Sitting of 5 November 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (United States of America) Order 2002 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lithuania) Order 2002 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 22 and 23 July respectively.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [31 October] as relates to the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  That the House concurs with the Lords in their resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [31 October] as relates to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  That the House concurs with the Lords in their resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

    Iraq
    Pete Wishart: If he will make a statement on developments at the United Nations with regard to weapons inspections in Iraq. [77161]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Iraq has been in clear defiance of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions for many years. We are working with colleagues in the Security Council to secure a robust resolution so as to ensure that the weapons inspectors can find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction held unlawfully by Iraq.
    Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree with me and many other hon. Members that a United Nations approach to this crisis is essential? Will he congratulate and praise the Government of France on continuing to promote a diplomatic and multilateral solution to this crisis?
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate all Governments who promote a diplomatic solution to this problem, including the Governments of the United States, France, Russia, China and the United Kingdom.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the weapons inspectors could have been back in Iraq some weeks ago if the Iraqi Government's offer to allow unfettered access had been taken up? Will he explain why Britain and the United States seem to be pursuing a resolution in the United Nations that will give President Bush the sole power of decision making and veto over the future of any weapons inspectorate or any bombing or invasion of Iraq?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's interpretation of the draft resolution is not correct. I know that he feels the same detestation of Saddam Hussein as we all do, so it is all the more surprising that he has been taken in by what Saddam said. Everyone knows that Saddam is in complete defiance of a series of United Nations resolutions on weapons inspectors, and that there were fundamental flaws in the previous inspectorial regime, especially the fact that it allowed Saddam to put his weapons of mass destruction into so-called presidential sites, which incidentally, are larger than the whole borough of Islington, and thus avoid inspection.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I commend the Secretary of State for his robust opposition to Mr. Sharon's proposal that if military action is taken against Iraq it should be followed by military action against Iran. Will he assure the House that any resolution supported by the United Kingdom will not bestow on any member of the Security Council an automatic right

    127
    to take military action if that state alone considers Iraq to be in breach of its obligations? Will he also give the House an assurance that if military action is considered necessary as a last resort, it is for the Security Council as a whole to make that decision? Will he resist any attempt to put military action on a hair trigger to be pulled by any state that so chooses?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for his support for our position on Iran. I made it clear on the radio that, although we understand the acute sense of fear felt in Israel, we do not remotely support the suggestion of Prime Minister Sharon that the appropriate way to deal with problems in Iran is to launch an attack on that country. There is a significant difference between Iran and Iraq. Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship, whereas Iran is an emerging democracy. I take the same view in respect of the holding of Iran's weapons of mass destruction as we have taken in respect of the more serious problem of North Korea. So far as is humanly possible, we should pursue a diplomatic route if that remains remotely feasible.
    There is no suggestion from any member of the Security Council that the resolution should permit a hair trigger. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have said that we reserve the right to take military action against Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law, but within international law, if the United Nations fails to meet its clear responsibilities. Our preference, however—which I know is shared by the United States—is for a robust resolution or resolutions to be passed by the Security Council as soon as possible to provide for full inspection of Saddam's holdings of weapons of mass destruction, followed by the destruction of the weapons.
    Ian Lucas: Given the time it is taking for the resolution to be discussed at the United Nations, it will clearly be complex if agreed on. Would it not be appropriate for the House to consider its terms in detail if and when it is passed? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we shall have such an opportunity?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. I intend—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and provided that Parliament is sitting—to make a statement as soon as possible, when and if a resolution is passed. As for any issue relating to the authorisation of military action, which is not on the agenda at present but is obviously a possibility, I, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have made clear the Government's wish for a substantive resolution to that effect.
    Hugh Robertson: For many of my constituents, one of the critical planks in the whole question is the link between the regime in Iraq and international terrorist organisations. Does the Foreign Secretary consider that that link exists now, and is there a real threat that it might exist in the future?
    Mr. Straw: We work on the basis that the Hussein regime is so evil that it has, for certain, the capacity to develop links with all kinds of international terrorist organisations. Certainly, it actively supports terrorist organisations operating in Israel and the occupied territories. I have seen no direct evidence of the Iraqi
    128
    regime's involvement in the al-Qaeda operation before 11 September, but were such evidence presented to me I would not be surprised.
    David Winnick: If it were suddenly announced that there would be no military action in any circumstances, would not the chance of the weapons inspectors going back into Iraq be as remote as the possibility of that criminal and murderous regime turning itself into a parliamentary democracy? It is a pity that the critics do not recognise that.
    Mr. Straw: Exactly, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that, to the extent that Saddam Hussein has made any change in what he is saying—by saying that he will allow inspectors in—the only reason he has done so is the existence of a credible threat of the use of force against him.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister said yesterday that we were
    "reaching the point of closure"
    in regard to a United Nations Security Council decision. Does that actually mean agreement, or does it mean that the crunch moment for a decision is coming?
    As the House may well be in recess when that point of closure is reached, and unable to question the Foreign Secretary, will he clarify one or two points now? If the French veto the United States-United Kingdom resolution and propose their own softer resolution in its place, will the United Kingdom veto, support or abstain on that resolution? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the disarming of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of his weapons of mass destruction cannot be held to ransom by the political and commercial interests of one or two permanent members of the Security Council? Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say earlier that if there was no United Nations resolution as a result of such a veto, the Government would in principle support the United States in taking any legal military action, even without United Nations backing?
    Mr. Straw: We are working on the basis that an agreed resolution will be possible. I have been working very closely with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and my other opposite numbers, particularly the P5's French, Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministers. We engage in daily, sometimes hourly, discussions about the text of the resolution, and I share the Prime Minister's view that we are approaching closure.
    I do not want to speculate about what decisions we would take if agreement within the permanent five were not possible, except to say that we would vote for or against resolutions on their merits. However, we have always been clear about the need for robust resolutions, or a robust resolution, in respect of Saddam Hussein. The strongest possible chance of securing a peaceful outcome to this crisis of defiance by the Saddam Hussein regime is if we can be as tough as possible as early as possible. That is what we are working towards.

    129
    I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says on the political and commercial interests of members of the United Nations, whether they are on the Security Council or otherwise. I made the position clear on the possibility of taking military action if there is no Security Council resolution but we would always act within our obligations in international law.
    Of course I understand the frustration, which I feel too, that the House may be prorogued when and if in the next few days a resolution is agreed but I promise the House that I will take steps as soon as I can to ensure that there is a full discussion in a statement on the resolution, if it is agreed.

    Burma
    Mr. Iain Luke: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Burma. [77162]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi on Friday on the telephone. I told her that Britain is very concerned about the lack of political movement in Burma and the renewed political arrests. The Burmese regime must enter into substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi without further delay if the credibility of the reform process is to be maintained. We will continue to put pressure on the Burmese regime until firm steps towards democracy are taken.
    Mr. Luke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that like all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in Burma he was heartened by the release of Suu Kyi earlier this year from house arrest but disappointed by the apparent reluctance of the military junta in Burma to reinstate democratic government there. Can he do all lie can in the policies that he pursues to encourage those British interests still with an economic presence in Burma to follow a policy of disinvestment, which has had some success in the past—companies such as Premier Oil in the UK withdrew investment in September this year—and to encourage other countries that have economic interests in Burma to do the same?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is virtually no inward investment in Burma from other countries at the moment. The EU reaffirmed its common position only last month in relation to Burma. Its provisions are worth setting out: an arms embargo, bans on the supply of equipment that would be used for internal repression, no defence links, no non-humanitarian aid, no high-level visits, a visa ban and an asset freeze on the members of the regime. In addition, the EU suspended Burma's trading privileges in 1997 due to concern about forced labour in Burma and the UK does not encourage any trade, investment or tourism in Burma.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware of the plight of the Karen people in Burma, which some people have characterised as genocide? Will he undertake to try to draw the international community together to focus
    130
    attention on what is happening to the Karen people and to put pressure on the Burmese Administration to try to protect that people?
    Mr. O'Brien: In short, the answer is yes. The human rights situation in Burma is very poor, particularly in relation to the Karen people and other ethnic minority groups. We are seeking to put as much pressure as we reasonably can on the Burmese regime to try to get it to amend its ways, to ensure that we get some movement towards democracy and, I hope, some reduction in the amount of repression that the Karen and other groups face from the Government.

    Poppy Farming (Afghanistan)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What recent discussions he has had with the Afghan authorities on action being taken to combat poppy farming there. [77163]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Foreign Secretary met Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Foreign Minister of the transitional Administration of Afghanistan, on 24 October. They discussed progress on eliminating opium production in Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan three weeks ago and discussed poppy farming issues with President Karzai and other Ministers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was a UN survey right in suggesting that, whereas opium production in 2001 was 185 tonnes, this year it will be a staggering 2,700 tonnes? Is it true that 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes to Britain originates from Afghanistan?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is true that about 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes to the UK is from Afghanistan, and it is certainly true that the poppy crop is higher this year than last year, although probably not as high as the 1999 peak. The Afghan Government's best assessment is that intervention—the destruction of 17,300 hectares of the crop this year—reduced the quantity of drugs on the market by about a quarter. We should remember that last year, for one season, the Taliban reduced production to drive up the price, holding on to their stockpiles for sale later. However, their threat to hang anyone who grew poppies cut production.
    The UK's long-term strategy focuses on four areas: we will provide alternative livelihoods for opium poppy farmers, improve Afghan drug law enforcement capacity, build up the capacity of Afghan drug control institutions, and reduce drug demand in Afghanistan. We are determined to work with the Afghan Government to reduce the extent of poppy growing in Afghanistan.
    Mr. George Osborne: The United Nations drug control office says that poppy production has increased 18 times in the past year. During that time, Britain has spent £40 million on trying to eradicate poppy production in Afghanistan. Has not that drug

    131
    eradication programme proved a catastrophic failure, and will we not pay a price for that failure on the streets of Britain?
    Mr. O'Brien: As I have already said—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was not listening—the reduction by some 25 per cent. in the size of the poppy crop has been achieved by intervening in this year's production process. Some pressure has therefore been exerted, but it is undoubtedly true that the poppy crop is increasing. We are not pursuing the Taliban's policy of hanging anyone who grows poppies—a policy that they pursued for one year only to drive up the price. Instead, we must recognise that this will be a long-term process, and that the growth of poppies is likely to increase in the next year. What we need to do is to put in place a strategy that will deal with the problem over years to come, and which will apply the downward pressure that, in the long term, will save lives in this country, as well as in Afghanistan.
    Ann Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that alternatives to poppy growing must be put in place quickly? When representatives of the International Development Committee were in Afghanistan just two weeks ago, the Afghan Finance Minister told us that he felt let down by the international community. He stuck his neck out by saying to the farmers, "I have an alternative for you," but the international community has failed to come up with the money. Does the Minister also agree that, unless ISAF is extended and security and stability ensured, there can be no reconstruction of any kind in Afghanistan?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend raises three difficult and complex issues, but I shall try to deal with each of them. I, too, had discussions with Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan Government's Finance Minister, when I was in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. His main concern was to ensure that the money came through to pay the farmers who had allowed their crops to be destroyed. I have had further negotiations with him, and we have reached an agreement with the Afghan Government, so that that money will be coming through. It is essential that we provide for poppy farmers alternatives such as those that my hon. Friend describes, so that they can produce a crop that gives them a livelihood, thereby preventing them from believing that they have to grow poppies to survive. We will therefore put resources into seeking to provide, as soon as we reasonably can, the alternative livelihoods that they require.
    It is important that we look at ISAF and related issues. There are discussions under way on ISAF and its deployment, but the key point is that the extension of the authority of the Afghan Government throughout Afghanistan is best achieved by the Afghans and the Afghan army.

    Middle East
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the Alexandria declaration for peace in the Middle East. [77164]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Alexandria declaration, by which religious leaders of all faiths are pledged to
    132
    work together for a just and lasting peace in the middle east, has our wholehearted support. We recognise its important role in promoting inter-faith dialogue, and we have helped to fund the work of the declaration. In that context, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, for his tireless contribution to the valuable process initiated by the Alexandria declaration.
    Andrew Selous: Given the vital importance for the whole middle east region of a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Alexandria process is just about the only viable part of the middle east peace process still working? Can he tell the House what steps the Government have taken to encourage the European Union and the United States to support that process both politically and financially, given that the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry cathedral has largely funded the process?
    Mr. Straw: We have been in discussion with both our European Union and United States colleagues, and I am happy to follow up those discussions with specific proposals. We have also helped to fund the process initiated by the declaration. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is one of the few viable processes of reconciliation between the two sides—the so-called track 2 process—but alongside that, and notwithstanding the dire situation between Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories, is the work initiated by the so-called quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation. At the moment, the quartet is working on a road map for progress towards peace talks and a final settlement. I hope that that work can now be pursued and that the road map will be published.
    James Purnell: Will my right hon. Friend condemn yesterday's suicide bombing in Israel? Can he confirm that it was carried out by a Fatah activist and that therefore some suspicion must arise that it occurred under the control of Arafat? Will he take measures to ensure that EU or British aid is not used by terrorist organisations? What steps is he taking to further the peace process in Israel and the middle east?
    Mr. Straw: I condemn all terrorist acts, including the outrageous suicide bombings, without qualification. I have no more details than my hon. Friend about the background of the terrorist. We take extremely active steps to ensure that money that is put into the occupied territories, directly or through UN or EU organisations, is used only for the peaceful purpose intended.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I wish to express my support for the spirit of the Alexandria declaration. It is important to see different religious groupings coming together in a common cause, especially when that cause is peace. At the same time, I trust that the Foreign Secretary will share my disapproval of the sort of religious extremism that causes obstacles to peace, be it from those who are intent on pushing Israel's borders to the River Jordan or those in Arab countries who refuse to recognise Israel at

    133
    all. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in the run-up to the Israeli elections next February it is vital that moves towards a lasting peace do not get lost in the inevitable political manoeuvrings that an election provokes? Does he also agree that the peace process unfortunately appears to have stalled since June and that it is important that the United States keeps up a sustained interest in promoting peace? Given that Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat seem disinclined to talk to one another, what lower-level dialogue is the Government assisting to give new momentum to the peace process?
    Mr. Straw: I agree almost completely with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He is right to say that we must not allow the prospect of elections in Israel further to delay the path to peace, because it is in the interests of every single peace-loving person in Israel and in the occupied territories that we get the peace process under way. I am in almost constant touch with Secretary of State Colin Powell and my EU colleagues about how we give further impetus to the peace process set out in the road map. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech to the Labour party conference, spoke about the need for the final status negotiations to begin by the end of the year. Notwithstanding the elections in Israel, we are actively looking at the positive steps that we can take to assist in that process.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the withdrawal of Labour members of the Knesset from the arrangement that meant that they were in government with the Likud party is a helpful sign? They withdrew because the Likud party was trying to promote the establishment of even more illegal settlements, which is one of the main stumbling blocks to a resolution of the middle east conflict. What is my right hon. Friend doing to help the Israeli Labour party to return to the doctrine of "land for peace", under which they won an election under Prime Minister Rabin, and to achieve the objective of getting the Palestinians and the Israelis back around the negotiating table?
    Mr. Straw: Obviously, decisions by the Israeli Labour party, a sister party to the British Labour party, about participating in the inevitable coalition Governments are a matter for that party. However, I have two comments to make. First, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my very good friend Shimon Peres, who has just resigned as the Foreign Minister of the state of Israel, and to salute the astonishing work in pursuit of a path of peace that he has done in very difficult circumstances.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) mentioned the extension of the settlements in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem. They are illegal settlements, and it is wholly wrong that the Israeli Government should have continued to extend them. The settlements now account for more than 41 per cent. of the total land area in the West Bank, and the continuing process of establishing settlements is encircling east Jerusalem. That is unlawful and plainly bad for the Palestinians but, because it makes it more and more difficult for there to be a viable and secure
    134
    state of Palestine, it also undermines the security of the state of Israel. The reason for that is that the people of Israel will have a real guarantee of being able to live in peace and security only when we have been able to establish a peaceful and viable state of Palestine alongside it.
    Mr. John Gummer: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if we are moving towards a more warlike stance towards Iraq, it is even more important that we show that we are concerned about establishing peace between Israel and Palestine, that we do not accept the illegal settlements that Israel has placed there, and, on the other side, that we are also wholly opposed to the sort of terrorist acts that have taken place in the region? If we are to persecute the process that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, does he agree that we must be seen to care about the results of the battle between Israel and the Palestinians
    Mr. Straw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman meant to use the word "prosecute" rather than "persecute". There is a difference. Internal persecution is the process going on in the Conservative party, whereas prosecution is a recourse.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). We are trying to avoid military action against Iraq, but I accept that the fact that it is a possibility means that we should strive all the harder to secure justice for everyone involved in the middle east conflict—the Israelis, the Palestinians and those who belong to neighbouring states. That includes ensuring the enforcement of all the UN Security Council resolutions—242, 338, 1397 and 1402—which place obligations on the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arab states.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: The chances of success for the peace process are further eroded by the continuance of the Israeli Government's policy not only in building settlements but in constructing their security/isolation wall. Will my right hon. Friend pass comment on the fact that Israel continues to construct this wall on Palestinian land, in doing so destroying Palestinian property and razing Palestinian farmland? Will he give a commitment that the United Kingdom Government will be protesting as strongly as our counterparts in France and Sweden? It is my understanding that the French and Swedish consuls in Jerusalem are occupying a peaceful protest at Jayyous to try and stop the construction of the security wall. Can my right hon. Friend say what he and the Government will be doing to ensure that our protest is just as strong?
    Mr. Straw: I have already spoken about the Government's position in respect of the settlements. Although I fully understand the need for security by the state of Israel and the Israeli defence force, and the fact that in certain circumstances there is sometimes a need to put up security fences—Israel is not alone in this—it looks as though the route taken by the fence was decided partly on the basis of security and partly on what land was available. That is unacceptable. My information suggests that when joined with the planned fence around Jerusalem, another 7 per cent. of the west bank will be annexed by the fence and 70,000 Palestinians without

