh manner, perhaps he has a better phrase. But "misconduct" will not do. We are making law, and here we are making confusing and uncertain law, and we are thrusting it into the contract of employment by Parliament's diktat.
It is not good enough. However, we are in a Grand Committee and there is no point in pursuing the matter. We shall certainly come back to modified procedures at the Report stage and I hope that the review of Schedule 2 will lead the government to be more flexible. Labour markets, we are told, must be flexible, and we would add to that that governments must be flexible. They must look at Schedule 2 again and come back with something better. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My noble friend is right in saying that the Minister did not answer my question. I always thought it was dangerous to have two different words that meant the same thing in legislation, because judges will say that Parliament used two different descriptions and therefore there must be two different meanings.
My understanding is that the standard procedure provides for an employer to take action against an employee for alleged conduct, but the modified procedure talks about alleged "misconduct". I really do not understand why the Government want to use two different descriptions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise to my noble friend if I have not specifically replied to his question. I will try to make it clear. The modified procedure will by regulations be applied in respect of cases where the dismissal has already occurred and therefore it is instant or near instant. It will therefore be applied to a case where the employer, rightly or wrongly, alleges that the employee has been guilty of conduct which justifies dismissal.
He may or may not be right in relation to it, but he has to set out in his letter what the misconduct was. It must be misconduct in order for the employer to have dismissed him. That is why, the dismissal having already occurred, in the modified procedure we use the word "misconduct", whereas in the earlier, unmodified procedure, we use the word "conduct".
CWH 240
The conduct can be examined and it might all turn out to be nothing at all. The employer might say, "Nothing has gone wrong, you stay employed".
However, by the time one gets to the modified procedure, the employee has already been instantly, or near instantly, dismissed. That is why we use the word "misconduct". We believe it is simple and it is right to use a clear word like "misconduct" rather than "alleged fundamental breach of contract", which is what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn suggests. That is why we have used two different words. I hope that is comprehensible.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, a matter has occurred to me because for many years I was a member of a social security tribunal. One of the problems was that we often received allegations that an individual had been dismissed for misconduct. That automatically meant that he—it was usually he—was liable to lose benefit. I used to insist that the person who alleged the misconduct should come along and justify it. If it was not justified, the case had not been proved and the individual had benefit restored.
The point I make is that the use of the term "misconduct" becomes important as far as the employee is concerned in a social security environment. Therefore, if it is not appropriate here, that has severe implications for an individual facing that kind of allegation. He may find himself losing benefit and then he may well be severely disadvantaged as a result of that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is why the statutory procedure uses the words "alleged misconduct".
Lord McCarthy: None of this explains why under the modified procedure the employer does not have to explain what he has done; does not have to defend what he has done; and does not need to have a meeting with the employee in order to tell him what he intends to do before he does it. That is to take one slice away from the employee. If it is a dismissal or a disciplinary case, he can say that he wants to appeal. But what does he appeal against? He appeals against the unilateral act of his employer, which has not been discussed or explained, has been done instantly and carries the penalty of instant dismissal. What is it about that difficult circumstance from the point of view of the worker which justifies shortening the standard procedure?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have been puzzling over my note of what I believe my noble and learned friend said. It seems that Step 4, which is the modified procedure on discipline, really means that the employer must set out in writing the employee's misconduct which the employer alleges is justification for a lawful dismissal. I am informed that that is wrong. He does not have to allege misconduct which makes his dismissal lawful. The employer can allege any old misconduct. I thought the Minister said that he had to allege misconduct that would ordinarily justify dismissal. If I am wrong in that, I am surprised.

CWH 241
There is a second point which led to the summary dismissal. We have been using the phrase "instant dismissal", which is not normally a term of art. As I understand it, it applies to cases of summary dismissal and it does not apply to dismissals on notice. Therefore, the modified procedure should have written into it
"the employee's alleged misconduct"—
it seems uncertain what that means, or at least I am uncertain about it—
"which has led to the summary dismissal of the employee".
If that is so, the Government had better put it in. At least we make progress if that is so and we know what "dismissal" means. It does not just mean any old dismissal. It does not include a dismissal on notice; it includes only summary dismissals. That is a funny old draft that we have in front of us.
I intend, of course, to beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I shall not do so before my noble and learned friend replies. It seems he does not wish to do so. We must leave the matter there. This is eminently a case that we should come back to on Report. We cannot possibly leave the Bill like this, whatever regulations we shall get and whatever appeals to Pepper v Hart the Government will make. The idea that this will only involve the employment tribunal is, of course, absurd. This point will involve the employment appeal tribunal, the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and your Lordships' Judicial Committee. If the Government wanted to provide fees for my brethren whose practice grows in this area, they could not have done a better job. But I cannot believe that could possibly he their objective. They must look at Schedule 2 again and they must do something better than is at present in the modified procedure. Preferably, they should delete it or, if they cannot do that, they should make it clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 109:
Page 64, line 33, after "which" insert "on the facts known to the employer at the time"
The noble Lord said: We can deal with this very quickly. It is a legal point and it is a legal point that arises very fairly, in my submission, in relation to the problems of the modified procedure. As a matter of fact, I am rather surprised that we did not table this amendment in relation to both the standard and the modified arrangements; but we have not. I am trying to find common ground in this regard. I take it to be common ground that what it means is that the employer must set out what he alleges are the incidents of misconduct that led him to dismiss—summarily dismiss, I think.
The law got itself into a sort of schizophrenic mess in this area because, this being a matter of breach of contract and of unfair dismissal, the jurisdictions of the common law courts—in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and so on—on what amounts to a
CWH 242
proper dismissal in the face of misconduct, the decisions in the employment tribunals and, as it turned out, the employment appeal tribunal, Court of Appeal and House of Lords in regard to unfair dismissal of course diverged. In the former—in the High Court and the common law tests of breach of contract—since the case of Boston Deep Sea Fishing Company v Ansell in 1888 (39 Ch D 339), it was held that an employer who dismissed in ignorance of certain facts and on grounds that were not adequate to justify the dismissal, could, when he learned subsequently of other facts about the misconduct of the employee—to put it broadly—add those subsequently acquired facts to the dismissal and justify it retrospectively.