    135
    Israeli residents' permits will be trapped between the wall and greenline Israel and so will be under further pressure to leave their homes. That is unacceptable, and we shall be making representations to the Government of Israel about it.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on the Government's planned response to the Gibraltarian referendum on joint sovereignty with Spain. [77165]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): As I told the House on 12 July, there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar unless the people of Gibraltar agree to it. I also said that if we could reach agreement with Spain on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package would be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they would decide. At present there are no such proposals.
    Mr. Rosindell: The Foreign Secretary will of course acknowledge that since the Government's election, referendums have been held in Northern Ireland, London, Scotland and Wales. Will the Government undertake to respect the wishes of the British people of Gibraltar, whatever their decision, and will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to end this shameful period of negotiation with the Madrid Government and respect the freely held and democratic wishes of British Gibraltarians?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the strong feelings held in Gibraltar. I have made it clear from the start that any proposals that were discussed provisionally with the Government of Spain would be the subject of further discussion with the Government of Gibraltar and would then be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. On the referendum that will take place on Thursday, there are no proposals before either the British or Spanish Governments, still less before the Government of Gibraltar. However, our commitment that the final say is for the people of Gibraltar is absolute.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the early 1980s the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had a Tory majority, recommended exactly the policy that he is pursuing now, and that the previous Conservative Government pursued exactly the same policy? Whatever the pros and cons of the argument, the attitude of the Tories, particularly the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), smacks at the very least of expediency and perhaps even of hypocrisy.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hypocrisy?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Foulkes: I will stick with expediency then.
    Mr. Speaker: But the Minister will talk only about Gibraltar, not the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is of course right, up to the point when he said something that had to be withdrawn. The Brussels process, which he had in mind when he made his remarks, was initiated by the Government of the then Mrs. Thatcher—[Interruption.] It explicitly included the issue of sovereignty. However, my right hon. Friend is too generous to previous Conservative Governments. Documents just released from the Public Record Office show that in 1971, under the Government of Edward Heath, as he then was, supported by all Conservative Members—[Interruption.] They fall for that every time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Heath's Conservative Government were planning to give Gibraltar away with no referendum whatever. That is not our policy.
    Mr. Michael Arcram: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what really upsets people in Gibraltar is seeing him treat this serious issue with such levity—as he has today? Will he disabuse himself of the idea that the Gibraltar issue is about Anglo-Spanish relations? It is not It is about the constitutional and democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar.
    If, as seems certain, the people of Gibraltar vote overwhelmingly on Thursday against shared sovereignty, will the Foreign Secretary finally understand that the grubby, heavy-handed and arrogant attitude that he and his Ministers have shown to the people of Gibraltar has completely backfired and that he has achieved the impossible: a resentful but determined Gibraltar, a furious and disappointed Spain and a humiliated British Government? After Thursday, will he take the opportunity to bury the agreement as if it had never existed and to explore areas where agreement is possible, rather than talking about sovereignty where it is not?
    Mr. Straw: I understand the need of the deputy leader of the Conservative party to let off steam, but even by the right hon. Gentleman's standards that was slightly over the top.

    Sudan
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the recent discussions he has had with the Sudanese authorities about the war in that country. [77166]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: (Mr. Bill Rammell)We continually carry out intensive consultations at ministerial and official level with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in support of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process. My right hon. Friend the

    137
    Foreign Secretary most recently met the Sudanese Foreign Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: We are grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he comment on Operation Lifeline Sudan? How effective is that aid package? Have the Sudanese Government obstructed the programme? Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on reports that many of Sudan's oil reserves are being used to buy arms? Is that not contradictory?
    Mr. Rammell: The Lifeline Sudan programme is extremely important. We investigate every allegation about the purchasing of arms. At present, we have a real opportunity to push forward the IGAD process and we welcome the fact that on 14 October talks were resumed and that there has been a cessation of hostilities and unrestricted humanitarian access. That must be the starting point for a durable settlement in that dispute.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and to his well-deserved promotion. I congratulate him, his hon. Friends and Alan Goulty, the Government's peace envoy to Sudan, on the work that has been done to assist the Machakos peace process. I congratulate them on the military standstill. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that Operation Lifeline Sudan can capitalise on the arrangements to get full access for the first time ever to the whole of Sudan and that the work of that vital programme is monitored so that access can be maintained?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of congratulation, which are well received.
    Operation Lifeline Sudan is crucial. Africa's longest running conflict is in Sudan and it has resulted in 1.5 million deaths, which underlines the need to get effective humanitarian assistance to the people who most need it as quickly as possible.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Minister to his new post. He will know of the Sudan Peace Act 2001 passed by the United States Congress. Does he support the United States of America in its threat to both sides in the civil war should they break the peace?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Lady for her words of congratulation. The United States—I believe—has been a constructive force for change and reconciliation in Sudan and has been working alongside us and all other partners to bring the two sides together. We certainly welcome its constructive engagement.

    Elections (Sub-Continent)
    Ms Dari Taylor: What assessment he has made of the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir. [77168]
    Mr. Andrew Love: What assessment he has made of the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir. [77170]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The elections in Jammu and Kashmir were marred by high levels of violence and intimidation, which we unreservedly condemn. Despite that, the Indian election commission has made strenuous efforts to deliver free and fair elections. Many Kashmiris chose to participate. We hope that the election will be a step in a broader process that will bring peace to the region.
    Ms Dari Taylor: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend has said, but does he accept that the situation in Kashmir remains dangerous and very concerning? Eight hundred people have died since the election was called and cross-border violence persists. I would appreciate hearing my hon. Friend's views on how a dialogue between Pakistan and India can take place and what qualities that dialogue may have. What does he believe is central to achieving a solution?
    Mr. O'Brien: The tension between Pakistan and India has reduced in recent weeks. I was in Delhi two weeks ago on the day that India announced its intention to redeploy forces from the Pakistan border. That is certainly to be welcomed. Pakistan responded promptly the next day by announcing a return to barracks of some of its forces. There has been a broad welcome for that de-escalation by both sides. Both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have shown that they do not want war and that they want a peaceful way forward. We now need to ensure that there is an end to terrorism and a beginning of a process of greater contact between the two countries. In due course, I hope that it will be possible to hold discussions that will lead to a peaceful settlement of the disputes, including those in relation to Kashmir.
    Mr. Love: I hear what the Minister has said, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) pointed out, 800 people have died, many because of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan appears either unwilling or unable to deal with that robustly. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that Pakistan lives up to the promises and pledges that it has made on this issue?
    Mr. O'Brien: I share the concern about cross-border infiltration. We have raised the matter regularly with the Pakistani Government, including during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Islamabad on 19 and 20 July, and when he met the Pakistani Foreign Minister on 16 September in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. The Pakistani Government have assured us that President Musharraf's pledge that there will be no further movement across the line of control still stands, and that the Pakistani army is doing all it can to stop infiltration. We are ensuring that the Pakistani Government are aware of our continued concern and we are working with them in order to try to ensure that those promises are indeed kept.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would have been more confidence in the election process if international observer teams had had full and unfettered access throughout?
    Mr. O'Brien: There was some examination of the process involved in the election in Jammu and Kashmir. We certainly felt that the personal intervention of Prime Minister Vajpayee, which ensured that the Indian election commission tried to run free and fair elections, produced a level of fairness despite the fact that large numbers of people were killed. There was also, to some extent, a view in certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir that people did not want to participate. None the less, we hope that the election and other steps taken in the south Asian region can be part of a process that will begin to heal some of the pain and the disputes that have bedevilled the region for so long.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on recent developments in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [77169]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The convention is making progress. The outline constitutional treaty unveiled last week provides a useful framework for the next stage in the discussions.
    Mr. Bryant: I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his new post, not least because of his sane, sensible and sound views on Europe—although knowing his reputation for speaking so many foreign languages, I am not sure whether I should say wilkommen, bienvenue, or welcome.
    Does the Minister believe that it is time that we finally had a legible and concise constitution for the European Union, which clearly delineates the role of member states, the European Council and the European Commission?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is quite right. What we need is
    "to make clear to the citizens of Europe what the EU stands for, what it seeks to do for its citizens, and what it does not seek to do".
    Those excellent and wise words come from leaders of the United Kingdom Conservative party, including the Lords Howe, Heseltine and Hurd, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and the right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). That just shows that if the Conservative party unites on sensible policies in Europe, it need not die.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the Minister to his new brief. Does he agree that until recently the Government strongly opposed both a written constitution for Europe and a single legal personality for the European Union, they strongly supported the intergovernmental pillared structure of the European Union, and they promised that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be made legally binding on British courts? Why, at the halfway stage of
    140
    the Convention on the Future of Europe, have the Government abandoned all four of those policy positions?
    Mr. MacShane: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the excellent article in The Economist by the Foreign Secretary the other week on the need for a European constitution, he will find that that is fairly long-standing thinking on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had to resign from the group of Conservative parties on Europe because he is so far out to the right that he speaks for no one—not even, I suspect, himself. The task of the Government and all the parliamentary representatives to the convention is to defend the interests of the British people. I am content that they will continue to do so, and I wish that he were back with his colleagues arguing for Britain.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the Government support proposals for the greater involvement of national Parliaments in the European decision-making process?
    Mr. MacShane: Yes, of course. It was the Prime Minister who set out the need for national Parliaments to be involved in the European decision-making process, and I ant very pleased that Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has included that proposal in the draft outline constitution that he published last week.
    Angus Robertson: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new role. Does he acknowledge the disappointment of many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government have never argued in the convention for the right of devolved legislatures or Executives to have direct access to the European Court of Justice? Does he not find it slightly inconsistent that the UK Government are arguing for greater transparency and democracy at EU level, which I am sure everyone supports, yet intergovernmental relations within the UK between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are confidential and secret?
    Mr. MacShane: The EU is an association of sovereign states and it is right that one state speaks for the constituent elements within it. There is the same problem in Spain and France. I think that the hon. Gentleman should park his nationalism and start speaking for Europe.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Given the absence of European government, is it not right and proper that the European Commission should continue to initiate legislation, given that we have a democratically elected European Parliament and democratic Heads of Government in the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. MacShane: I am a democratically elected Member of this Parliament, and I want to see it playing a role in Europe. The convention and the discussions will continue, but I hope that at the end of this process the Prime Minister's vision of national Parliaments playing a strong role will he contained in whatever is the final outcome.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the role that, given his

    141
    track record, we must regard as Minister for a fully integrated and politically united Europe. Can he clear up some confusion about the Government's position on the convention, the constitution and the charter of fundamental rights? Did not the Prime Minister state in the House last week that the charter
    "should not extend the legal competence or jurisdiction of Europe in any way at all."—[Official Report, 28 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 546.]
    How does that statement square with the comments on the convention by the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the week before that the charter's incorporation into the treaties would be acceptable, and that he was willing to work towards such incorporation? May I help the present Minister for Europe to avoid such confusion? Can he state categorically today that any constitution incorporating and giving legal force to the charter would be totally unacceptable to his Government and that they would veto it—yes or no?
    Mr. MacShane: It is always good to hear the word "united" from the Opposition Front Bench. I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. The Prime Minister made the British Government's position clear last week. The discussions will continue. I am now the Minister for Europe and I will take a very great interest indeed in the matter.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still some disquiet about the workings of the convention? In particular, the European Scrutiny Committee expressed its disappointment at the weakness of the report from the working group on the role of national Parliaments. In line with the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), does my hon. Friend agree that on questions of subsidiarity, when it looks as though Europe is going too far, we in Parliament, rather than just Ministers, should have the right not just to bark, but to bite?
    Mr. MacShane: I have worked with my hon. Friend for many years, and believe me, he is a remarkable biter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) sits for the House on the convention, as do some Members of the European Parliament and representatives from the other place. The general direction of incorporating a role for national Parliaments is the right way forward. My hon. Friend's point is well taken.

    Gibraltar
    Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding the defence implications for the naval dockyard in Gibraltar of a shared sovereignty deal between the British and Spanish Governments. [77172]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed to
    142
    the House on 12 July, we have made it clear that our current arrangements for the British military facilities in Gibraltar should continue.
    Tim Loughton: I extend my congratulations to the new Minister and hope that he will succeed in being a better friend to the people of Gibraltar than was his predecessor. Will he confirm the news that the Royal Navy has moved two anti-terrorist boats previously used in Northern Ireland to Gibraltar, underlining once again the fact that the people of Gibraltar are in the front line of defence of British interests and have an important role to play as the closest British territory to the Muslim world—a role that they continue to accept loyally and unquestioningly? Does it not make a mockery of that loyalty for the Foreign Secretary to be negotiating a grubby backroom deal with Spain that would inevitably compromise the position of the naval dockyard as a strategic defence facility for the defence of both British and Gibraltarian interests?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly good question and made a perfectly good second point, then muddied it with some rant left over from the Front Bench. The answer, of course, is that it is not from the Dispatch Box that there should be an announcement of any operational activity in the area that he mentioned. I do not think that the reference to the Islamic world is particularly relevant or necessary, but given the role that the people of Gibraltar played in defending freedom and defeating fascism, I as Minister for Europe can give a guarantee that Gibraltar will be safe in my hands.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank him for what he has just said. Could he give the House an assurance that, in the event of hostilities, Spain would behave in every sense as a true NATO ally and not obstruct the use of the Gibraltar base in any way whatever?
    Mr. MacShane: We are entering hypothetical waters, to put it mildly. Spain took a clear and democratic decision to join NATO some 15 years ago. Its officers, service men and king are, I believe, loyal members of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, and I have no doubt at all that Spain will stand by any NATO or alliance obligation that may be put upon her.
    Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Greek army today, in evidence at the appeal of the British plane spotters, has said that one individual in particular took excessive notes and deserves a prison sentence. Have you, Mr. Speaker, been approached by the Foreign Secretary with an undertaking that, if there is a guilty verdict and any British citizens are sent to prison, he will make a statement?
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from the Foreign Secretary on the matter.

Sunday Working (Scotland)
3.31 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to Scotland the provisions of Part IV of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
I do so in a spirit of disappointment, in sorrow and in anger. The relevant sections of the Employment Rights Act, together with the Sunday Trading Act 1994, were brought in by the Conservative Government with the support of Opposition parties, to try to create a balance of rights within our pluralistic society.
The intention was to ensure that shops had the flexibility to be able to trade on a Sunday, that consumers had the flexibility to be able to shop on a Sunday, but that shop workers with religious or other objections to working on a Sunday, or practical or personal reasons for not wishing to work on a Sunday, should not be forced to do so.
Accordingly, retail workers who had contracts that did not oblige them to work on Sundays were entitled to refuse to do so without fear of dismissal, redundancy or any other kind of detriment. Shop workers whose contracts did include the possibility of Sunday working could give a three-month opt-out, which meant that after that period they could refuse again to work on a Sunday and would not be subject to any detriment.
The 1996 Act, like Acts for the previous 60 years dealing with this matter, going back to the time of Stanley Baldwin, applied only to England and Wales. Separate legislation dealt with Northern Ireland, but Scotland was not included. As the Leader of the House has said, that did not make a great difference, because, at the time, companies decided as a matter of principle that they should apply precisely the same rules on a voluntary basis to their Scottish employees.
The retail company Argos was one of those that did this from the mid-1990s; and it gave its employees an opt-out clause in exactly the same terms as the legislation. Sadly, this year, in an appalling breach of trust with its staff, it decided to exploit the lack of legal protection in Scotland and it presented loyal staff who had been working Mondays to Fridays or Mondays to Saturdays with an ultimatum of compulsory Sunday working or the sack.
That is an appalling denial of religious freedom to those who object to working at all on Sundays or to those who might not object to working occasionally on a Sunday but do object to doing so at the diktat of the company, where the company chooses which Sundays they work, for how many hours and with what frequency. Irrespective of beliefs, this is a denial to couples, as Sunday is often the only day in the week that they can spend together. It can also strike families in particular, as Sunday is the day on which children are most frequently out of school. In so far as women bear the caring and family role to a disproportionate extent in our society, they are also particularly discriminated against. On sexual discrimination, the vast majority of those who have been adversely affected are women. Of course, the practice also discriminates against people simply because they live in Scotland.
144
I believe that, in all those respects, compulsory Sunday working is offensive to principles that would be shared across the political spectrum in this House. Early-day motion 1498, which has achieved the support of more than 200 hon. Members, is a clear indication of the strength of support that exists. Members of Parliament including Ministers, leading members of the Churches and other Church representatives, and various other people have written to Argos. It was obviously far more desirable that the matter be settled by agreement than by legislation. Sadly, however, Argos ruthlessly continued to pursue its policy and has either driven people into accepting compulsory Sunday working or driven them out of work all together.
I should like to comment on some of the responses given by Argos to our representations. The company claimed that it had fully consulted, when it had in fact breached its own union agreement by not having any prior discussion with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. It claimed that 97 per cent. of its workers had voluntarily accepted the new Sunday working arrangements, but that figure is as credible as a general election result in Iraq. As for the word "voluntarily", it is used in a rather special sense, meaning, "Do this or you are sacked."
Mr. Terry Duddy, the chief executive of Argos, wrote to me piously:
"We pride ourselves, on dealing with staff with fairness and respect, and believe our actions have shown this."
That contrasts with what Mr. Steve Farndale, the Scottish area manager, said in an intranet message sent to store managers asking them to discuss the compulsory Sunday working change:
"Bring your … problems in a big bag … and I'll bring a big bin."
We can also refer to internal company documents, which showed callous calculation; to the treatment of individual staff, which was ruthless; or to the case of a mother who said that she wanted to spend time with her daughter, but was told to find somebody else to watch over her. A daughter giving respite care to a critically ill parent was told, "You can do that any time."
Normal family affection was treated as a sin against corporate greed. The firm instructed that, where managers found that truly exceptional circumstances made it impossible for somebody to work on a Sunday, they should demand that that person come back for interrogation every month to find out whether the circumstances had changed. Reading about some of the individual cases, I thought that what was happening was Dickensian, but I decided that that was unfair, because even Scrooge at his worst gave Bob Cratchit time off and did not demand intrusive personal questioning or a monthly update on Tiny Tim's state of health.
Despite all appeals—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will see the chief executive of the company tomorrow at Dover house—the company has gone ahead with sacking and driving out loyal long-serving staff and has coerced others into Sunday working. I would have preferred it if the matter had been dealt with on a consensual basis. That is why I speak in sorrow and anger. The company has been intransigent and the legislation is needed.

145
Today, I hope that we can set down a marker for legislation in the next Session that would, I hope with the support of the whole House, extend to shopworkers in Scotland the protection that is currently enjoyed by those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought ii by Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Russell Brown, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Calum McDonald, Sandra Osborne, Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Michael Weir and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Sunday Working (Scotland)

  SUNDAY WORKING (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Savidge accordingly presented a Bill to extend to Scotland the provisions of Part IV of the Employment Rights Act 1996: And the same s read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 205].
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, I wish to make a short announcement about the later business on the House's agenda for today. Hon. Members who are concerned with the proceedings on the Enterprise Bill should be aware that a paper is now available in the Vote Office, setting out the Government's proposals for a response to the Lords message on the Bill. The paper contains the motion, which will be the basis of debate when we come to item 4 on the Order Paper.

  NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order (28 June 2001),
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill for the purposes of supplementing the Orders of 24th April, 9th May and 11th June 2002:

  NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement or, if later, at ten o'clock.
    2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the Table below and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) in accordance with the second column of that Table.

    Amendments

    Time for conclusion

    1 to 15 and 237

    ½ hour after commencement

    17 to 44

    2½ hours after commencement

    104 to 109

    3¼ hours after commencement

    84, 86 and 99

    3¾ hours after commencement

    127 to 191 and 215

    5¼ hours after commencement

    16, 45 to 83, 85, 87 to 98, 100

    to 103, 110 to 126, 192 to 214,

    6 hours after commencement

    216 to 236 and 238 to 311

    or, if later, ten o'clock

    Subsequent stages
    3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
    4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
    —[Mr. Caplin.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  3.42 pm
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that hon. Members want to get on with the substantive debate, since we have a guillotine, to which we agreed because we have limited time. We are not comfortable with it but we accept it in the circumstances. I want to register an anxiety on which you may be able to reflect.
  I understand the pressures on the Home Secretary and I do not make a personal criticism of him, but is it desirable for Government amendments to Lords amendments to be tabled in the last few minutes of the previous day's proceedings? The few hours since the Vote Office opened this morning constituted our only opportunity to take advice on them. We all understand end-of-term pressures, but perhaps you could suggest that it would be at least helpful, if not the norm, to have earlier notice, especially of Government amendments to a Government Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views. It is up to Ministers to look into the matter but we can do nothing about it today.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 24, 36, 37, 40, 48, 84 to 86, 99, 102, 179, 190, 214, 215 and 276, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the journal.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
    Clause 4

      DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 20, leave out "2(2A)" and insert "2B".
      3.43 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 13, 14 and Government amendment (a) thereto, 15 and 237.
      Mr. Blunkett: This may be the only moment of anonymity—
      Simon Hughes: Surely not.
      Mr. Blunkett: I mean unanimity. I must get my vowels, if nothing else, the right way round. The amendment forms part of a broader thrust in the Bill to try to ensure that we build trust at home and are therefore in a better position to welcome those from around the world who are either fleeing death and torture, seeking economic refuge or have rights that they

      147
      want to exercise. We want to try to ensure that they receive a warm welcome in this country. The amendment seeks to achieve that.
      We are talking here about righting an historical wrong, in terms of what happened back in the late 1960s and early 1980s in regard to British overseas citizens, protected persons and British subjects. Those three groups found themselves in an anomalous situation, and on 4 July I said that I wished to put right that anomaly for British overseas citizens. In October, I said that I wished to do the same for protected persons and British subjects. The amendment seeks to clarify the third of the requirements relating to the action or inaction of the individuals in respect of their citizenship elsewhere in the world. We are amending that third point to apply to those who have, in those circumstances, given up citizenship of another country since 4 July.
      That date was chosen because that was when we made our first indication of the change, and because we do not want those whose cases date from before then to be discriminated against or disqualified simply by the accident of the circumstances in which they find themselves. This will avoid disqualifying people who, through no fault of their own, did not know, for example, that their inaction would disqualify them from citizenship in their country of origin. The measure will also protect those who believed that they could use the special voucher scheme, which is now defunct.
      This small amendment to the Lords amendment will ensure that we do not put people in an anomalous position, and will allow us to welcome those who have found themselves excluded for many years. I hope that the House will put that right this afternoon.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Home Secretary is, uncharacteristically, being too pessimistic. There could be quite a lot of agreement in the House this afternoon, because I am glad to say that, after a certain amount of huffing and puffing in the media, the Government appear to have made splendid concessions on a range of issues that had concerned us. I suspect that there will be many instances of agreement, or, at any rate, of the Opposition coming to meet the Government half way. Indeed, with one exception, I do not expect us to be at loggerheads. In relation to these particular amendments, all that we have to say is that we have agreed with them and we continue to do so.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I think that I may have provoked the Home Secretary's remark about unanimity. It is rare for me to get up in debates on immigration and asylum to congratulate the Home Secretary, but I would like to take this opportunity to do so. I would also like to thank him for introducing to the Bill in the Lords—and further amending it to improve it—amendments that mean that the most racialist underpinning of Britain's immigration and nationality laws is about to be swept away. For me, this is important not only because I have been campaigning against racism in immigration and nationality law for almost the whole 35 years for which these measures have existed, but because I represent the town of Slough, and my two predecessors as Labour MPs for the town both opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968.
      148
      Many people thereafter chose to agree with them, with the benefit of hindsight, but Joan Lestor and Fenner Brockway were two of the very few Labour Members of Parliament who opposed that legislation at the time.
      With the House's permission, I would like to read out a few words that Joan spoke—at 7am, I might add, after an all-night debate; I am glad that those are a thing of the past, too. She said:
      "The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are not racialists. We all say that we are not, yet we pass legislation which is what those who speak with racialist tongues want us to pass. Until we fight on the grounds of equality, we shall never further our race relations."—[Official Report, 28 February 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1710.]
      I believe that she was right, and we should hear those words in mind as we consider the Bill and all our legislation.
      Since the 1968 Act, we have had seven Bills on immigration, asylum and nationality, and every time we debate them racial attacks in our constituencies increase, because by using the huge mechanism of legislation to focus on abuses and problems, we make people with racialist thoughts think they are justified. I urge the Home Secretary to consider that we should put our energy not into new legislation but into making sure that we can manage and arrange the delivery of existing legislation so that people can have confidence in the integrity of the system. It is time to stop writing laws that inevitably are devised for the tiny handful of people who are cheats and therefore cause injustice for the honest majority. We must ensure that we make our existing laws work. If we do that, as well as agreeing to this amendment, we will have done something worth while today.
      Mr. David Heath: I hope that the Home Secretary has not been carried away by the wave of unanimity, rather than anonymity, that he has inspired this afternoon. It is important to place on the record our appreciation of these minor amendments. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have come late to the Bill, having had other responsibilities, but I have read very carefully the debates in another place and elsewhere. As well as the minor amendments that form the majority of this group we wholly welcome the more substantive changes in Lords amendment No. 14, Government amendment (a) and Lords amendment No. 15.
      I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has again demonstrated her excellent record on these matters, but to my noble Friend Lord Dholakia, who put forward a cogent argument on behalf of those who would have been disadvantaged by the Bill. The Home Secretary has listened, particularly to the arguments about those Kenyans who might have been disadvantaged by the abrupt and precipitate end to the voucher system, and he has done something about it, for which we thank him.
      On Lords amendment No. 15, arguments were adduced in another place by my noble Friend Lord Avebury about a minor but significant area of discrimination in the Bill. If I may express disappointment without shattering the unanimity, I echo the remarks of Lord Avebury about a further small step that should have been taken: the removal of the qualification date of 7 February 1961 from the

      149
      amendment. That would have removed an inequality for a small and finite number of individuals and put paid to the last vestige of discrimination in the Bill.
      The Home Secretary has not been able to go the extra mile. I would be churlish if I did not thank him for the amendments that he has already accepted, and I hope that he will reconsider that point so that we will not discriminate between, for example, siblings born either side of a watershed date. We should ensure that future legislation on these matters, like Lords amendment No. 15, contains neither facial nor sexual discrimination. We welcome the amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 13 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 14 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 237 agreed to.

    Clause 14

      ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRES
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 8, at end insert—
      "( ) An accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
      The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, 20 and amendment (a) and the Government motion to disagree thereto, 21 to 24, 25 and amendments (a) and (b) and Government motion to disagree thereto, 26 and Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu, 27, 28 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 29 to 37, 38 and Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words so restored, 39 and Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored, 40, 41 and Government motion to disagree thereto, 42 and Government motion to disagree thereto, 43 and 44 and Government motion to disagree thereto.
      Beverley Hughes: We are about to debate an issue that is of great concern to many Members across the House. I hope that hon. Members will find it helpful if I take a little time—not too much, as many Members will want to speak—to set out our position. We need to address a number of specific issues on accommodation centres.
      The Lords amendment provides that an accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein. Clearly, great attention has been focused on accommodation centres. I shall set out what we are hoping to achieve with the trial of accommodation centres.
      First and foremost, we all share the view that our asylum system must be fast, effective, efficient and fair. We believe that that can be achieved only if asylum
      150
      seekers know what is expected of them, so we must keep in close contact with them and they with us. Secondly, we need to do that in a way that reduces pressure in the system and on local services. That is another important principle underlying our decision to trial accommodation centres, and why we wanted to provide facilities on site as part of the new centres.
      4 pm
      The accommodation centre trial is necessary to enable us to test the extent to which such centres can contribute to a more efficient management of the asylum process, while taking pressure off hard-pressed local services, particularly in the south-east and our main dispersal areas. I hope that Members will agree that the need for the trial is both clear and increasingly urgent. It is an essential part of our policy on asylum.
      In the first instance, so that the trial could be effective, we decided to develop large out-of-town facilities that could be self-contained, thus allowing on-site provision of services to be thoroughly tested. In choosing sites, we look principally to previously Government-owned land. We are committed to developing trial centres in such locations, and for that reason we are vigorously pursuing our proposals for centres with 750 places at Bicester and the former RAF Newton.
      In another place, we were challenged about location and accused of pushing on regardless of the points put to us. Lady Anelay argued that the amendment to clause 14 was necessary because
      "there is no incentive on the face of the Bill to provide the Government with the opportunity to trial different types of accommodation centre"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 315.]
      We have listened carefully to what has been said in both Houses and by others, and we have accepted the need for the trial to include different models. Indeed, the Home Secretary and I made exactly that point—not recently in response to the House of Lords debate, but more than a month ago to the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
      I can announce today, as testimony to that commitment, that at least one of the trial centres will be smaller, for single men only. That will allow us to test the alternative approach against the larger centres to which I have referred. It may be that such a centre, because of its smaller size, can be in or on the edge of an urban area. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that, as well as organisations such as the Refugee Council.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Has she seen the model proposed by the Refugee Council for a core-and-cluster centre? What does she think of it? Might she proceed down those lines?
      Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. I have met representatives of the Refugee Council, who gave a presentation on their core-and-cluster model. I spoke to the general secretary again today.
      I have given a commitment, in saying that we want to go on working with the Refugee Council on its alternative cluster-based proposal. I think that it has