When they came to look at the law on unfair dismissal, the courts and, ultimately, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House decided that that common law rule really could not apply to the new law on unfair dismissal. In Devis v Atkins in 1977 (IRLR 314), the House of Lords decided that the common law principle of adding subsequent knowledge to the dismissal that had taken place before could not apply. I refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for once, who very pithily said that the reasonableness of the employer's action could not be justified by facts subsequently acquired. Of course, there could be argument if this rule in the modified procedure applies to justifiable dismissal for misconduct, as to which of the rules applies. It could be that my noble and learned friend will say that, because this is going to be concerned primarily with unfair dismissal, the unfair dismissal precedents will apply. But I remind him that that is not concerned only with unfair dismissal; since they have put these modified procedures and the obligation to observe them into the contract of employment the employee—and, indeed, the employer—will have actions in the county court or the High Court for breach of contract under Clause 30. They will do so—I will say more about this later—because they have chosen to use (I do not criticise them for this) the mechanism of a statutorily implied term in the contract of employment by Clause 30. That was their choice and they must live with it. That could be a breach of contract that could be sued upon in the ordinary courts, and we do need to know whether the old common law test or the new unfair dismissal test, about the facts known to the employer and their effect, will be relevant in this area of the law. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The wording is clear. The employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged misconduct which has led to the dismissal. He obviously cannot write on the basis of facts that he does not know, or facts which may emerge in the future, because facts which he does not know, or facts which may emerge in the future, could not have led to the dismissal. It is as simple as that. It is confusing to bring in Boston Deep Sea Fishing and the unfair dismissal issues, which simply obscure a totally clear statutory provision.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We can deal with this very quickly. I am amazed—indeed, stupefied—at the

CWH 243
reply of my noble and learned friend. The misconduct paragraph does not require that he gives only the reasons that were in his mind at the second of dismissal. Suppose he dismisses on totally impossible grounds now, and then whenever this session ends in Grand Committee, goes outside and is about to write but somebody says, "You know that employee has had his hand in the till, don't you?". "No, I didn't know that. My goodness me, I'll add that".
What rule are we to apply? At the moment of dismissal—that is, the moment of statement of dismissal, which I take it this means; it means summary of dismissal, which takes effect when the dismissal is pronounced—he pronounces dismissal but does not know anything. That is monstrous. But then he may be told something that undoubtedly justifies an instant dismissal, subsequent to the moment of dismissal. He then has to set that out in writing. In real life, these things are not necessarily divided by a long time. There have been cases in which the employer discovered facts very quickly after the actual dismissal. I am very sorry I do not have them to sight, but I am sure my noble and learned friend will accept from me that there have been such cases. It is just not good enough to say, "Oh, it will never arise". Of course it could arise. He dismisses summarily and then he learns facts that could justify the dismissal. Then he sets down to doing what he has to do here and sets out in writing the employee's alleged misconduct, and he puts the subsequently acquired reasons in.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Which has led to the dismissal.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Oh, which has led to the dismissal. The employee is being dismissed; he has not communicated it yet. He is now in the position of having to say what was in his mind, so the test is subjective. He has to say what state of mind he was in at the moment he first pronounced it. If that is so, I am very glad the Government think that they have incorporated the rule in Devis v Atkins and not the rule in Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell. I am not sure a court would necessarily find that that is so, but we can reflect upon it before Report stage. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will wish to do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 117 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 118:
Page 65, line 32, after "send" insert "it or".
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns purely wording but also a little substance. I hope that the Minister can accept it because the procedures state, especially at page 65, line 32, that the employee must send a copy of his written grievance to the employer. That proceeds on the bureaucratic basis that employees necessarily make copies. I do not know whether that reflects real life. I should have thought that it would be sufficient for the employee to send the
CWH 244
written grievance or a copy to the employer. I hope that we can set a precedent with this amendment and get the Government to accept at least the spirit of the way in which it is put before the Grand Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that that is a good point and one that we should consider. It would be ridiculous if, by sending the original, the employee somehow failed to comply with the procedure. Therefore, we need to look at that matter in all four of the procedures in Schedule 2 and shall return with it on Report or at an appropriate stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand what my noble and learned friend says and, expressing my joy if not stupefication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the Report stage will see it cured.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Lord Gladwin of Cleemoved Amendment No. 121:
Page 66, line 11, at end insert—
"Procedure: consideration by employees
At the time of the introduction of the procedure, the employer should—

(a) issue to all employees in draft form the actual procedure which is to apply to the establishment.

(b) provide the opportunity for comments to be made by employees within one month, and

(c) issue the substantive version of the procedure after consideration has been given to the points submitted.".

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 121, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121A. As I said earlier, both today, on previous Committee days and at Second Reading, and to quote the Minister, 600,000 workplaces do not have any kind of procedure. The Minister suggests that that covers 6 million workers. He says that we are not intending to reduce the number of applications to tribunals by devious means, as some of my noble friends have suggested, but that we are trying to ensure that tribunals become the first port of call rather than attempts being made to settle disputes in the workplace.
The standard and modified procedures for dealing with dismissal and discipline and the two procedures for dealing with grievance will replace nothing. They become an implied term of contract. In my submission, there must be something between nothing and this. Therefore, we can turn to the bible—that is, the ACAS code. With regard to formulating policy it states:
"Management should therefore aim to secure the involvement of workers and where appropriate their representatives and all levels of management when formulating new or revising existing rules and procedures".
Therefore, they will be formulating new rules of procedure and they will be required to follow the procedures set out in Schedule 2.
In my experience, when work people become involved in a procedure, the procedure becomes far more effective. In addition, the standard procedure is

CWH 245
itself fairly skeletal. One could not enter a workplace and say, "This is the process", because one would find that the employees would ask questions, such as, "If we have a grievance, who do we write to?", or "Can we have some understanding about how the process will work, not in an academic way, but in reality?" Therefore, our amendment seeks to fill that gap.