      151
      some interesting possibilities. There are issues on which we do not currently agree, but both sides are committed to trying to resolve them. I enter the negotiations in that genuine spirit.
      I can also announce today that I have decided not to pursue our proposal for a centre at Throckmorton airfield as part of the trial. Although I consider the site itself to be suitable, we have not been able to settle satisfactorily the necessary land acquisition arrangements that would allow it to be developed within an acceptable time for the purposes of the trial. That issue needs to be evaluated urgently. I will make announcements on potential new sites in due course.
      Mr. Peter Luff: I hope that I will be able to speak later, but it would be wrong for me not to express my gratitude to the Minister at this point. A huge sense of relief will sweep through the community of Throckmorton, which has already borne a great deal for the rest of us. May I invite the Minister also to acknowledge what the Home Secretary was generous enough to acknowledge—that the campaign waged by the people of Throckmorton was strictly anti-racist, and not at all motivated by nimbyism?
      Beverley Hughes: I risk introducing a note of discord but my conversations with the elected leaders and representatives of people at Throckmorton were cordial, courteous and in no way racist.
      I hope that the three elements of my announcement today will convince hon. Members that there is scope for flexibility in the trial—the Home Secretary and I have been committed to that for some time—that I am serious about having flexibility in the models that we trial, and that there is scope within the arrangements that are in place at the moment to incorporate flexibility.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I thank the Minister for showing flexibility in looking at the form of future accommodation centres, but now that she is prepared to look at smaller centres near urban areas, which have been urged upon her by everyone with an interest in the proper handling of asylum applications and by a large number of other interests across the political spectrum, will she set aside the proposal to proceed with the large accommodation centres in isolated rural areas, which so far as I am aware would still attract universal condemnation? Why spend all that money on the large rural camps when she is prepared to contemplate testing the kind of accommodation centre that everyone has been urging upon the Government for the past six months?
      Beverley Hughes: I am sorry but I cannot go as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like me to go in that regard. I have made it clear that we want the trial to include a mixture, a range of models. The advantage of having a site for one classification of person—for example, for single people—is that the range of facilities that we would need to provide on that site would arguably be less than if we had a large mixture of people, particularly if we included families. That is part of the reason why we can contemplate a smaller site. The range of services that will need to be provided
      152
      on that site will not be as great as that for other types of asylum seekers. Because I want to retain a mixture and because we are in the process of a planning inquiry on those two other sites, I cannot give him the assurance that he wants but I hope that other hon. Members will take comfort from the fact that we want it to be a genuine trial and are looking to have a mixture of models in our arrangements.
      Annabelle Ewing: Can the hon. Lady indicate what the size of the smaller site for, for example, single males will be?
      Beverley Hughes: I cannot give the exact size, but I would have thought that the site would accommodate about 400 people, as opposed to 750 people at the other sites. I would not want to be held exactly to that.
      Simon Hughes: The Throckmorton announcement will be welcomed but I would like to push the Minister. Has she concluded that there should be a smaller centre or is she just thinking about it? Her colleagues in the Lords were thinking about it and we had hoped that by now the Government would have said that there would be one. Does she believe that all centres should be able to meet the test in amendment No. 17, and do the two original sites that have been publicly announced meet the appropriate location test in the judgment of the Secretary of State?
      Beverley Hughes: I will deal with the latter point in talking about the amendment. On the first point, as I have announced, subject to the practicalities of real life—of finding a site and all that—we will have a smaller centre and that will be one of the models in the trial.
      The amendment would open up scope for challenge to the location of an accommodation centre in all sorts of ways and from all sorts of sources, particularly by way of judicial review, so we cannot accept it. It would create the possibility of delay and uncertainty before and after planning consent has been secured, and, indeed, throughout the entire life of each centre. The Government have made it clear that we will abide by the planning process, and by the outcome of any public inquiry. That is both fair and democratic, but we do not believe that a further avenue should be created. Such an avenue might be exploited by those who seek to avoid the creation of an accommodation centre in their area, or the provision of support in such a centre.
      When introducing Lords amendment No. 17 in the other place, the Opposition made it clear that their resistance to siting accommodation centres related to rural areas. They welcomed the concept of centres and our trialling of such an approach—perhaps not surprisingly, since their previous policy was to detain all asylum seekers in secure conditions. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the House agrees that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I am delighted by the decision on Throckmorton, and my constituents—particularly those living in Pershore, which is two or three miles from the proposed site—will be especially delighted. However, is the Minister now saying that the needs of asylum seekers who will be

      153
      residents of such centres should not be taken into account? If those needs should be taken into account, surely the whole matter should be subject to judicial review. What is the point, therefore, in keeping the provision off the statute book?
      Beverley Hughes: The amendment refers to suitability and, as the hon. Gentleman makes clear, tries to link it to need. In terms of what is provided within the centre, we are clearly very concerned about meeting asylum seekers' needs, and ensuring that, in doing so, we can progress claims in the best and fastest possible way. However, that point does not relate to the question of suitability of location, which is the aspect of the amendment that I do not want to accept.
      I turn to length of stay and Lords amendments Nos. 19, 25 and 26. Under the terms of Lords amendment No. 19, a person could be supported in an accommodation centre for a maximum of four months only, unless there were "exceptional circumstances". I am sure that there are no differences among Members—certainly not among Government Members—on the primary objective of establishing a fair and fast asylum process. We have made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that we are committed to faster processing, which will form a key part of the evaluation of accommodation centres. We want asylum seekers to be supported in an accommodation centre throughout the process of initial decision and subsequent appeal, but at this stage we do not believe it sensible to include in the Bill a four-month time limit.
      Since coming to power in 1997, we have made significant progress in processing: about 70 per cent. of initial decisions in new applications are now made within two months. However, we must remember that existing statutory limits for appeal rights—which take into account practice directions issued by the chief adjudicator, irrespective of Government—would make a total limit of four months, including the appeal process, impossible to achieve in a manner fair to the applicant. At the moment, a substantive appeal hearing before an adjudicator will not be given less than seven weeks from the date of receipt of an appeal in respect of standard track cases. If we accepted a four-month time limit at this stage, we would run the risk of allowing all those seeking leave to appeal to the tribunal to leave the accommodation centre. Most such cases would involve those whose claim had been refused and where the decision was upheld by an adjudicator. They are precisely the people with most to gain by leaving the centre, with its tighter contact management arrangements.
      We are all committed to the same principle of speedy decision making and we all agree that it is in nobody's interest for asylum seekers to spend long periods waiting for their claims to be determined. However, I wish to make it clear that I do not accept the argument that the accommodation centres will be had places in which to be supported: they will not.
      4.15 pm
      In the light of the amendment made in the other place, and discussion about the issue, we have, as hon. Members will know, brought forward a revision that gives a clear indication of our intentions and provides
      154
      the assurances that are being sought. Our amendment will mean that a resident will remain in an accommodation centre for a maximum of six months, unless in the particular circumstances of the case the Home Secretary decides that it is appropriate that the person should remain for a short time longer. If the Home Secretary does decide that, it will be for a maximum of a further three months.
      We have also provided for an order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to be made allowing Parliament to shorten—only shorten—either or both of the six-month and additional three-month periods. That is a clear indication that we are not just saying that we will accept that those limits are as good as it gets. What that says is that we will continue to do all we can to drive down processing times in the way that we have done since 1997 to secure a speedy, fair and credible system that commands people's confidence.
      The amendment made in the other place recognises that there will be exceptions, and our amendment follows that logic. There will be cases, for example, in which somebody is due to receive a determination shortly after the six-month time limit and it would make sense to require the person to remain for that short period beyond six months rather than to subject them—and the process—to upheaval. Of course, the intention will be to complete as many cases as possible, end to end, within the initial six months in the accommodation centre. However, some cases are particularly complex and documentation for them needs to be obtained from overseas or from other organisations. In other cases, the asylum seekers themselves may have delayed the process. In those instances, it is sensible to ensure that we have the capacity to require the applicant to remain for a short while longer in the accommodation centre.
      Furthermore, our amendment ensures that somebody may remain in an accommodation centre beyond the six-month period if they want to. Whatever views some appear to have about accommodation centres, our aim is to make them supportive environments where people will feel secure and where their needs will be met. It would make no sense to require someone to leave when they wished to stay.
      The remaining amendments with which we are disagreeing—Lords amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44—are consequential.
      Simon Hughes: The Minister's announcement about time limits will be widely welcomed. Her announcement that the Government are willing to contemplate bringing the time limits down is also welcome. I am grateful that the Liberal Democrats' suggestions that we cannot reach our intended destination immediately, and that exceptions to the best practice should be allowed—such as permitting extensions to stays of a few more months—have been accepted, after passing between the Chambers. Am I right in thinking that the final package will apply to all people in accommodation centres, because that is slightly different from the original Government acceptance, which applied to families only? If that is the case, we will be entirely satisfied with the Government's proposal and will not push our four-month proposal this afternoon.
      Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As he has already deduced

      155
      from the amendments, I confirm that the new amendment composites various suggestions, in that it applies to any resident of the accommodation centre, not just families with children. In the spirit of the progress that we have already made in reducing the time taken to deal with claims, I hope that the House will accept the Government's amendments.
      The amendments on length of stay in accommodation centres are also relevant to some of the concerns that hon. Members have about education provision on site. I recognise that this is a key issue for many hon. Members. I share the position on which they base their views and from which their concerns arise—that, although we need to establish a good asylum system, the main priority is the best interests of the child.
      The amendments accepted in the Lords have deleted the provisions in the Bill ensuring on-site education. Amendment (a) tabled by the Liberal Democrats to Lords amendment No. 20 would allow the local education authority to choose whether the education should take place in the accommodation centre or local schools. I am grateful to Liberal Democrat Members for their kindness in showing the amendment to me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before the debate, but there is a problem with its drafting. As drafted, amendment (a) would make the LEA the arbiter of whether a child could be placed with his or her family in an accommodation centre. That is something that the Government cannot entertain.
      I hope that the debate about education issues and the impact on children of being educated in an accommodation centre for a period of time can be based on the reality of what happens to some children now and on an understanding of some of the advantages that will arise from the proposed arrangements. I therefore ask that hon. Members do not think in simple ideological or dogmatic terms. I do not mean to be pejorative, as I know that hon. Members hold very strong views on these matters, but thinking about the best interests of the children involved means that we must think about the reality of the experience faced by many asylum-seeking children, both before their arrival in this country and, sadly, afterwards.
      The reality is that not all is rosy for those children in terms of their integration in schools in the dispersal system. We intend to provide those who are given permission to stay here with education geared to their needs. Because that education will be provided in a centre, there is the potential that it will give the children a period of stability and be to their positive advantage. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind, for this debate at least.
      Mr. Iain Coleman: Will my hon. Friend give the name of one organisation working with children or refugees that has supported the Government's proposals not to allow asylum-seeker children to go to mainstream schools?
      Beverley Hughes: I shall shortly cite the findings of a report from one of the major children's organisations in respect of these matters, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. There is confusion when it comes to
      156
      distinguishing those children who are refugees—who have been given permission to stay and whose families' claim to be fleeing persecution has been decided in the affirmative—from those children whose claims are still being assessed. Children in the latter category are seeking asylum but have not been granted it. Most of them will not be granted asylum and—as was made clear in the previous debate—they will return within six months to the country from which they have come. We are therefore talking about two categories of children. Focusing on the experience of the children in the two groups is essential if we are to evaluate the current system and the potential advantages of what is being proposed.
      Glenda Jackson: I have a certain amount of difficulty in understanding how the experience of a child could be improved by putting that child in an accommodation centre, however short the stay might be, rather than a mainstream school. However, I was most concerned when my hon. Friend said that the experience of asylum-seeking children has not been entirely rosy. Is she implying that the reception given to those children by the teachers and pupils in our schools is not rosy? If so, what work is she doing with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that all teachers make it abundantly clear to all indigenous pupils that asylum-seeker children should be welcomed?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I am not implying that at all. Schools and teachers make considerable efforts, often in very difficult circumstances. However, I will deal in a moment with the points that my hon. Friend wants me to address in terms of some of the problems in the current system.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I have an asylum unit in my constituency and I visited a number of the schools there both last week and yesterday. They are coping, although with difficulty, and the children are settling in. However, the teachers and head teachers told me that if the throughput of asylum seekers continues as the Government want, so that decisions are made rapidly, primary schools in particular will have difficulties if children enter and then leave after some months, to be replaced by others speaking different languages. It is asking a lot of those small junior schools to cope with such disruption.
      Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which dealt with some of the implications for schools and children here. It therefore has a direct bearing on asylum-seeking children as well, and we should be concerned about some of these issues.
      John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that education is a matter devolved to the Scottish Executive, while asylum-seeking is reserved. What consultations has she had with the Scottish Executive?
      Beverley Hughes: I have had two meetings with the Deputy Minister for Social Justice in the Scottish

      157
      Executive—I made a visit to Scotland not long ago and she visited me in London. Discussions on those matters continue.
      Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I should like to make some progress, if my hon. Friend will for give me.
      I would like hon. Members to understand what can happen to asylum-seeking children when they enter the dispersed system. They often undergo an induction process if they come through Dover. Assessing them takes several days—it can take up to a week. Arrangements for dispersal can take some time and they may be in emergency accommodation until that can be arranged. During that time, the children receive no education. There is then the difficulty, in many parts of the country, of finding a place for the child to go. Those three stages can mean that a considerable period elapses between a child entering the country and going to school. That is one impact.
      Some children have difficulty in integrating in the first instance. Over the summer, I talked to several asylum-seeking families and went to the accommodation where they were staying. I heard several stories from parents and children about the difficulties that they were still experiencing three or four months on. A young Ethiopian boy is still taunted every day on his way to school. He has one friend in school, another asylum-seeking child. I do not say that that is the norm, but it is not uncommon. The pressures that the current system is creating in some of our most hard-pressed communities means that it is sometimes difficult for the resident population to be as accepting of asylum-seeking families, and for resident children to be as accepting of asylum-seeking children, as we would like them to be.
      4.30 pm
      I want to refer to a report put fished by Save the Children.
      Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I want to finish my point; it is an important one.
      In September, Save the Children reported on some work that it had undertaken in Glasgow, with examples of the experiences of young asylum seekers in the city. The main findings of the report rightly referred to school being the "highlight" in the lives of many young asylum seekers. However, the report detailed the views of children who had been in Glasgow for many, many months and so were fully integrated.
      The report dealt with other key issues. It included quotes from children about racial abuse, violence and bullying. The detail of the report showed, tellingly, that to help children to integrate, schools in Glasgow had to provide separate classes for them during the first few weeks of their attendance. Schools then had to work to manage the movement of each chi d into mainstream classes. That was because the experience of many of those children was traumatic. Their journey to England and their experience when they first arrived created uncertainty. Many children do not speak English
      158
      sufficiently well to be able to go straight away into a class with other children and make the most of the education that is on offer.
      Some people would have us believe that the experience of school is unproblematic and the best possible for children in terms of integration. However, for some children—perhaps for many—that experience is not all that it should be.
      Mr. Willis: What the Minister described is the norm for many children who are already settled in the United Kingdom. That is what happens every day. It is up to the schools to overcome the problems. Can the hon. Lady give the House a shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates that segregation promotes integration?
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's labelling of the experience in an accommodation centre as segregation is unnecessarily pejorative. It is not segregation; all the children will be educated together in the accommodation centre. For children who are then given permission to stay, that will provide a stable and rich educational environment that relates to their greatest needs, especially for English language acquisition, in a way that an inner-city primary school could not hope to achieve.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I am going to make some progress.
      Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Beverley Hughes: With regret, no; I want to explain what accommodation centres can offer.
      Accommodation centres can offer a safe protective environment when people first arrive in the UK. They can offer a sound and decent preparation for mainstream schooling, especially in English. They will offer a high standard of education that will be inspected by Ofsted and will offer the national curriculum.
      I draw the attention of Members to the remarks of the bishop-elect of Birmingham, Bishop Sentamu, in a recent radio interview. He said:
      "What is important when you come to a country where you don't speak the language is to learn English, be able to learn properly and be taught, instead of some places"—
      [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) does not like what I am saying and wants to drown me out from a sedentary position, but he will not succeed.
      Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I have been generous in taking interventions, so I will finish the quotation.
      The bishop said:
      "What is important when you come to a country where you don't speak their language is to learn English, be able to learn properly and to be taught instead of some places where you may actually become a victim of other people because they don't understand you. I'd rather there was a caring place than having these refugees who can't speak English suddenly being pushed into the community."

      159
      I am not asking hon. Members to assume that the advantages of accommodation centres necessarily meet the needs of every asylum-seeking family or individual. Clearly, most people will still be in the dispersal system. We are talking about a trial involving a maximum of 3,000 people. It seems to me important, however, that we recognise some of the issues with which people arrive in this country, and that there is potential for a different way of meeting and dealing with those needs for us to evaluate.
      Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the difficult times that Dover experienced when we were receiving more asylum seekers and asylum-seeking children than we could cope with, local head teachers gathered together and approached me to ask whether a central school could be provided so that interpreting, special needs services and all the other facilities did not have to be provided on three, four, five or six sites?
      Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is very well aware as a result of the significant numbers of asylum-seeking families in his constituency of the pressures that schools and communities can experience. He is right to draw our attention to the experience of teachers and schools in his area because it is germane to the debate.
      Gegory Barker: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I want to make more progress as I am very aware that other hon. Members want to speak. I will give way in a moment.
      My hon. Friend has outlined some of the pressures and issues and, of course, the UK is not alone in facing them. In Denmark, children are educated in accommodation centres rather than in schools. In Spain, the Madrid regional government is introducing an initiative, which will begin early next year, under which liaison centres will be established for migrant children who arrive during an academic year and whose Spanish is not very good. That is not segregation or stigmatisation; it is not putting children's needs second. Crucially, it will not prevent the integration of those who are allowed to stay. Indeed, as I have argued, it will provide a very strong base for that integration to be planned and managed much more comprehensively and in a way that meets the needs of families.
      Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I will not give way on that point.
      We are not being inflexible either. The Government amendment makes it clear that, where special circumstances call for provision that can only or best be arranged by the local education authority, the education provider can recommend that to the LEA. That has always been our intention, and we have now made that clear in the Bill.
      160
      I believe that the Liberal Democrats' amendment is designed to leave the choice of whether education is provided on site or in the accommodation centre to the LEA. However, as drafted, it would mean that the LEA would allow a family to stay in an accommodation centre only if it felt that it had the capacity to educate the family's children in a maintained school or an alternative educational establishment. Clearly, we cannot accept that amendment because if the LEA decided not to bid to provide the education at a centre and believed that it did not have the capacity to educate the child at a maintained school, we could still not be able to place the child in a centre. The family would need to be supported and we would simply have to support them in a dispersal area where the LEA would have to provide education even if it did not believe that it had the capacity to do so.
      I am sure that that is not the intention behind the amendment, but its effect could contradict the very purpose of an accommodation centre. Furthermore, effectively, it would allow an LEA to decide that an asylum-seeking family with children of school age should not reside in that area because the LEA had deemed that it did not have the capacity to educate those children. I hope that hon. Members will understand that that cannot be accepted.
      Simon Hughes: I said in my letter to the Home Secretary that if there were drafting issues, we would be happy to discuss them, because this is an important matter. The Minister will understand that the amendment is designed to reflect the concern of her colleagues in local government, which we share, that it should be for the LEA to decide whether—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser)—it has capacity in its existing schools, or whether some other provision is needed. What is important is that the LEA has that choice, and that if something else is needed it retains responsibility—even if the provision is on-site in the accommodation centre.
      The Minister understands the point of our proposal. We are happy to discuss the drafting of the amendment, but I hope that she is sympathetic to the principle that the LEA should take the lead responsibility. My understanding of discussions taking place elsewhere is that that point is being discussed. The Government need to move their position to accept that the LEA is the right body to make the fist choice.
      Beverley Hughes: I do not think that that is possible within the arrangements that we will have to undertake to establish accommodation centres. Within that procurement process, it will not be logistically possible to ensure that an LEA has lead responsibility. However, there are several ways in which the role of the local authority can be assured.
      The Bill provides the opportunity for a local authority, which can include the LEA, to bid to provide an accommodation centre in its entirety. Secondly, the local authority, either as the LEA or as part of an LEA consortium—perhaps through the Local Government Association—could bid for the education provided within a particular centre. Thirdly, it is open to the local authority to help to develop the detailed proposals for the education within a particular centre—that is

      161
      happening at the two sites currently under discussion. Fourthly, in any case LEAs have an advisory role in relation to all education provision.
      Let me point out that, even in our maintained system, it is the schools that provide the education. The schools run themselves—the LEA is not the direct provider. The Liberal Democrats need to take that into account when thinking about what they are trying to achieve. I want LEAs to be involved—I would welcome their involvement—and I have outlined the several ways in which, to a greater or a lesser extent, including total provision, they can be involved. I hope that those possibilities satisfy the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Willis: The Minister misses an essential point that many Labour Back Benchers have made, which is that currently an LEA does not have the option of saying that, if it has the capacity, it will educate all the children in mainstream schools. That strikes me as a point that the Government could concede without losing face on any of the other issues, because that is already the duty of an LEA. It is precisely the sane duty as an LEA would have if, for example, a group of Romanian itinerants entered its area. The LEA would have a duty to educate the children and it would have the choice of either educating them on the site, if that is what is wanted, or placing the children, or some of them, in local schools. That is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable halfway house, and better than saying that the only place in which the children we are talking about can be educated is in the camps.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman uses the pejorative term "camps" to support his position. His proposals on LEAs having the right to say that they will provide for the children's education if they have the capacity in maintained schools go against the essential feature of accommodation centres, which is on-site provision. Therefore, what he wants cannot be achieved. However, we can achieve the involvement of LEAs in the ways that I outlined.
      We are quite willing to see the local education authorities provide education in the accommodation centres—for instance, if they are part of a wider local authority bid. We will add a further safeguard, as I said, to ensure that together with the bidders for accommodation centres, we will end savour to engage in each case with the local education authorities so that they are able to put themselves forward as a subcontractor, perhaps in a consortium with other LEAs, or as bodies with specialist experience, if they wish.
      4.45 pm
      Ms Karen Buck: As I understand it, the central argument in the case for accommodation centres is to maintain close contact between those asylum seekers and the Home Office while a decision is being made. In what way does educating the children of asylum seekers at local schools undermine that central purpose of the accommodation centre?
      Beverley Hughes: The logistics of trying to provide for education in schools for a significant number of families
      162
      in a particular place, who would have to travel out to different schools, make for very complicated arrangements and cut across the fundamental objective that we are trying to achieve in the accommodation centres—close contact with people and the provision of services on-site, so that they do not impact on local schools in the way that we have seen in many areas.
      Gregory Barker: The Minister alluded a little earlier to the visits that she had made in the past weeks and months and her conversations with asylum-seeking families. In her discussions with the asylum-seeking parents of school-age children, did the parents express views about whether or not, in their first few weeks or months of settling in this country, they would like their children to be educated in units dedicated to the particular needs of their children, or in mainstream schools?
      Beverley Hughes: I did not specifically ask the parents that question, but I got a strong sense, as I tried to convey to the House, that for some of those families, their experience day after day of seeing their children unhappy in local schools was profoundly difficult for them.
      I want hon. Members to understand that I share the spirit of what they are trying to achieve. I expect LEAs to be well placed to provide the service at the accommodation centre, and I very much hope that they will want to work with us and the contractors in that way. However, I do not want to rule out the possibility of other bidders putting forward their proposals.
      On legal advice and amendment No. 28—
      Tony Baldry: Is the hon. Lady conscious that we have just over two hours for this debate? She has spoken for nearly an hour, which means that there is only an hour for the whole of the rest of the House to contribute. I hope that she is not seeking to filibuster out any opportunity for colleagues to contribute to such an important debate.
      Beverley Hughes: It is a question of being damned if I do and damned if I don't. I have tried to be generous with hon. Members while I am speaking, to give them the opportunity to scrutinise what I am saying directly and to ask me questions. Indeed, I have had to decline many hon. Members whose questions I would have liked to accept. If hon. Members tot up the time that I have spoken and the time that I have taken interventions, I do not think that they will find that I can be accused of filibustering.
      I will try to deal quickly with the next issue, as I hope that we have been able to meet the concerns about it. I refer to amendment No. 28 and access to legal advice. The amendment in another place provides for the Secretary of State to arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre, and obliges the Secretary of State to provide a resident with access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisers.
      During the Bill's passage, debates have focused sharply on access to early legal advice as an important part of a swift and fair initial decision-making system

      163
      that would reduce the scope for delay, and we have taken that on board. To confirm and deliver that commitment we have brought forward an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice before the initial substantive interview. That clearly addresses the points made by the noble Earl Russell in another place when the amendment was introduced and, as I said, focuses clearly on the initial stage.
      Let me explain what we mean by reasonable steps. We all agree that we want to cut out opportunities for delay, so we need to ensure that an amendment does not inadvertently allow a person to disrupt the system by failing to turn up for an interview, which the amendment introduced in the other place would have done.
      What we have introduced makes our obligations clear. The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice. We will, for example, make sure that people are informed in reasonable time of the date of their asylum interview and how they should, if they wish to do so, access legal advice. We are all agreed about the quality of the legal advice that must be guaranteed. All solicitors and advice agencies holding contracts with the Legal Services Commission are checked.
      We do not believe that there is any advantage in references to "suitably qualified" or "competent" in the Bill. Again, we are concerned that such references could open up the possibility of unnecessary challenge and delay. I hope that the Government amendment deals with the concerns raised and that it will be accepted.
      Accommodation centres have received tremendous attention and I acknowledge the strong principles that are the source of the concerns of many hon. Members. Our rationale for the centres is clear—fast processing, and good facilities, relieving the pressure on local services. We may not have been able to accommodate all hon. Members' concerns, but I hope that they will acknowledge that my responses today on a variety of matters show that we have listened to those concerns and, where we have felt able, tried to meet them. Different models of centre will feature in the trial, there will be a time limit in the Bill to provide the incentive that we want to speed up the process, good quality education will be delivered and there will be access to legal advice.
      Mr. Letwin: I begin by accepting what the Minister said towards the end of her remarks. There is no doubt that the Government have listened to much of what was said in the other place, and we are grateful for that.
      In essence, the debate on accommodation centres springs from two quite different visions. One is the Opposition's, which the Home Secretary may originally have entertained, and the other is that which the Government happened upon, presumably as they discussed the issues with their officials. Our vision was of small, one-stop-shop centres in urban areas, each devoted to handling the cases of asylum seekers from a particular area, country or region. At each would be present the relevant translators, lawyers and decision makers for those people, who would become expert in
      164
      the affairs of the area or region rather than dealing with Somalia at 9.15 am and Bosnia at 10 am in a dizzying sequence as at present, as well as the medics to provide such evidence as was necessary and the adjudicators—effectively the judges holding the appeals. That would allow everything to be done on site and at a speed wholly different from that to which we have alas had to become accustomed.
      Like me, the Minister has talked to asylum seekers in centres throughout the kingdom and will have come across cases in which individuals have two or three different Home Office records in slightly different names. In such cases, different decisions are sometimes made in relation to two or three different sets of records applying to the same person. We have also met people with lawyers based 200 miles away whom they do not meet until the appeal; people in respect of whom decisions are math on the basis of inadequate documentation; and people who find that the adjudicator places no faith in the decisions made by the decision maker. That can happen because the decision maker often does not know much about the subject of the decision—not because he or she is unworthy but because he or she will have been called upon to make decisions about six different countries in the space of a day.
      Those are the real-life problems of our current asylum system. Our idea was to establish accommodation centres that dealt with them all at once. The Government may have begun with a similar idea, but they moved away to the idea of establishing huge accommodation centres with only very partial delivery of the various facilities that are necessary to achieve rapid processing. The intention of the Lords amendments was to move the Government from one vision to the other—from their vision to ours. That endeavour was shared in great part with Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, to whom I pay tribute. It was also shared with Cross Benchers and some Bishops and Law Lords, and on several occasions with notable and distinguished Labour peers who gave support by their absence or by their presence in voting with us.
      The Government have come a good way, for which I am grateful. The Bill is not perfect on lawyers, but we accept that it is the best that we can persuade the Government to provide. In my view, the six-month/nine-month rule, if I can describe it in that fashion, provides for a time limit that is vastly too long, but we accept it as the best that the Government are willing to offer. I am grateful that the Minister gestured towards reducing it further.
      It is hugely in the Government's interests to move in the directions in which we sought to make them move. We sought to give the Secretary of State—in this case, the Home Secretary—power against his own officialdom. By forcing matters legislatively, he has not wholly taken that on board, but he has conceded a six-month/nine-month time limit, after arguing for many months that no time limit could conceivably be administered. We accept that in the spirit of good grace with which it is offered.
      There will be further discussion later about education. Listening to the to-ing and fro-ing in the Chamber, I remain as I have always been on the matter—in two minds. One thing about which I am absolutely clear is

      165
      that, if the accommodation centres were as quick in processing as they would be if our vision were implemented, and took only six weeks to fulfil their task, there would be no discussion. Nobody in the House would claim that it makes sense to argue strenuously about whether a child who has just arrived in the country and may go home six weeks later should have separate or a mainstream education. Either course of action could be adopted and a separate education might make perfectly good sense. We are all a bit queasy—indeed, some of us are more than a bit queasy—about the idea of children being educated separately for months or years. At some time scale or other, the idea becomes utterly intolerable. I suspect that, if the Government really move towards quick processing, that problem will disappear.
      Our main concern, however, remains with Lords amendment No. 17 and the Government motion to disagree thereto. That is the one matter on which we remain wholly apart. Before I describe the Government's position and point out what I think is a serious defect in ministerial logic, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who are in their places, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who has rightly shot off to appear on the BBC to announce his victory for his constituents in Throckmorton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has played a notable part in our proceedings. They have acted not only in the interests of their constituents but with considerable force and dignity.
      I also pay tribute to many people who have nothing to do with the Conservative party who have helped to argue the case against large rural centres. For example, a letter was sent on 3 May from the immigration advisory service, Amnesty International, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, the Commission for Racial Equality, Shelter, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and the Electronic Immigration Network. They are not normally the most strenuous advocates of the Conservative cause. All wrote to the Home Secretary and made it clear that they were worried about whether large accommodation centres in rural areas would work.
      The organisations said that they believed that such centres could cause serious problems both for those accommodated in them and for local residents. We believe that neither fast processing nor harmony—or indeed any desirable result—is likely in vast rural centres. We may be wrong. We are more than fallible: we are not only human beings but politicians. We may well have made an error. Have the Lords sought through amendment No. 17 to force on the Government the truth of our view? By no means.
      The Minister rightly read out the amendment. Let me remind hon. Members of its terms. Their lordships asked that
      "An accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
      The Minister presented some strong and persuasive arguments. However, when she considered the amendment, she was neither strong nor persuasive. How
      166
      can the Home Secretary reject the idea that, before establishing an accommodation centre, he should be satisfied that it is
      "suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein"?
      Do the Home Secretary and the Minister seriously maintain that they propose to establish accommodation centres, which, in their considered opinion, are not suitable? Surely that is not the Government's policy.
      The Minister cited judicial review as the main reason for her objection. Would judicial review judge whether the Home Secretary had found a suitable place? No; that is not its role. Judicial review would establish whether the location was sufficiently close to suitability to lead the Home Secretary and the Minister, were they reasonable people, to judge it suitable. The Minister argued—I presume seriously and not as a joke—that she resisted the Lords amendment on the ground that she believes that she will be open to judicial review because she intends, on the Home Secretary's behalf, to establish not only unsuitable centres but centres that could not be deemed suitable in the opinion of a reasonable person. That is not a serious argument.
      I take it that we are dealing with Home Office lawyers' earnest desire to protect Ministers—their perfectly proper job—by ensuring that there is no basis on which ministerial decisions can be challenged by judicial review. That is another example of the Government's trying to limit the scope of judicial review. Their objection is not well founded in logic and cannot be founded on rational policy. It cannot be Government policy to establish centres that no reasonable person could regard as suitable. That approach is founded on a profound aversion to the intervention of the judiciary in the affairs of the Executive, and is not a tolerable policy for the Government to adopt. I shall, therefore, be asking my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Lords amendments by doing what is open to us in the House, namely disagreeing with the Government's motion to disagree.
      Since the Government have made so much progress towards consensus by means of so many helpful concessions—not just in this section but throughout the Bill; we welcome, for example, the huge change in what was previously a ghastly Guy Fawkes clause at the end of the Bill—I profoundly hope that we shall not see this legislation getting into trouble in the Lords purely on the basis of an indefensible proposition advanced for no better reason than to limit the scope for judicial action.
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: I want to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 20, because it is identical to one that I tabled on Report that was never debated or voted on because of timetabling problems.
      Before that, however, I want to make one or two more general comments about accommodation centres. We are being asked to set up mainly large accommodation centres, with perhaps one smaller one in an urban area. The immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office will set the centres up, employ teachers, and arrange for legal advice, health care and leisure facilities in them.
      Suppose an organisation outside government—a local authority, a school or a hospital—routinely failed to answer letters for months or years, even letters from