My noble and learned friend may not like that because it is not written in legalese. It is an attempt to say that when the implied term of the contract becomes operative, the employer has a duty to carry out this procedure; to issue a draft version of how it will to apply in his workplace; to provide an opportunity for his employees to comment on it; and then to issue a substantive version of the procedure after consideration has been given to the points raised. That is the kind of measure that ought to be on the face of the Bill. As I have repeatedly said, Part 2 of the Bill is skeletal and unfair. At least the proposal would provide a procedure.
Amendment No. 121A refers to Part 3, the general requirements. Members of the Committee will see that paragraph 13(3) states:
"In the case of appeal meetings which are not the first meeting, the employer should, as far as is reasonably practicable, be represented by a more senior manager than attended the first meting (unless the most senior manager attended that meeting)".
When one looks at the standard procedure, it is clear from Step 2(1) that:
"The meeting must take place before action is taken, except in the case where the disciplinary action consists of suspension".
Therefore, at that meeting, the employee has a statutory right to be accompanied. However, when it comes to Step 3, which relates to the appeal meeting, paragraph 13(3) in Part 3 of the schedule recommends that a more senior manager should be involved in the process.
The amendment simply mirrors that. We say that if the management exercises that opportunity and carries out what is recommended—that is, bringing in a more senior manager—the employee at the appeal meeting should have the opportunity of bringing in a more senior representative.
I can weir imagine circumstances where, at the first meeting—that is, the Step 2 meeting—either the shop steward in the locality if it is organised, or the shop steward from a neighbouring plant or office, or a representative, comes in and represents the worker. However, when it reaches the appeal stage, he, like the manager, may want to have someone more senior to assist him at the appeal meeting. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I believe that Amendment No. 121 is impractical. We know that most employers are small employers, or even medium-sized ones. They cannot be expected to go through all the consultation procedure, and that is why it is proposed in the Bill that there should be a uniform code of practice.
How often does the employer have to reinitiate the consultation? After the employer has, as required by the amendment, given consideration to the points
CWH 246
submitted, there is no reason why the employer should act on them. In a sense, it makes the amendment meaningless.
In this particular case, the Government have laid down a clear and unambiguous set of rules. They have also set them out in the Act itself and have not buried them in some obscure regulations. It is nice to be able to say that at this stage because so much is in the regulations. The amendment will only lead to confusion and possible delay if the employer does not draft tailor-made amendments until a dispute actually arises.
Amendment No. 121A is unnecessary. On an appeal, the employer is directed by paragraph 13(3) to be accompanied if possible by a more senior manager than attended the original hearing. The employee is allowed to be accompanied by one, and only one, representative, and there is no restriction, except for the qualification imposed by the Act, on who that representative shall be. I shall have something to say about the qualifications of the employee's representatives when we deal with that in a later amendment.
This amendment suggests that, for some reason or other, the employer's more senior manager needs to be matched by an employee's more senior representative. It is rather like the schoolboy's challenge, "My dad is bigger than your dad". From a practical point of view, as the rule itself puts it, the fact is that most disputes will involve small and medium-sized employers who probably will not have the different layers of management to which the Bill refers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As I understand it, my noble friend in tabling the amendment thought that it should not just be the matter of an employer issuing procedures as a form of edict, with instructions to contact Mr X or Miss Y as appropriate. The employers themselves would have been involved and, in the course of being involved, would know and understand the procedures as a result. This, as my noble friend Lord Gladwin has pointed out, is fully in line with the ACAS code, which stipulates that rules and procedures need to be accepted as reasonable, both by those who are covered by them and those who operate them. Management should therefore aim to secure the involvement of workers and, where appropriate, their representatives and all levels of management in formulating new or revised rules and procedures.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel that he is able to give support at least to the ideas in this amendment, even if he may not like the exact wording.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I would like to speak in support of Amendment No. 121. It may be that my noble and learned friend will say that it is unnecessary, because the employer is able to agree procedures, other than the basic procedures and the statutory procedures of Schedule 2, with representatives of his employees. But if that were said, in my submission, that would be wrong, because Amendment No. 121 goes just a little further, and most valuably further.

CWH 247
It requires that the employer must, in a sense, consult with his employees. He must issue a draft—the Government know all about issuing drafts now—and receive comments back. I understand from what my noble friend said in moving the amendment that the substantive version then issued would be more like an agreed version.
That would be extraordinarily valuable and it is not covered by the Bill. Although the Bill allows for other procedures to be added to the statutory procedures—and we shall want to move amendments to the way it does it—it does not require the employer to try to obtain an agreed structure at his place of work with representatives of his employees.
That notion is not so very different from the spirit in which my noble friend Lord McCarthy moved the amendments relating to third-party intervention. It was that some confidence in the workers must surely be valuable in regard to the procedures which really hit them at their place of work. After all, at the moment they are just going to be told, "Parliament imposed this and here it is. This is what I tell you you are bound by".
But the proposal gives the workers at least a voice, although it does not actually say that their voice has to be agreed to. In fact, I would wish to move on Report that some duty of consultation more formally should be added. But at least this amendment gives workers a voice. I do not see how the Government could dislike the spirit of Amendment No. 121.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to disagree with my colleagues but I am afraid I can forecast that the Government will. What this amendment does, almost incidentally, is to destroy the whole idea that what we have here is a procedure. The standard procedure and the modified procedure in both their forms—the four different forms—do not involve what anybody outside the Government would ever call a procedure, even of the most minimal kind, because it does not deal with any of those matters. Schedule 2 contains a series of suggestions as to how the employer should deal with complaints—complaints against his use of his disciplinary functions and complaints of discrimination or anything else that might end with the employer in a tribunal. The Government are saying that that is a way of dealing with the complaints. That does not involve a procedure; there is nothing set out that all workers can be given and told, "This is the way that things are going to happen". If you had a minimum procedure, you would have some kind of process; you would know who dealt with these things and where the authority structure lay in the organisation. You would know which people had the ability to sack and which people did not have the ability to sack. You would have some idea of what warnings people would get—I refer to the ACAS informal, formal and final warnings. Those are the matters that go into procedures and, of course, they cover everybody. They are supposed to be standardised across the board. None of these things
CWH 248
occurs in the standard procedure. It is simply a kind of aide memoire to employers as to how to deal with complaints.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, is he perhaps being rather hard on the amendment? As I understood it, I am not sure he has really taken on board the full import of the procedure. I understood the amendment to involve saying, -Here are the minimum procedures in the Act but I, the employer, would like them to operate here, at this place of work, in the following actual procedure. That is, if you are going to complain about a grievance, see Joe Soap; if you are going to appeal to a manager it will probably be John Robinson. You comment on this". Then the workers comment on that, and the employer considers it—I would rather that the duty were higher—and then he puts out the substantive version at his place of work. Perhaps I have got it wrong. My noble friend seemed to see behind all that to some way in which the arrangement could not possibly affect the statutory procedures. Perhaps I have go that wrong?