      167
      MPs; routinely lost clients' vital papers; experienced major delays in decision making; and, even when decisions were made, in many cases failed to send out information about the decisions or to enforce them, particularly the negative ones. If such an organisation came to us and said, "Please can we have millions to spend on an experiment?", would we say, "Actually, we remember the last experiment you sold to us. It cost millions as well, and was to do with vouchers of some sort. Of course, you now have a new chief executive who has scrapped the vouchers, so maybe we will think about it."? We would not dream of going down that road. We would say to that organisation, "Sort yourselves out."
      If we put a fraction of the effort that is going into the plans for accommodation centres into making the system work for the majority of the people who are going to continue in the National Asylum Support Service dispersal system for some time, we would achieve far more than we will ever do by going down that road.
      I think we will be back in three or four years' time contemplating another expensive mess. The Minister spoke of the difficulties of the present system, particularly in relation to education and housing, but we set that system up and it will continue for some time. We have to get it sorted out and make it work. We are in danger of being distracted into putting a huge effort into something that is of far less importance than getting decisions made properly and getting them enforced when they need to be.
      On Lords amendment No. 20, the letter we have all had from the Home Office on this matter says:
      "This is not a policy to discriminate or segregate."
      I am sorry but I disagree; it is precisely that. We are dealing with a minority of asylum seekers because only 14 or 15 per cent. have children. However, we are being asked to agree that those families cause massive problems in communities throughout the country. The term "swamping" was used about schools.
      Like many colleagues, I know from my constituency experience that it is difficult for schools to cope with children who speak a variety of languages, who may not be adequately housed and who may move quickly from one place to another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) said in an intervention, not a single organisation that we might expect to complain has done so. Teaching unions, individual teachers and parents are not saying that there is a problem and that asylum seeker children should be removed from schools. None of the children's organisations supports the proposals, and that ought to give us pause for serious thought.
      Mr. Willis: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Minister said that children would gain a better grasp of the English language by being segregated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that every method of modern language teaching indicates that target immersion in the language—immersing young people in English not only in the classroom but in the playground—is the best way to learn? This policy will drive children to speak their own language rather
      168
      than to grasp English, which the Home Secretary clearly wants them to do since he said that he wants them to speak English at home.
      Mr. Gerrard: I will come to that point later in my speech. Anybody who has tried to learn another language knows that one can sit in a classroom all day but one only starts to develop expertise by talking to people for whom that language is their native tongue. Last week, some of us met a group of asylum seeker children who came to the House. We talked to them about their experiences, and they made that point.
      Schools say that they need support in these matters, and of course they do. Many schools have developed considerable expertise in dealing with asylum seeker children. I have spoken to head teachers in deprived inner-city areas who s aid that the presence of motivated asylum seeker children lifts their school rather than depressing it.
      Mr. Prosser: I share that experience. Schools that act properly and tolerantly find that asylum seeker children enhance their whole ethos. However, is it sensible and practical to supply the support mentioned by my hon. Friend at perhaps three or four sites in the same area?
      Mr. Gerrard: It is a practice that has been going on for years in my local education authority and many others in inner cities. Many London schools have children from ethnic minorities, and a variety of languages are spoken, not only by asylum seeker children. Support is essential to the entire ethos and education system in such schools.
      Glenda Jackson: It is not unusual for primary schools in my constituency and, indeed, in the whole borough of Camden, to find that more than 57 languages were spoken among their pupils. I remember that when Labour was in opposition, groups of London-based colleagues argued for the retention and expansion of section 11 money, which gave precisely that kind of support to children whose mother tongue was not English.
      Mr. Gerrard: That mirrors the experience of many of us.
      I turn now to the six-month time limit, and I shall simply tell the House what the asylum seeker children we met said. When we asked them how they would have felt if they had been in a centre for six months and had then gone into a mainstream school, they said, "When you are a child, six months is a very long time." We should not forget that.
      The other issue that has not been addressed is the question of what education is about. I am sure that it would be possible to recruit teachers to teach the national curriculum in an accommodation centre, but education is not just about what is in the curriculum. It is about the social interaction within a school and children learning to get on with one another. The children to whom I have talked who are not asylum seekers often make positive comments about what they, as well as the asylum seeker children, can gain from that interaction.
      Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that children from asylum seeker

      169
      families who go to mainstream schools often help to educate the other children in the broadest way? They enable them to have a greater understanding of the situation. Mainstream education also helps to prevent the isolation of the families of those children by making others in the schools and outside aware of the difficulties that they may face.
      Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister talked about the difficulties that some of these children face in school, such as racial abuse and being abused as they walk to school. If children have such difficulties, we must sort those schools out, because they will have them whether they go to the schools immediately they come into the country or after three, four, five or six months in an accommodation centre. That problem needs sorting out in the school. I would not for one moment underestimate the hard work that is needed in schools to deal with a variety of children, but the positive experience described to us by many teachers convinces me.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gerrard: I shall give way, but I do not want to speak for too long.
      Mr. Hall: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that what he has just described is exactly the experience of many schools in Bedford and Kempston? Schools are delighted to impose and develop policies of integration that are contrary to segregation, and they see the presence of a small number—that is what it is—of asylum seeker children as a great opportunity for the whole school. Those schools are asking not so much for support to teach asylum seeker children, because that is their job and what schools are for, but for support to assist the parents of those children to understand English better and to understand the purpose of education.
      Mr. Gerrard: That is a well-made point.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but I cannot help but feel, in my cynical way, that he is putting too positive a gloss on what Home Office Ministers are trying to do. I suspect that the Home Office does not want these children to put down roots in the local community. It does not want them to go to school with kids who live in the community, because if their parents were refused permission to stay in the United Kingdom, the Home Office would have to deal with appeals such as those my hon. Friend and I present on behalf of those parents, when we say, "The children are now part of the local community and it would be a disgrace to remove them, so let them and their parents stay." Does my hon. Friend think I am too cynical?
      Mr. Gerrard: I would never accuse my hon. Friend of being too cynical. He has hit on an important issue. The Minister did her best to paint a positive picture of how an accommodation centre could be run, and I would not attribute base motives to her. However, if we step back, the key debate about accommodation centres has never
      170
      been about the best mechanism for supporting asylum seekers. It has been about process. The Home Office's approach is "We want a process enabling us to make decisions quickly and to keep track of people". All the questions about support are something of a side issue.
      I do not believe we can argue that segregation is in the best interests of the child. Others, I know, will have read the annual human rights report from the Foreign Office, published last month. According to a section about Roma,
      "School segregation is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination against the Roma in some Central and Eastern European countries and for children of asylum seekers in the UK".
      The report is saying that children come here who have been victims of discrimination and segregation in other countries—and what are we going to do with them? The minute they arrive, we are going to segregate them again. How can we justify that?
      5.15 pm
      Simon Hughes: I know that we have only about 40 minutes left. I shall try to be as speedy as the last two speakers.
      First, let me echo the general point made strongly by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). The whole perspective is now wrong. I deal with a huge number of immigration and asylum cases, which constitute between a third and half of my constituency case load. It is the administration of the system that needs reform. Every week I deal with people whose papers have been lost or whose names have been confused—people who desperately need to leave because of an illness, a bereavement, a funeral or a marriage, but cannot break through the system. Others are trying to come here for similar reasons.
      It would be better if we devoted only half our current effort, let alone the same amount, to improving the current system. Politicians may not be experienced in many respects, but the Chamber today contains all the experience anyone would ever require to recommend a system that would work for all our constituents. That is the priority; this is, in a sense, merely a distraction. It is a distraction for another reason: we are talking about a pilot scheme involving 3,000 of about 80,000 applicants a year. Notwithstanding what the Daily Mail and Daily Express would have us believe, some 50 per cent. of those applicants are granted the right to stay.
      We have been trying to argue for intelligent solutions. The good news is that we have made some progress, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out. Liberal Democrats know that locations that are miles from mixed communities and from services, in the middle of nowhere, are not right. That is why we supported the amendment that was passed in the Lords, and will vote today to retain the requirement for appropriate locations. We will happily vote with the Conservatives on that. If services are to be accessible, whether they are on site or brought in, they need to be in communities that are more likely to be accommodating.
      The Government, sadly, have not responded. I heard and understand the Minister's argument, but I do not accept it. I am sorry that the proposals for centres in

      171
      Nottinghamshire and the west midlands are still on the table, because we do not consider either of those locations appropriate.
      Beverley Hughes: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that it is an implicit and indeed enforceable principle of administrative law that the Secretary of State must exercise his or her powers reasonably. The idea presented earlier that any Secretary of State could decide on the location while knowing, perversely, that it was unsuitable is nonsense.
      Simon Hughes: To be fair, I must say that that was not the case argued from the Conservative Front Bench. The amendment proposes that an accommodation centre
      "shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
      That gives considerable latitude. It is not over-restrictive. If I had drafted it, I would not have come up with those words.
      Sir Michael Spicer: The decision on Throckmorton is welcome, but it has been reached on the ground of the difficulty of purchasing land, not on grounds of needs and suitability, so the Government took the decision on the wrong grounds.
      Simon Hughes: To be fair, the reason for the decision was in part the lobbying and in part the difficulty in acquiring the land and in getting planning permission, which should have meant that the proposed centres were out of the frame. I know it is difficult. That is why some of us said that those reception centres should not be as big as planned. I have argued for reception centres but always contemplated that they would accommodate 200 or 250 people and that they would be in existence for a short time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, they should not be like a camp, but if they accommodated 750 or 1,000 people, they would be. They would not be personal but institutionalised. That is why we are sad that, although the Government have accepted a pilot scheme accommodating a smaller number, which is nearer to 250, they have still kept in the frame two reception centres accommodating a larger number.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying but is he not concerned that reception centres in any form become a target for racist attacks? The unhappy experience in Germany has been that a number of asylum seekers living in hostels have been brutally attacked. They were easily located because the fascists knew where to find them.
      Simon Hughes: I understand that argument, which is a hugely important issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the trouble is that the dispersal system has hardly been friendly and welcoming. People have been dispersed literally around the country and have not been supported. For example, they have had no one from their own language group to offer support. We must try
      172
      to find some alternative to the current arrangements. We have argued that appropriate locations for small centres should be found to accommodate people for a short time when they first arrive. In communities such as the hon. Gentleman's and mine, people are used to lots of people coming and going. I hope that the new centres will not be the focus of antagonism and racism, which is the worst risk in any of the provisions.
      On Report, we argued to the Home Secretary—I moved an amendment—that we knew that we could not get from the present terribly long-winded system to the system we would like in two minutes, so a six-month maximum time limit, with an opt-out to give a bit of flexibility after three months, would be acceptable. That is what the Minister has come back with.
      In the Lords, to try to get the maximum agreement between the parties, we moved towards the Conservatives' position and they towards ours and we proposed a four-month limit, which we hope is achievable—I share the view of the right hon. Member for West Dorset—but the proposal for a six-month limit is greatly welcome. It will set a discipline. I hope it will deal with many of the problems that we have all identified which keep cases going unnecessarily for far too long. The new proposal marks progress and we will not disagree with the Government.
      Amendment No. 21, on which we will not force a vote, refers to the occasions when the Secretary of State gives himself power not to deal with a case. That proposal is important to many of us who believe that each case must be dealt with fairly. The amendment says:
      "provision … may provide for an application not to be considered where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate or that the applicant is co-operating".
      We all know the danger of a case being rejected on a formality, not on its substance. Far too many cases fail not because someone does not have a good case but because they did not sign the form on the right page or whatever. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the terms of Lords amendment No. 21 do not fall below the standards that are being negotiated at a Europe-wide level in the proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in member states. We must ensure that we have common standards that accept good cases on their merits and do not turn them down by some defective process.
      5.30 pm
      The other issue on which an accommodation has been reached concerns legal advice. We cannot provide a proper service for asylum seekers without providing proper legal advice. That is why my hon. Friends and I will argue against the requirement to go abroad to make an appeal. That is a nonsense of a system—people cannot make a proper appeal from abroad. The Minister responded to the compromise position in Lords amendment No. 28, but my concern is that simply giving someone the name of the Refugee Legal Centre or the Immigration Advisory Service might be considered as discharging the obligation to provide legal advice. We need some reassurance that "legal advice" means real legal advice from competent individuals on site, so that people can ensure that their rights are not lost.

      173
      There are many other issues to which this huge group of complicated amendments gives rise, but I want to finish by discussing education—the issue that has proved the most controversial in this House and in the other place. As Ministers know, I said that, provided that the time involved was very short, I might be able to accept the idea of educating children on site. I am conscious that that was never the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; indeed, many others in my party were unhappy that insufficient guarantees had been provided in that regard. In the Lords, we sought the guarantees that are effectively encapsulated in the relevant amendment before us. We argued that local education authorities should take the lead in education: that they should decide whether they have the capacity, and whether such schooling should be provided in an accommodation centre. Such a process could be subject to Ofsted, and to inspection by qualified teachers.
      Those are the things that we all want for asylum seekers in schools in London—I am the chairman of governors in one such school—and elsewhere. We hoped to make sufficient progress on that issue in the Lords, but in the end we did not. That is why, when the Bishop of Portsmouth's amendment was moved, we decided that, if the Government cannot deliver, we would support the bishops and insist that such provision be offered by LEAs. We voted accordingly, as did some Labour and Conservative Back Benchers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I have worked on this issue. We have talked to our local government colleagues and, indirectly, to Labour local government colleagues. The hugely widespread view exists that education should be the responsibility of LEAs. For example, if Worcestershire LEA were unable to provide education on a particular site, it could call on the expertise of other LEAs. If such provision still could not be made, Worcester could enter into a contract with the private sector. It is LEAs who should have such responsibility. They know best—they are the ones on the ground.
      I accept that Opposition amendments are always liable to the argument that their drafting is flawed, but I am saddened by the Minister's not accepting the principle behind ours. I am also saddened because, in the end, the Home Office position won against that of the Department for Education and Skills. The Home Office's view was that it must run matters and contract out the service. Our view is that the education service should run things and supply the service, wherever it may be. We will therefore press our amendment to a vote, and we hope that colleagues will support it. It would give LEAs the lead, and if it is defeated, we will support the position that we supported in the Lords. We will do so not because it reflects the common view of us all, but because, unless the Government can produce adequate guarantees, their proposal should not be accepted by this place or the other place.
      Mr. Prosser: In my constituency, we already have an induction centre, a removal centre and accommodation for more than 200 unaccompanied minors. So I am very aware of the impact—I have seen it and felt it—of placing such facilities in areas where they are not welcomed with open arms by all residents. Things are much better in Dover now, but we went through some
      174
      difficult times. In the light of that background, I certainly welcome the Minister's announcement concerning flexibility in respect of the size—and, to some degree, the location—of accommodation centres. In my experience, numbers—the number of asylum seekers entering an area, compared with the total indigenous population—are everything.
      I keep closely in touch with Dover's migrant helpline, so I get the monthly figures for people coming through the port, and the total for those who have actually settled: those who are in the induction centre, in the removal centre, and in the centre in which unaccompanied minors are kept. I can almost estimate the numbers of asylum seekers in Dover from the atmosphere at my surgeries and street stalls in the centre of the town. If there are many people seeking refuge, the queue of local people with complaints is long. Most of the complaints are about practical matters, such as difficulties with local services or with getting children into local schools. We have already debated the issue of schooling children in areas that do not have the provision to meet demand. Numbers are important and that is why I am glad to see more thought put into the problems.
      On the issue of the provision of education support, I have already mentioned that we experienced real difficulties when more children were coming into Dover than could be accommodated in local schools. In practice, it is the less popular schools in the more deprived areas—and east Kent still has areas of serious deprivation—that are required to take in the asylum-seeker children. Those children bring enormous riches to the schools and it is a joy to visit the schools that are doing things properly and well, and to see the children relating to each other. I remember a local Dover boy telling me the story of an asylum seeker and his trek from Kosovo. Such examples warm the heart.
      To return to practicalities, the resources of schools are still limited. We must support schools but we cannot support all of them with interpretation provision. Interpretation services are necessary from the beginning, because communication is necessary before the children begin to pick up the language. We cannot supply that resource in my constituency on the necessary number of sites.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) questioned my hon. Friend the Minister about whether the changes were being proposed because schools were not treating asylum-seeker children properly, and if so, whether we should in fact complain to the Department for Education and Skills. I agree that we should complain, but it is true that some schools are not welcoming children from asylum-seeker families properly. Two years ago, when things were more difficult in Dover, I went to address a school group on the role of a Member of Parliament. We should have had a friendly exchange, but for an hour I listened to questions from young children, aged nine and 10, that were framed in the most pejorative terms. All the myths that are peddled by papers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express were churned up. I was asked, "Why do asylum-seeker children get free buses to