Lord McCarthy: No, I am saying that they would not grant it.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: We should not encourage my noble friend.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: No, I do not understand his objection.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not sure whether our debate has degenerated into a private conversation between my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn. We would like the benefit of whatever they are saying, as it were, to appear on the record.
I shall deal with the two amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Gladwin. First, Amendment No. 121 is basically saying that at the time of the introduction of the procedure, the employer should consult with his workforce about procedures and the actual procedure. The difficulty that one has with that is, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear, that whatever one's reservations about it. the purpose of the Bill is that that procedure is compulsory. It applies everywhere. The employer, for example, cannot seek to vary it downwards in any way at all. I doubt whether my noble friend intended that that was what his amendment would signal but there is a danger that it might have that effect. Because the nature of the procedure is that it is going to apply to everybody, I think it gives the wrong signal. It is not right to say, "Consult about that which is coming to everybody anyway."
There is another problem. If my noble friend intends a wider consultation—namely, "Let's talk about procedures generally"-the notion that would underlie the amendment would be that employers of all sizes would be legally obliged to consult their workforce on their procedures. As my noble friend knows, many employers operate very good procedures. We hope that many will adopt their own procedures following the Bill's implementation. In

CWH 249
many cases, there will be such consultation. However, we believe that such consultations are best undertaken on a voluntary basis, without imposing a legal obligation to do so. The amendment would require employers of all sizes to consult—that would be very onerous and unnecessarily prescriptive. Also, by implying a particular form of consultation, it might also cut across existing consultative arrangements. For example—I am sure this is not the intention of my noble friend—it might cut across the existing role of recognised unions in discussing internal procedures.
As my noble friend will know, the EC Directive on Information and Consultation has recently been adopted and creates a general framework for informing and consulting employees about a range of issues affecting them. We will be undertaking a wide consultation on how best to implement the directive in a way that fully reflects our industrial relations practices and traditions. It would create confusion if we were to introduce further obligations to consult within the Bill before our work on implementing the new directive was completed.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 121.
On Amendment No. 121A, the basic point underlying it is that, if the employer is allowed a more senior manager, the employee should be allowed one, too, in terms of who accompanies him. The position is that he is. I shall briefly explain the situation.
As noble Lords will be aware, workers have a right to be accompanied by a fellow worker or a trade union official during disciplinary and grievance hearings. Under that right, the companion can be any work colleague or a union official, where an official has to he certified in writing by his or her union as competent to act as a companion if the official is not employed by the union, or if the person to be accompanied is not a fellow worker.
There are no restrictions on the seniority of the accompanying person—they can be senior, the same grade, or even junior. So long as they are a work colleague or have fulfilled the criteria to be a companion, their seniority is not an issue and we certainly do not want it to become one. The most important issue is that they are the right person.
It is for the worker to decide who should accompany him but he, of course, cannot insist that the person he wants will accept the task, or that a union must accept his choice of official. If the person is to be a union official, it is, therefore, left to the discretion of the union and worker to decide which official would be the most appropriate. Probably, the union will be happy for the worker to be accompanied by the official of his choice, whether senior or not, but if there was any disagreement on the matter, that would have to be worked out between them.
The amendment appears to give the option of allowing a senior representative but, as I have just indicated, this option is already available to a worker. If it has been determined that the appropriate person to accompany the employee is senior, so be it.
CWH 250
Therefore, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the right is already there as far as the employee is concerned.
I want to make one further point on the side. Paragraph 13(3), to which my noble friend referred in moving his amendment, is about a more senior manager dealing with the issue at a second stage. That was there for the employee's benefit, to ensure that the same manager who has initiated the action is not dealing with the appeal, except that there is only one layer of management. That does not detract from anything that I have said, but it may be that one is looking at it as a right for the employer to go up one level, whereas our intention was to provide a protection for the employee. It does not detract one bit from what I have said about the employee being entitled to a more senior companion or representative at the next layer up. We should regard the matter in that context.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I shall study Hansard with great care in relation to Amendment No. 121A.
So far as Amendment No. 121 is concerned, I should understand it if the Minister said the amendment was inoperable and did not work; he would not say that it was rubbish but he might say that it was not proper to go into a piece of legislation. However—I say this with due humility—we should be missing a trick if my point is not taken. We need to consider the effect of going from nothing to this for many workplaces. The Minister talked about the corner shop. I am not really thinking about the corner shop; I am thinking about the IT company which may have a contract of employment but that is all. People will ask the employer questions. I understand that that is now our statutory procedure, as it is called. It is not one that I would sign but it is called a "procedure".
But to whom do we write and what is the process? Can it be expanded? I should have thought that, one way or another, when the contract of employment is changed—as I understand it, this is art implied term in everyone's contract of employment—employers will want to know the answer. They will say, "Give me some guidance about how I am going to apply it in my workplace". As I hope we all know, a procedure which has the understanding, and hopefully the support, of the people in the workplace has a much greater chance of being effective than if it is simply introduced as an implied term of contract as the Government have done. There must be some kind of understanding. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 121, but the department should give some thought as to how it will bridge that gap.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 122:
Page 66, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In this Schedule, a meeting shall constitute a hearing within the meaning of section I0 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (c. 26) (right to be accompanied).".