      175
      schools? Why don't asylum seekers have to tax their cars? Why do the Government give asylum seekers free tokens?"
      Mr. Coleman: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Is he seriously suggesting that the best way to deal with the lies and propaganda of certain tabloid newspapers is to segregate the children of asylum seekers, so that they do not have the chance to mix?
      Mr. Prosser: No, of course not. Indeed, since I made approaches to my local education authority, matters have improved. The situation will never be perfect and the reality is that not all schools are performing well in that area now. As the Minister said, the picture is not completely rosy.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend able to say something about the role played by local newspapers in the Dover area, because they did much to foment racism against Roma people and other people arriving? Is it not the duty of the House to tell every local education authority and every school that it is their duty to promote mutual respect, support and integration, instead of bowing to racist pressures?
      Mr. Prosser: My hon. Friend is right. One former editor of the Dover Express went into the gutter with his attacks on Romany families and asylum seekers in general. He linked asylum seekers with bootleggers and drug smugglers, describing them all as human sewage and saying that we did not have the resources to flush them down the drain. That is how low that newspaper went for a time. The editor has been sacked and, although it is not perfect, the paper is much better.
      In Dover, people are genuinely concerned about the practical problems that they face in a town that they sometimes feel is being overwhelmed by asylum seekers. They feel threatened, as often happens when there is a perceived threat. Education for asylum-seeker children must be provided in a way that is safer and more practical. The proposal will benefit those children more than would be the case if they went to a mainstream school, as long as the period involved remains short.
      In an earlier intervention, I noted that the head teachers of my local schools had asked whether education provision for asylum-seeker children should be centralised. At the time, many Romany people from the former Czech Republic were arriving in Dover. They would stay for two, three or four months before being sent home or moving on. The head teachers wondered whether the children involved were being best served by being put into mainstream education. In schools, the asylum-seeker children began to integrate with local children and to put down roots in the community, but they were then dragged out and sent home.
      Ms Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of asylum applicants, including families with children, will continue to be taken through the dispersal system? Their service needs will continue to be met in the mainstream community, so some of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend—and no one should be romantic and deny that they exist—will still
      176
      have to be tackled head on. I feel strongly that asylum-seeking children should not be given a separate education, but I accept that that is a minority case and that we have to deal with service needs across the board in all the dispersed communities.
      Mr. Prosser: I agree with nearly all those points. I support the proposals in the Bill because they can be regarded almost as a trial or a pilot scheme that will serve to test the waters. The proposals deal with 3,000 or so places in half a dozen sites. I think that they will be successful. The Government got it wrong with tokens, which I also supported. At least, the Government were big enough to admit that they had got the tokens scheme wrong and to change and improve it. The other contentious proposals in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 had to do with dispersal. That was disputed as hotly as this matter tonight, but it has been highly successful in Dover, east Kent and the south-east coast, We were in an unsustainable position, with the National Front holding marches and the British National party putting out literature. The problem of the numbers involved had brought us to a crisis. The 1999 Act's dispersal powers, under whose authority people were moved to other parts of the country, prevented that hostility from spilling over into more aggressive behaviour.
      5.45 pm
      Glenda Jackson: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend on dispersal. As someone who represents an inner-London seat, I know only too well the problems that were being experienced by asylum seekers regarding serious overcrowding in their accommodation. However, I argued, as did every refugee association in London, that dispersal alone would be useless and nonproductive in affording assimilation to those who were granted refugee status in this country if they were not actively and intensively supported in the areas to which they were sent. That support was not forthcoming and I now see people coming back from those areas of dispersal, perfectly prepared to do without any kind of housing benefit and attempting to exist on the measly amount that they are afforded, because they simply cannot stand that sense of isolation. This scheme will, in my view, be exactly the same—under-resourced, underfunded and not thought through in any detail.
      Mr. Prosser: The dispersal system has not been perfect; it has been good in parts, like the curate's egg. It has worked very well in some areas while in others it has been a disaster. I have had the same problem of people coming back to Dover, meeting up with friends and living there again, having been dispersed some time ago.
      On the margin, the overall benefit of dispersal was that it made our position in Dover sustainable. Let me take that a stage further: surely it is because of some of the deficiencies and problems of the ad hoc dispersal system that we are now testing a system that will be much more structured and focused, giving us the ability to provide all the services that were not in place under the old system.
      Other advantages of making central provision relate to health services and health screening, when local resources can become overwhelmed. Local authorities

      177
      and health authorities in areas such as Dover have recently started focusing on the need to introduce new asylum seekers and refugees into the medical system as they settle, to check them and ensure that their health needs are being provided for properly on a central basis. It is only since that happened that asylum seekers have received the support and care that they should have received from the start.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The health issue is very important. I have come across a number of distressing cases in which general practitioners simply refuse to take asylum seekers on their lists until they have been pushed into it by the local health authority. The local papers then chip in and say that asylum seekers are dominating the casualty units in local hospitals. They have no alternative because GPs and the health service are failing them. It is a duty of the health authorities to provide a GP and health care for everybody.
      Mr. Prosser: Absolutely. Who could argue with that? However, I keep pulling hon. Members back to the real world and to what is happening in practice. When we know that services have not been provided properly with the level of care necessary, we must and a different model. What is on offer is a different model. I accept that it is very much a trial or pilot scheme, which must be tested in the real world. However, With the changes that we have discussed and the assurances that we have had from the Minister, I am happy to support the motion.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) also has time to strive once more to catch your eye. I would say in passing that it shows the state to which the House of Commons has reduced itself that our timetabling is now so tight that when we consider amendments passed by an unelected House which has the time to debate these matters at leisure, our discussions are so truncated that we have one hour for all Back Benchers to consider a whole bundle of very important it sues which, tin my opinion, remain unresolved. However, that is for another day.
      I confine myself to Lords amendment No. 17, which essentially bears on the suitability of these large, isolated, rural sites as accommodation centres for the holding of asylum seekers before what we hope will be quicker decisions on whether they are to be allowed to remain.
      I want to make it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, I and others welcome large parts of the Bill. We need a fair system of immigration control and a fairer system for deciding on the applications of asylum seekers. It must be effective and reach swift decisions, and should help us to integrate properly the people whom we want to accept as refugees from persecution, from wherever they come. It should also help us to remove as decently and in as civilised a fashion as possible those who have, unfortunately, no legal right to be in this country.
      Nor do I adopt my position from an 1attitude of nimbyism. I support the idea of accommodation centres, but it is not the case that I would be wholly in favour of huge camp-like holding centres for refugees if only they were 50 miles down the road in somebody
      178
      else's constituency. My constituents hold the same view. They, too, think that setting up such an institution in a rural part of Nottinghamshire is unsuitable, but that it would be equally unsuitable in any other rural part of the country.
      Indeed, one part of the Home Office did not know what another part was doing, so six miles away, in the equally rural village of Whatton, it is proposing to double the size of a large prison that specialises in holding sex offenders. There is some debate about that, but there has been no opposition in principle from significant numbers of inhabitants of rural villages in my constituency. They accept that there is a duty to protect us from such offenders and also that there should be proper rehabilitation facilities in modern prisons. The arguments are about where the entrance should be and whether surface water will make flooding worse than it was before—but those are not matters that will ever trouble the House.
      At Newton, on the other hand, it is proposed to set up, as a trial, a large accommodation centre, designed to hold in isolation for as short a time as possible a transient population of 750 people at any one time. We are told that that will offer a sensible means of dealing with the delicate problem of asylum seeking.
      Amendment No. 17, about which the Minister seemed to take an ambiguous view, would not rule out the hon. Lady's proceeding with that policy if she can justify it. However, it provides that such policies should not proceed unless she and her colleagues are satisfied that the proposed location "is suitable" for the needs of the asylum seekers. What she resists is the idea that the Home Office and its Ministers should be subject to any check on such decisions.
      The planning applications will go to a public inquiry where town and country planning issues can be debated—schools, buses, roads and so on—and questions can be asked about rural areas. However, the decision that that is a suitable way to handle 750 asylum seekers at any one time will not be a proper matter for an inspector appointed to a planning inquiry. It is a policy matter. We are told that it is unthinkable that Home Office Ministers might have to justify such a decision in a court of law and try to satisfy people who point out that the proposed location is not suitable to deal with the needs of asylum seekers.
      I have to agree with Labour Back Benchers, among others. The last Department of which I would say "Heaven forfend that its decisions on the suitability of such measures should be exposed to any challenge before a court or an independent tribunal" is the Home Office, especially when it is dealing with immigration and asylum.
      The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) anticipated some of my points. He asked why large rural camps were chosen. That relates to the atmosphere in which the policy was first introduced. It has to do with process; it has nothing to do with what we are talking about today—the educational needs of children or access to legal services. I shall not burden the House with precise descriptions of Newton in my constituency, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will not have the opportunity to describe the rural areas of his constituency, but Newton was chosen for its isolation. It is a very tiny village.

      179
      The choice of such a rural area was designed to ensure that the Home Office was less likely to lose touch with large numbers of people who were waiting for asylum decisions. They would be less likely to vanish and get lost during the asylum process. When the policy was announced, the then Minister obviously fondly imagined that as all the inhabitants would be required to be in the centre at 11 o'clock at night—no doubt, at roll call—if they missed overnight residence, their application would be turned down and they would be turned away. I suspect that the Home Office now has legal advice that it cannot do that. Just because people refuse to live in a camp at RAF Newton, the Home Office cannot tell them that it will not consider their application for asylum. That was the original idea, however, and since then the Home Office has been struggling to maintain that it would be common sense to hold a large group of assorted nationalities, some families and some single people, in an isolated accommodation centre, telling them that most of them will be deported.
      The Lords held a long debate, by the end of which the Government, yet again, had no friend for their policy. From beginning to end, the Government have won no significant support for their policy either on the right or the left of the spectrum. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary cited a list of groups which had challenged the policy; for example, the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and the Immigration Advisory Service have no time for the policy. They are fearful that it will make it more difficult to deal in a civilised way with the individual problems of applicants and their families. Furthermore, there will undoubtedly be potential for tension and management problems in institutions as large and unattractive as holding centres for asylum seekers deep in rural England, far away from where any of the asylum seekers actually want to be.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clarke: No, because that is why people are being cut out of the debate. With any luck, I shall confine my speech to 10 minutes.
      The Minister has moved to some extent, which is welcome. She has dropped one of the three proposed rural camps to make room for an urban experiment. I shall not be churlish and say that the last and greatest treason is to do the right thing for the wrong reason. I suspect that the Minister has dropped the Worcestershire camp because the Home Office cannot get it to run owing to local planning issues. The Government have probably reassessed the cost. They are spending millions on these so-called trials and they can probably only afford two big ones and a little one.
      The Minister's third proposal has been urged on her from all sides. It is in line with successful experience on the continent. It is what legal advisers, educationists and most of the advisory bodies want—smaller camps that are nearer urban facilities. It is a belated step in the right direction that, minutes before the measure was subject to further parliamentary scrutiny today, the Government were prepared to make that modification.
      180
      If the Minister would tell us that, for the time being, she will set aside the big rural camps that nobody wants and assess whether a small urban camp can work in a civilised way, that would be a much better way to proceed. If she continues to insist that the Home Office should be immune from any review of its decision that big camps are suitable, we should support the Lords in their amendment No. 17.
      Sooner or later, the Government will quietly abandon the policy. They have not won a friend for it from the moment they announced it. They are scrabbling on, through humiliation after humiliation, trying to defend their large-camps policy. They want to save face today by insisting on using their majority to reverse their lordships' amendment. However, I hope that they will find a dignified way of saving a bit of face by eventually adopting the more sensible policy that has been urged on the Minister by Labour Back Benchers with the same vigour as by Liberal Democrats and by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      6 pm
      Mrs. Eliman: I have no doubt about the Government's good intentions in this matter, but my deep concerns come from my experiences of trying to assist asylum seekers in my area, where I have seen the practical problems of the present system. I am worried that those difficulties will be intensified in the pilot schemes. I want to refer to practical issues.
      My first concern is about large detention centres in rural areas, in isolated places. I always have a fear about the treatment of people who are isolated from mainstream services. That makes them particularly vulnerable.
      The big question is who will be running the centres. I am told that Ministers will be deciding who is contracted to run the centres, but who will advise Ministers? Will it be the National Asylum Support Service, which has stood by while the discredited provider in Liverpool, Landmark Liverpool Ltd., has offered an appalling service to asylum seekers? Only after three years of intensive campaigning, finally involving the chief constable of Merseyside, did NASS stop using the tower blocks to house asylum seekers in appalling conditions and under great duress.
      I have no assurance whatever that under the proposed system—presumably where NASS-advised Ministers decide who should run these isolated detention centres—companies such as the discredited Landmark Liverpool will not be running a detention centre full of vulnerable people who are isolated from mainstream services. I have very deep concerns about that.
      I accept that the Government are proposing a pilot scheme, but I have not heard from my hon. Friend the Minister how it will be assessed, on what criteria it will be assessed or, indeed, who will conduct the assessment. Will hon. Members be involved in deciding whether the scheme will cease to be a pilot? It seems to be the Government's intention that the pilot scheme will be a precursor to a general scheme based on such an arrangement. Indeed, some of my hon. Friend's remarks in introducing the amendments have given me reason to believe that that is so.

      181
      If we allow the proposal to go through, could the Minister—perhaps another Minister—in silence and away from public scrutiny take a decision to expand the system without hon. Members who are at the practical end of what happens having any input?
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Some of the points that my hon. Friend rightly raises could be addressed when we see the outcome of the inquiry into the Yarl's Wood fire. Does she agree that it may be premature to take positions on the size of accommodation centres, never mind their location, until we see the outcome of that inquiry?
      Mrs. Ellman: I share my hon. Friend's concern.
      Above all, I am extremely concerned that the Government appear to be toughening their stance on asylum seekers and leaping into the, unknown in a way that will evade the scrutiny which has always applied to the provision of mainstream services. We are dealing with vulnerable people; they deserve proper attention. I am extremely concerned about the implications of what we are being asked to agree.
      Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for having been so concise.
      I am privileged to chair the Select Committee on International Development, which I suppose takes me to more countries where there are potential asylum seekers than many hon. Members. One could begin to consider the issue from the perspective of asylum seekers themselves. Indeed, the Lords amendment does so. One concern that everyone in the House should have is that not a single organisation concerned with the welfare of refugees or asylum seekers supports what the Government are proposing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, read out a letter dated 3 May from a lot of organisations, many of which we all support. Ministers have had since 3 May to convince those organisations that the Government's proposal is right. They have not won over a single organisation. I am sure that I am not alone in making that comment. Indeed, other hon. Members have said that even today the Refugee Council has been lobbying Members, seeking to persuade us that the Government need to adopt another approach.
      The Home Secretary—I do not mean this pejoratively—is an honourable mat, and the Minister has had the decency to listen to those in the communities involved, but they are committed to the trial. I am sure that everyone in the House would want a trial of this kind and importance to succeed, but knowing—I hope—my patch pretty well after representing it for nearly 20 years, and given that the proposed accommodation centre is to be located in a genuinely isolated area, I am concerned that anyone who is stuck there for up to six months will he bored out of their minds. Against that background, the experiment is likely to fail. I therefore very much hope that the other place will cause this House to think again if Ministers try to drive through the proposal with their large majority.
      The Minister sought to give the impression that the Government were making concessions. They have not made any concessions on accommodation centres; they
      182
      are still intent on establishing large. 750-person accommodation centres in rural areas. The Minister did say in her opening comments that the Government intended to abide by the planning system and to acknowledge whatever the planning inspector had to say. It may be of help if I tell her that only today residents in my constituency, together with a house builder, have lodged a writ in the High Court seeking judicial review against Ministers' decisions not to conduct an environmental impact assessment. Clearly, that judicial review will have to be heard and determined before there can be any public inquiry. Nevertheless, I certainly welcome the fact that there will be a full and proper public inquiry, as indeed do the 10,000 or so of my constituents who petitioned Parliament asking for it, and at least town and country planning matters will be considered by an independent inspector.
      I ask the Secretary of State and those on the Treasury Bench to reconsider the policy of establishing very large accommodation centres in remote rural areas, because I fear that against that background the experiment is likely to fail. Of course Ministers may easily say to me or other hon. Members that I would make such comments in seeking to represent the concerns of my constituents over many issues that I do not have time to go into, or would point out the extra statutory burdens that might fall on district and county councils, about which they are understandably concerned, especially against the background of the Government's cutting their grants. Ministers can discount what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I have had to say, but why on earth are they discounting the comments of Amnesty International, the Law Society, the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service, which deal with refugees and asylum seekers daily?
      One would have expected those organisations at least to reach some compromise with the Government on this issue, or the Government to move some way towards those bodies' concerns, but all that Ministers have done is to say that, in addition to the very large centres that they intend to establish, there might be, as part of the experiment, other smaller centres. That does not meet the concerns that have been raised by all those organisations.
      If the Government choose to drive through their proposal by the weight of their majority in this House, I hope that, given that the issue is so serious and that so little attention seems to have been paid to the organisations most concerned with the welfare of refugees and asylum seekers, the other place will yet again cause this House to think about what we are doing.
      Glenda Jackson: I associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on the issue of the present inefficiencies of the Home Office in dealing with asylum seekers.
      The bulk of this debate has been concentrated on those who will be coming into this country for the first time and on how we will deal with them. I should like to raise the plight of so many of my constituents who have been in this country for a considerable number of years—eight years is not unusual—and who are still