The noble Lord said: I can move this amendment in a very short compass or a medium compass—I would not dream of having a long compass. If the Minister indicates to me that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, subject to wording, I can be very brief. He does not do so. Perhaps I may explain why we have tabled the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I can be of some assistance. We have agreed to give further consideration to the case to incorporate into the statutory procedures some reference to the right to be accompanied. If we go down that path, I shall bear in mind whether we can simultaneously tackle the technical point raised by my noble friend in the amendment. On the basis of that, I earnestly suggest to my noble friend that he takes his short route. If it is too short, he can obviously return, as he has done boldly throughout the course of our debates, when he has heard my full reply.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend. At least it allows me to approach the amendment on the basis of it being medium-rare. I must explain what we want so that the Government can consider it and decide whether it is what they want.
We want Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and therefore Section 11 with it, to apply to what are called "meetings" in Schedule 2. If that were the case, the worker would have a statutory right to be accompanied by the union official of his choice at what are now called these "meetings". We have not tried to alter the words in the schedule, although logically I hope that the Government will do so.
In another place the Minister insisted that the word "meeting" in the schedule was the same as "hearing". I have always had a problem with that because the word "meeting" does not happen to be the same as the word "hearing". When he was asked why that was so, with the greatest respect I could not find any other reason than the Minister saying, "Because I say so". He wanted the words to be the same in law. Of course, courts have a habit of seeing the use of two different words and saying, "Perhaps you mean something different".
Therefore, we considered that the best way to represent what the Minister in another place stated that he wanted—namely, that workers should have the right to be accompanied within the compass of Section 10; I insist that we are not moving an extension or change to Section 10—was to say that the Section 10 right should apply to those meetings on the basis that they cannot constitute hearings within the meaning of the section.
CWH 252
I believe that my explanation is short enough—and medium enough—for the Minister to tell me whether I am wrong on any point. I hope that that is the way in which the Government will consider the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The way my noble friend put it is very helpful. We both wish the right to apply to meetings held under the statutory procedures in exactly the same way as it applies now to similar encounters under existing disciplinary and grievance procedures. That is our aim. We both have the same aim. The issue is whether the drafting of the schedule as it stands prevents or threatens the achievement of this objective.
My noble friend and others, as he has just expressed, have concerns about the wording used in the statutory procedures. As he has made clear, he thinks that the use of the word "meeting" in the statutory procedures may unintentionally limit the right for employees to be accompanied at such meetings. He points out quite rightly that the sections of the Employment Relations Act 1999 which provide for the right to be accompanied use the word "hearing" and not the word "meeting".
The question is whether the use of these different words creates a real difficulty. Our legal advice is that there is no problem. The context in which the two terms are used is clearly the same here. Both pieces of legislation deal with disciplinary and grievance procedures. We are advised that the two words in this context are synonymous. A hearing cannot be interpreted as a higher level of encounter than a meeting. There is no genuine danger that the tribunals or the courts will place other interpretations on the schedule.
My noble friend might argue that his amendment should be seen as a guarantee against mishaps or perverse judgments. What is the drawback, he might say—and indeed has said—of making the point explicit in the statutory procedures to remove all doubt?
There are drawbacks. His amendment would lengthen the procedures and make them more complicated for the non-lawyer to understand. As it happens, the procedures currently make no reference to any statute. Every word can be readily understood without consulting a dictionary or asking a lawyer's advice. If we accepted this amendment, this accessibility would be diminished. Some employers or employees would feel obliged to seek professional guidance as a result. Costs could be incurred; time could be lost.
Also, the amendment would ensure that the right to be accompanied would apply to every meeting under the statutory procedures. Section 13(5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in fact qualifies the circumstances under which the right applies in relation to grievance hearings. It makes it clear that the right does not apply to such hearings where no breach of a duty by the employer to the employee is involved. My noble friend's amendment makes no reference to this section. It would therefore mean that the right would apply to meetings under the statutory procedure for

CWH 253
grievances where minor matters are under discussion that involve no breach of duty by the employer. I freely admit that meetings about such minor matters would probably be rare. However, they can occur. The noble Lord's amendment therefore inadvertently changes the law on the right to be accompanied. This is not something that we wish to accept.
With these thoughts in mind, we cannot accept this amendment. However, the Government have agreed to give further consideration to the case to incorporate into the statutory procedures some reference to the right to be accompanied. If we go down that path, I will bear in mind whether we can simultaneously tackle the technical point raised by my noble friend in this amendment. I have absolutely no doubt that we are both trying to reach precisely the same destination.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he said, but partly because it does exhibit the misguided way in which, in some respects, the Government are approaching this. First of all, I am not concerned primarily with non-lawyers. I say with the greatest respect to the lay members of the employment appeal tribunal that in this respect they count as lawyers. I am concerned with courts and I am concerned with what the schedule means in law. As it stands, it does not obviously, implicitly, incorporate Section 10. As it stands in the Bill, it manifestly does not. Someone will be instructed, and properly instructed, on a high fee to argue that the Act does not contain a right to be accompanied. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend would guarantee that he would not win. It will be touch and go whether the court would be bold enough to write words into the statute to provide for a right to be accompanied.
With the greatest respect, our amendment does not need to refer to Section 13. I do not know where my noble and learned friend had that idea from. It refers to Section 10, which incorporates Sections 12 and 13. There is no problem about that in statutory interpretation. Section 13 is an interpretation section for Section 10. My noble and learned friend would have been quick to take that point against me had I mentioned Section 13. One cannot win sometimes with this sort of voice.
It says that Section 10 will be read such that a meeting in this schedule constitutes a hearing. My noble and learned friend says, "Aha!"—Members of the Committee will understand that I had many years of dealing with difficult students—"you have missed Section 13(5) which limits a grievance hearing to one that does not concern the performance of a duty by an employer in relation to the worker". I assure the Minister I have not missed Section 13(5) at all.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Sorry!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister is absolutely right to take the point. He must take any point that he feels he is capable of taking. However, it raises another question. We understand that grievance meetings in Schedule 2 will mean something different from what is contained in Section 13, do we? Is the
CWH 254
Minister telling me that regulations will make it clear—it is not at the moment—that grievance meetings will be wider than grievance hearings under Section 13? Is that the point? Perhaps I have misunderstood. I come to this just reading the sections in the Bill.
That raises an entirely new point which, I was about to say, was not discussed in another place. With the greatest respect to another place, scarcely anything was discussed in another place. It raises the issue of whether the Government will extend the right to be accompanied to cases of grievance meetings that are not grievance hearings within Section 13.
The noble and learned Lord will not know and other Members of the Committee may not know that the right to be accompanied has been treated with the greatest concern by all trade unions, by the TUC and by many employers. As my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee said about the procedures, what really matters is what happens on the day at the actual place of work. People want to know whether they can take a union official with them. Their job and their rights are at stake.
There are very few concrete examples given by the Government. That is what I do not like about their case. It is all formulae. Let us take a case of a worker who says, "You have unfairly excluded me from the overtime list."— overtime matters a lot these days—"You are not giving me any overtime. That's my grievance, and I want to be accompanied by a union official.".
In the light of what my noble and learned friend has said, the first reply is, "Ah, that is not caught by Section 13(5) because I do not have a duty in regard to overtime in respect of you.". On the other hand, I would remind my noble and learned friend that as long ago as 1972 in the Langston case—it is rare that I cite the National Industrial Relations Court—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, or Sir John Donaldson as he then was, averted that there was a duty to act fairly on overtime.
Are we dealing with a grievance meeting or healing to which the worker can take his union representative? It matters an awful lot to him whether he can or not. We really ought to clear this up and if my noble and learned friend is saying that the Government want to put aside Section 13(5) for grievance meetings, then they certainly have to include that in the Bill. Surely they do not want more legislation changed by regulation, so the Minister had better clear that up when he is considering the matter again.
I appreciate the crumbs that I have been offered and I willingly take them in the sense that we want the same thing—although I am not sure we do want the same thing now! I do not know about grievance hearings. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton clutches his head. He says we want the same thing and then he says that grievance meetings may or may not include grievance hearings which are excluded by Section 13(5). I do not know where I am with that.

CWH 255
I moved a very modest amendment; simply, that Section 10 should apply to hearings as it applies to meetings, and to meetings as it applies to hearings. If the Government want to go further than that in their reconsideration, let them do so. I believe the best thing for me to do is to leave the Committee and the Government with the amendment. It is perhaps most fundamental—
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I intervene before my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton withdraws the amendment. I am confused. My understanding was that the meeting referred to in Chapter 1, paragraph 3(4) and (5), in paragraph 5(4) and in paragraph 7(3) and paragraph 8(4) —indeed all references to "meeting"—
Lord McCarthy: Meeting—
Lord Gladwin of Clee: No, let me try and get around my own confusion. Am I correct in my understanding that in respect of everything that could result in the employee being disciplined or dismissed—which can happen with a grievance—he has the right to be accompanied? If the answer is yes, at every reference to "the appeal meeting", he is entitled under the Bill to be accompanied, whether by a junior or senior representative.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The answer is yes.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Thank you very much.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble and learned friend says, "Yes". Therefore, if he is not to be subject to dismissal, there will not be a right of accompaniment. Have I misunderstood my noble and learned friend? He does not want to continue this debate at the present stage. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: I am not quite certain how a dismissal arises out of a grievance. Let us suppose that the employee has a grievance and is being discriminated against, or is being abused, or he is not getting the right pay, or whatever. How does it come about that he gets dismissed, let alone instantly dismissed?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend Lord McCarthy asks a good question. It is not for me to answer that. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said, "Yes", but we will read Hansard. Our intention was to take the law as it is on the right to accompaniment, and say, "That applies to all the meetings in Schedule 2, just as it applies to all the hearings in Sections 10 to 13", as my noble and learned friend would prefer. Perhaps we should have excluded Section 13(5), I do not know. We will look at that again. We will both have to look at what is taking place.
My noble and learned friend will also have to take away this issue—and I have to admit this arises from what he said, not from what I thought of previously—
CWH 256
that perhaps the Government will have to define more clearly what they mean by "grievance procedures" in the Bill because that has come out of our discussion.
Discussion is always useful; new points arise unexpectedly to both sides. The best thing we can do is see what the Government want to do. I hope that they will give us good notice of it because there are many people to be consulted on both sides about it. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 66, line 19, at end insert—
"Interpretation and Miscellaneous
(1) A communication set out in writing includes those items specified in Schedule Ito the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) and in section 15 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (c. 7).
(2) Where a party expressly states that he has sent a copy of a communication to another party it shall be presumed that he has done so.
(3) In the interpretation of this Schedule, any relevant code of practice published by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service shall be taken into account."
The noble Lord said: If I may just recover from the excitement of the previous discussion!
We do not like Schedule 2 but we do not want to leave it as uncertain as it is, so we thought we would try and help the Government by clearing up some of the definition problems. We address three points in this amendment. First, in several places in Schedule 2, things have to be done "in writing". The definition that I could find—there may be a more modern one but the definition of what is "in writing"—is in Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978. That includes,
"typing, printing, lithography, photography and other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form".
That seemed to leave out e-mail. I could not find any authority on e-mail. If the noble and learned Lord has it, we shall all be instructed. We thought that the definition must be extended to include electronic communication. A large number of workers have access to e-mail, even if they do not have it in the House and, of course, most employers these days—in a year or two, by the time this legislation comes into effect—will have access to electronic communication if they do not have it already. So we tried to find—or rather, I have to admit, I tried to find—a definition that would apply to electronic communications. With the limited resources at my disposal, I only found Section 15 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. That defines electronic communication in a way that seems to me to be satisfactory from the point of view of this Bill. However, there is a problem. The problem is that it may be that that section is not yet in effect. The regulations that I could find bringing the Act into effect did not seem to include Section 15. If that is so, my submission would be that it is still possible to refer, for definition purposes, to a section that is on the statute book, even if it is not in effect. I think that there is some authority on that. It may be that my noble and learned friend has better sources for

CWH 257
definition—if he has, we will all be delighted. But some definition is surely required because there is otherwise going to be a dispute about what counts as writing.
The second point raised by the amendment relates to this question of sending things from one party to the other. This is another example of the drafters of the Bill thinking you can just put forward a formula—the following apply. The employee is going to be prevented from going to a tribunal at all where he has not sent a copy to the employer. This is, therefore, a matter of the greatest importance. It involves whether the employee is denied access to the fount of justice in the tribunal. In our submission, where a party says, expressly, that he has sent a copy of a written communication to another party, the presumption must be that he has done so. This would have the very important effect that where an employee sends a communication to an employment tribunal and says that he has sent a copy or a communication to the employer, the tribunal will have to assume that he has done so. Therefore, his complaint can be presented to the tribunal and he will have overcome the hurdle of completing that step in the procedure.
Of course, should it be proved that this is a lie, the tribunal would no doubt resile. It may be said, "Why should you wait until then?" My answer to that is: because the Minister in another place said that we could wait until then. The Minister in another place, in addressing Clause 33, said that one would know whether a person was prohibited from applying to a tribunal with a complaint by the time one had seen, first, the originating application—I am not sure that he used those words but that is what he meant—and, secondly, if one did not get it from that, one would know when one saw the notice of appearance or the reply by the respondent's employer. Therefore, the whole procedure will take in the process of going to the tribunal and the employer's response.
A party may say, "I have sent a copy of a communication". I believe that our amendment is defective in its drafting there. It occurs to me that it should state—I hope the Minister will accept it in this spirit—"where a party expressly states that he has sent a communication, or a copy of it, to another party it should be presumed that he has done so". The amendment was drafted late at night.
Thirdly, there is the question of the ACAS code which is addressed by the amendment. It is not absolutely clear that there would be an obligation on the employment tribunal and appellate courts to consider ACAS codes of practice in respect of this schedule. Of course, one might say that there is already a general consideration in the law that they can do so. But, in our submission, it would be particularly important to direct the mind of the tribunal and of appellate courts to anything that ACAS says about this very important process, especially in relation to Clause 33 but also Clause 31, under which workers can suffer a penalty for not complying with their obligations in respect of the procedures in Schedule 2, and also in regard to other clauses in the Bill, not least Clause 34 and the like.
CWH 258
As we are introducing these minimum procedures on a statutory basis for implication into the contract of employment for the first time, it would, in our submission, be most important to ensure that anything that ACAS says about its application is taken into account by a tribunal and then by its appellate courts.
On that basis, I hope that the Government can accept the spirit of the three points in Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment deals with three separate issues. Paragraph (1) provides a means of defining what is meant by a communication "in writing". As ever, I do not believe that there is a disagreement between my noble friend and myself as to what we are trying to achieve. A number of different technologies can be employed when writing a text and when sending that text to others. We do not want to stop people using e-mail and other electronic forms of communication.
However, in drafting the schedule, we have tried to avoid legalistic wording wherever possible in the drafting of the procedures. That will ensure that the procedures are readily understood by employers and employees alike. Paragraph (1) is very legalistic and would not be easily understood by many employers or employees. Therefore, I am reluctant to introduce such wording into the schedule, although I share the basic aim of the amendment. We have scope to go into this level of detail in the regulations which will accompany the procedures, and we shall take into account the suggestions made in the amendment when considering how those regulations could be drafted.
Paragraph (2) deals with a situation where a party disputes whether whether written communications were sent by the other party. Such circumstances may arise in practice, not least when post gets lost. This part of the amendment tries to cut through such disagreement by stating that the sender is always right if he asserts that the relevant communication was sent.
In practice, it will be difficult for tribunals to come to any other conclusion unless there are good grounds to believe that the communication was not sent. In most cases, it would be very difficult for a party to prove that a communication was never sent, especially if a dated copy was retained by the sender. So any disputes on these points would not detain the tribunals for long. However, there may be some cases in which such evidence exists. We should not discount the existence of that possibility by introducing this rule of thumb. If we did so, we would be in a situation in which we would be rewarding a person who was telling an untruth about the sending of the letter, irrespective of the facts. That would not have a good effect on the procedures; it would bring them into disrepute.
Finally, point three involves a cross-reference to the role of any relevant ACAS code when interpreting the schedule. I have already covered this point in my comments on Amendment No. 104. The ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures would, of course, be relevant to the use of the statutory

CWH 259
procedures. The code represents good practice and the Government fully support it. The only question is whether a specific reference to the code is necessary in the statute. I am confident that it is not: any employer wishing to ensure that he acts fairly when following procedures that may result in the dismissal of an employee will need to take the code into account, just as he needs to a present.
In light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Chariton: I am disappointed by the reply of my noble and learned friend. The study of the Bill is becoming more and more a study in petrography—the study of different sorts of stone. The Government have an infinite set of stonework in the Bill and it is not to be chipped; or only very, very rarely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Petrology.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The word is "petrology", according to my noble friend. I looked it up actually; "petrography" is perfectly good but "petrology" if he wishes. He acknowledges petrology. We will see how petrous the Bill is. I urge the Government to reconsider particular aspects of their approach.
First, my noble and learned friend says, "Avoid legalistic wording". We should avoid legalistic wording when putting something in the place of work, but we are passing an Act of Parliament—we are passing a law—and I want to know what it means. If I were an employer, I might say, "I have to do this in writing. Does that include e-mail?". Somebody will say, "No, of course it doesn't. That is just a lot of noughts and ones—a lot of electric impulses. If you print it out it may be in writing but otherwise it will not be". Then someone will say, "I think that an Act of 1978 is relevant". He may have done a quick course for which these employment advisors charge so much.
I am disappointed by the response of my noble and learned friend, because I thought that I had it wrong; I thought that there were other Acts that defined "in writing" and "electronic communications", but his reply seemed to suggest that I have it right. Why not say in the Bill what you mean by "writing"? They want to get rid of hearings in the employment tribunals and the Court of Appeal. Why not get rid of even the possibility of an argument about e-mail by saying what you mean by "writing"? We might do that in the regulations but, it seems, not necessarily through this amendment.
It would be helpful if the Government could give us some indication of what they mean by "writing" rather than wait for their regulations. These regulations will be contained in books and loose-leaf folders and they will come in their dozens. What does he think employers in their place of work will make of them? Does he think that that will make it easier for them? Of course not. The Government should say what they mean about matters of principle and fundamental
CWH 260
mechanisms in the Bill. Detail, of course, and adjustments will come in regulations. There are plenty of powers for that. But it really is not good enough just to say that the matter might be legalistic. My noble and learned friend and I know what "legalistic" really means—it is a pejorative form for bad law. If I had suggested bad law, I would not mind, but he seemed to suggest that this is good law that I am suggesting. So let us have no more nonsense about legalistic wording. Let us have the Bill saying what it means and then we can make progress.
On the second point, the Minister says I am introducing a rule of thumb and that this might lead to advantages for liars and then he said that would bring the whole schedule into disrepute. With the greatest respect to him, that misrepresents the amendment. The amendment does not produce a complete rule of thumb; it introduces a presumption. There is a big difference between a substantive rule of thumb and a presumption. The presumption is that when somebody says, "I have sent a copy", and it should read, "I have sent the document or a copy", that stands until the contrary is proved. What is wrong with that? There is nothing there to bring the schedule into disrepute. The schedule is in enough disrepute as it is. We have shown that this afternoon. This will help the schedule to say what it means and help the schedule to be applied in a sensible sort of way at the place of work which is where it is going to take effect as obligatory terms of the contract of employment.
Thirdly, I say with great respect to my noble and learned friend that I do hope he will reconsider this. The great problem with the third point is that refusing to be absolutely clear about what ACAS says on this does ACAS a disservice. Normally, of course, the matter can be left to a tribunal, especially when it is addressed by representatives of parties who may be considered competent to have looked at the codes of practice of ACAS and to take account, as invited, of relevant codes of practice. We are not concerned with irrelevant codes of practice; this amendment refers to "relevant code of practice". But, in this case, on the assumption that we are left with a Schedule 2 something like it now stands, there really must be an obligation to take judicial notice of codes of practice from ACAS.
I am assuming that as almost none of our previous amendments have been accepted, I am therefore entitled to proceed on the basis that Schedule 2 will look something like it is at the moment. In that circumstance with the sort of schedule that is put before us—this unfair and improper schedule of obligatory procedures—there at least the word of ACAS must be listened to by the tribunal. I am utterly astonished that my noble and learned friend should suggest that merely to leave the law as it is is quite adequate without further ado.
In my submission Amendment No. 124 touches upon three matters of the highest importance to the actual administration of the Government's own chosen mechanisms which, at the moment, are obscure. We do not know what is meant by "writing".

CWH 261
We do not know what will happen if someone says he has sent a copy, as he is obliged to do under the schedule, and somebody else says he did not send it. We do not even know what "sent" means. We know that a tribunal will not be obliged in law to take account of the relevant codes of practice unless it wants to, as invited by the parties.
I ask the Minister: is he able to say nothing more about this? Will he not take away the matter? The first matter he is taking away, as I understand it. Something, we do not know what, is going to be said about it in a regulation. The second matter he, with great respect, derided, but by misrepresenting it. It is not a rule of thumb; it is a presumption. Will he not take away that, at least, and look at it? And will he not take away the point about ACAS? I appreciate that ACAS is an independent entity. I hope that the Government will be reminded of that in the near future.
As the Minister made perfectly clear in another place, ACAS will be asked to rewrite its codes of practice relevant to the Bill when it becomes an Act. There will be a very strong argument that ACAS must
CWH 262
not have a code of practice that runs counter to the statutory law. If that is so, and ACAS is going to be put under such pressure to rewrite its codes of practice, surely it must be right that a tribunal and appellate court should be under a duty to take account of whatever code of practice it is still left for ACAS to be able to put before the administration of justice.
I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to say that he will look again at those points in Amendment No. 124 and that the Government will come forward with a proposal. The problem with Grand Committee is that one always have to end up with the same formula, and of course I will end up with it now.
As somebody has said "no"—and especially as it is the Government who have said "no"—I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at four o'clock.
The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Historical Documents: Release to Public Record Office
  Historical Documents: Release to Public Record Office
  Data Interception: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Data Interception: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Data Retention: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  Data Retention: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  Prison Population: Ethnicity
  Prison Population: Ethnicity
  Mr Colin May
  Mr Colin May
  Veterans Initiative
  Veterans Initiative
  Schools: Race Equality Policy
  Schools: Race Equality Policy
  London Congestion Charging: Disabled People
  London Congestion Charging: Disabled People
  Government Departments: Internal Investigations
  Government Departments: Internal Investigations
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Employment of Finsbury
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: Employment of Finsbury
  Local Government Finance: Distribution
  Local Government Finance: Distribution
  Local Authorities: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
  Local Authorities: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Vauxhall Cross
  Vauxhall Cross
  London Congestion Charging: Adequate Public Transport
  London Congestion Charging: Adequate Public Transport
  Twinning Arrangements with Foreign Municipalities
  Twinning Arrangements with Foreign Municipalities
  Local Authorities: Financial Reporting Standards
  Local Authorities: Financial Reporting Standards
  English Partnerships Review
  English Partnerships Review
  Water Course Pollution Prosecutions
  Water Course Pollution Prosecutions
  Packaging Waste: Recovery and Recycling
  Packaging Waste: Recovery and Recycling
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 7 March
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 7 March
  Devolution in the Regions: White Paper
  Devolution in the Regions: White Paper
  Intelligence Service: Counter Terrorism Expenditure
  Intelligence Service: Counter Terrorism Expenditure
  Public Bodies: Appointment of Women
  Public Bodies: Appointment of Women
  Health Tourism
  Health Tourism
  UNESCO Convention: UK Accession
  UNESCO Convention: UK Accession
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Tower of London
  Tower of London
  Government Loans
  Government Loans