      183
      awaiting a final decision on their applications. The processing of appeals is taking longer and longer. Once an appeal is granted, the relevant paper that informs the asylum seeker of that is lost or delayed. Passports are lost; travel documents and applications are lost.
      Linked to that is this vital question: why are we going down the road of vastly expensive accommodation centres, which no one wants and no one in their right mind thinks will be a success, when we might spend a fraction of that money to employ a minority of the people involved to improve the present system, so that it does indeed become firm, fast and fair? Currently, it is none of those things.
      The central issue is the abomination of educating the children of asylum seekers outside mainstream schools. That seems to me to be unutterably heinous, and the practicalities strike me as absolutely absurd. The Home Office briefing talks about structuring classes for children dependent on their age. That presupposes that every intake of would-be asylum seekers has the relevant number of children of a certain age to create a proper class. That is highly unlikely. It is also highly unlikely that all those asylum-seeking children will speak only one language. It is entirely possible that they will be attempting to learn English when no one around them—let alone the person who is teaching them—speaks even their own mother tongue.
      Mr. Eric Joyce: Did not my hon. Friend say earlier that there was a primary school in her area in which 57 languages were spoken? Does that not defeat her argument?
      Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The majority of children in those primary schools, in some of which more than 57 languages are spoken, have English as their mother tongue. If a child spends most of its day within a mainstream school, the language it will hear most consistently is English. A child will not most consistently hear English if it is kept in an accommodation centre.
      It is wholly unreasonable to believe that the fears of a child who is potentially traumatised when it first enters this country will suddenly be excised when it is placed in what is, to all intents and purposes, a prison. It might be a very nice, well run prison, but it is most certainly—
      It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 183.

      Division No. 346]

      [6:12 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bell, Stuart

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benn, Hilary

      Austin, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Bailey, Adrian

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      184

      Berry, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Best, Harold

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Flint, Caroline

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Follett, Barbara

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, rh Derek

      Blunkett, rh David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bryant, Chris

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burden, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cairns, David

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Challen, Colin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Hodge, Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cummings, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hutton, rh John

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Denham, rh John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      185

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Linton, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Ruane, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Soley, Clive

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stringer, Graham

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miliband, David

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moran, Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Morgan, Julie

      Timms, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Trickett, Jon

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Truswell, Paul

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Organ, Diana

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Owen, Albert

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Perham, Linda

      Ward, Claire

      Picking, Anne

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      White, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Woodward, Shaun

      Purchase, Ken

      Woolas, Phil

      Purnell, James

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      186

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Joan Ryan and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gummer, rh John

      Allan, Richard

      Hague, rh William

      Amess, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bacon, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Heald, Oliver

      Barrett, John

      Heath, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hendry, Charles

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burstow, Paul

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Butterfill, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Leigh, Edward

      Cameron, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lidington, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Clappison, James

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacKay, rh Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maclean, rh David

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Cotter, Brian

      Curry, rh David

      Mates, Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mercer, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Doughty, Sue

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Ewing, Annabelle

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Paice, James

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Paterson, Owen

      Francois, Mark

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Garnier, hon. Edward

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Randall, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, rh John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Grayling, Chris

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Greenway, John

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Grieve, Dominic

      187

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Thurso, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Sanders, Adrian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Wiggin, Bill

      Willetts, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Wishart, Pete

      Stunell, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Young, rh Sir George

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mr. Mark Hoban

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 28 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 28, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 19 disagreed to.

    Clause 15

      SUPPORT FOR DESTITUTE ASYLUM-SEEKER
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 9, line 16, at end insert—
      ", and
      (c) there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Beverley Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 96.

      Division No. 347]

      [6:29 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bell, Stuart

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Hilary

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blunkett, rh David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Battle, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      188

      Bryant, Chris

      Healey, John

      Burden, Richard

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Burnham, Andy

      Heppell, John

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hermon Lady

      Cairns, David

      Hesford Stephen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heyes, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hinchlifte, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hodge, Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Challen, Colin

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hughes Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hughes Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clelland, David

      Hutton, rh John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Corston, Jean

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kidney, David

      Denham, rh John

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

      Lepper David

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Linton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Love, Andrew

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Flint, Caroline

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Follett, Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, rh Derek

      McCabe, Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings &Rye)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foulkes, rh George

      MacDougall, John

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      McKechin, Ann

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacShane, Denis

      Goggins, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Martlew, Eric

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Merron, Gillian

      189

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Miliband, David

      Soley, Clive

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      Mole, Chris

      Spellar, rh John

      Moran, Margaret

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Owen, Albert

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prescott, rh John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purnell, James

      Ward, Claire

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      White, Brian

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rooney, Terry

      Woolas, Phil

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Ruane, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright David (Telford)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheridan, Jim

      Joan Ryan and

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Coleman, lain

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Cummings, John

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Breed, Colin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Dismore, Andrew

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Burnett, John

      Doughty, Sue

      Burnside, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Burstow, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clapham, Michael

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      190

      Gidley, Sandra

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Perham, Linda

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Hancock, Mike

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Harvey, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Heath, David

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Keetch, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Thurso, John

      McDonnell, John

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Winnick, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Wishart, Pete

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Morgan, Julie

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Öpik, Lembit

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Organ, Diana

      Jeremy Corbyn

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 19, 25 and 26 made.
      Lords amendment No. 38 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words so restored made.
      Lords amendment No. 39 disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) to the words so restored made.
      Lords amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 24, 27, 29 to 37, 40 and 43 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

    Clause 61

      SERIOUS CRIMINAL
      Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 34, line 3, leave out from "is" to end of line 5 and insert
      "convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—

      (a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment is ten years or more, or

      (b) the offence has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)."

      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 105, amendment (c) thereto and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 106, amendment (a) thereto, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu, Lords

      191
      amendments Nos. 107 and 108, and Lords amendment No. 109, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words so restored.
      Mr. Blunkett: There appears to have been an interesting misunderstanding. As I understand it, their lordships did not after all intend to prevent us from disqualifying serious criminals, and I am very relieved to hear it. We might therefore gain agreement that there should be a clear presumption sending a clear message that those committing known and serious crimes will be disqualified.
      However, I accept that Lord Kingsland made a valid point in saying that, as well as a clear definition so that everyone would understand it, there should be a schedule of offences that may fall outside the specific, defined sentence that is applicable, but which would constitute serious offences. Lord Kingsland referred to
      "the bizarre situation that … a person sentenced to 18, 21 or even 23 months for dealing in drugs or for a sexual offence against a child would not be presumed to be a serious criminal."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2002; Vol. 640, c. 356.]
      I recognise that that is unacceptable. Although my presumption is that the judiciary, especially in relation to forthcoming legislation following the Queen's Speech, would always have sent such criminals into custody for more than two years, I accept that there may be some doubt. We are therefore prepared to accept a schedule that would deal with such serious offences. I stress that it would be about serious offences and not trivialities, and we would want to assure and reassure the House that that would be the case.
      6.45 pm
      Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary has confirmed that the existing law ensures that a court can recommend deportation of anybody convicted of a serious offence under the Immigration Act 1971 and that that would follow as a matter of course. The court has power to recommend deportation and he can act on such a recommendation.
      Mr. Blunkett: A judge could recommend deportation, but we are entirely in the hands of individual judges as to whether that happens or whether they send people to jail for the oddest things, such as trying to get out of the country because their papers were incorrect in the first place. There have recently been some very interesting judgments.
      I am trying to deal with this House, and not someone else, taking responsibility for determining that a serious criminal should be disqualified and removed from the country. I do not accept the Liberal amendment insisting that a custodial sentence of 10 years or more should have to be imposed for an offence to be deemed serious—far from it. Most people outside using reasonable definitions would consider that the provisions, including a defined set of circumstances under the schedule, would make sense.
      I hope that their lordships accept that we have taken on board entirely the spirit of what they debated and now appear to have intended and that we can now agree.
      192
      Of course, offences committed overseas would not include acts that are not offences here, so we will not deal with crimes that are considered in some countries to be political and will not, therefore, disqualify people who have a perfectly legitimate and serious case that they are risk of death or torture. Such people would not be detrimentally affected. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to accept the motion to disagree.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: It is always a pleasure to talk to the House with so much support from one's colleagues. [Laughter.] I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in his place to give me that support.
      The Home Secretary will agree that it is a pity that such an important clause can be scrutinised in the House for only about 15 minutes. That is the way in which we operate, but it is perhaps unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill contained no such clause on Second Reading and that it did not appear in Committee. He also knows that, in effect, it was rushed through unscrutinised with 14 or more other clauses and several schedules just before 10 pm on 21 May. That is a pity, because he is a great supporter of debate in this House. I hope that he accepts that I speak with some sincerity in saying that is a pity that such important issues sometimes do not get the opportunity to be fully debated.
      Opposition Members appreciate what the Home Secretary has said. We think that the clause as it was originally drafted, so as to involve a sentence of two years or more, was flawed. Lord Kingsland pointed out in the House of Lords on several occasions that the presumption of being a serious criminal would apply only where a British court imposed a two-year prison sentence. That leads to potential difficulties, as the Home Secretary readily acknowledges. Wearing my judicial hat—I was regarded on Monday as a serious sentencer, but on Wednesday I shall perhaps be viewed as a less serious sentencer—I appreciate that there is a potential discrepancy in sentences that different judges hand down for the same crimes.
      Another problem is that the refugee convention refers to especially serious crimes but the Government's test in the Bill originally related not to the seriousness of the crime but to the punishment. Under the Government's original proposals, a person who had been sentenced to two years for assault would be a serious criminal, but not someone who had been sentenced to 18 months for child pornography offences.
      The sentences imposed by courts abroad posed an additional problem. They might vary tremendously from those imposed in this country, and might or might not relate to the seriousness of the crime. When their lordships changed the Bill, the media reports of the Government's defeat in the House of Lords were based on factually incorrect information. They claimed that the amendment that was passed simply raised the threshold for presumption as a serious criminal from a sentence of two years to one of 10 years. However, we were discussing crimes for which a 10-year sentence could be imposed.
      Whenever I have stood at the Dispatch Box, the Home Secretary has always been kind to me. However, he was a little unkind, if press reports are true, in raging

      193
      at the tactics of Conservative peers who joined the Liberal Democrats to block moves giving the Government the right to deport refugees who had committed serious crimes. He apparently pledged to reverse such "silliness". He now knows that the Conservative party in the House of Lords was doing its best to introduce genuine sense to the proceedings. The vote on the clause was won by 77 votes to 71. Many of right hon. Gentleman's supporters were absent that night.
      Conservative Members in the House of Lords tabled another amendment on Third Reading to give the Home Secretary power to add a schedule of offences when the maximum penalty was less than 10 years but he believed that the offence was sufficiently serious to warrant the perpetrator's inclusion in the definition of a serious criminal.
      Matters have moved on. The House of Lords had a mature debate about the subject, with the result that the Bill reverts to us in a different state. The Conservative proposal was that someone would constitute a serious criminal if he or she were convicted of either an offence for which the maximum sentence is 10 years or more, regardless of the sentence received, or any other offence specified by the Home Secretary as one to which the presumption of serious crime should apply, for example, child abduction, child pornography and drug dealing.
      The Governments current proposal states that a person is deemed to be convicted
      of a particularly serious crime and to constitute a danger … if he is convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State, or he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence and the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion the offence is similar to an offence specified".
      That is fair enough, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that Conservative Members believe that the proposal is good. Perhaps it is not perfect, but it moves the debate forward.
      We believe that Government amendment (a) fulfils the convention's principles. We previously doubted whether the Government's proposals did that. However, proposed new subsection (3B)(b) provides that the order
      "shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      I take it that that means that one would need to pray against it rather than using affirmative resolution procedure. Some people claim that the affirmative resolution procedure might be more satisfactory.
      When the provision was first included in the Bill on the last night of Committee, we had no chance to consider it carefully. A combination of peers has examined the matter and pointed out the flaws. Consequently, the Home Secretary has presented a proposal that we regard as satisfactory. We are grateful, and I thank right hon. Gentleman for it.
      Simon Hughes: We are in difficult territory. As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) suggested, the House of Commons has not debated the matter during the Bill's passage, although it was discussed at length in the Lords. When the provision left this place, I understood that those convicted of any offence and sentenced to more than two years would be caught by it. However, the events that the hon. Gentleman described
      194
      ensued, and resulted in a different definition of offence and maximum offence, and the provision for a schedule. On advice, my colleagues and I take a different view.
      I do not argue with the Home Secretary that one has to breach a threshold of 10 years for the offence to be serious. Our amendments have been probing. However, the matter does not need specific legislation because it is governed by international obligations and current law. The courts are allowed to deport people and the Home Secretary can get rid of people if they pose a risk to the country's security. We do not need to go down the road proposed by Government amendment (a).
      We believe that although it is right for the Government to be able to protect us against those who have offended—
      It being three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No. 104 disagreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 105 and 106 disagreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 106 be made.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 51.

      Division No. 348]

      [6:59 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale and Darwin)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Austin, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bailey, Adrian

      Casale, Roger

      Baird, Vera

      Caton, Martin

      Banks, Tony

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Barnes, Harry

      Challen, Colin

      Battle, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Berry, Roger

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Best, Harold

      Cohen, Harry

      Blackman, Liz

      Coleman, lain

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Colman, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Connarty, Michael

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Borrow, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      195

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jamieson, David

      David, Wayne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Denham, rh John

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Efford, Clive

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lepper, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foulkes, rh George

      McCabe, Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gapes, Mike (llford S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKechin, Ann

      Goggins, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hain, rh Peter

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hanson, David

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hermon, Lady

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heyes, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miliband, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      196

      Olner, Bill

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Southworth, Helen

      Organ, Diana

      Spellar, rh John

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Owen, Albert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Stewart David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Perham, Linda

      Picking, Anne

      Stewart Ian (Eccles)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stringer Graham

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pound, Stephen

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas. Gareth (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Tipping Paddy

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Watson Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Watts, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      White, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Sawford, Phil

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woolas Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Joan Ryan and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Derek Twigg

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Hancock, Mike

      Barrett, John

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Breed, Colin

      Harvey, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Heath, David

      Burnett, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Burstow, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Keetch, Paul

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lamb, Norman

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cotter, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Öpik, Lembit

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      197

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rendel, David

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wishart, Pete

      Stunell, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Thurso, John

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Government amendments (b) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 106 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 109 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 107 and 108 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords Amendment: No. 84, after clause 48, to insert the following new clause—Late claim for asylum: refusal of support.
    Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to discuss amendments (c) to (f), amendment (a), Lords amendment No. 86 and amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 99 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
    Simon Hughes: We come now to financial support for asylum seekers. I am conscious that, as a consequence of the guillotine constraints under which we are working, we have only a quarter of an hour to debate the amendments, and this House has not previously had an opportunity to deal with these matters because the measures were introduced in the House of Lords when the Bill was recommitted to a Committee. The Government produced these amendments, after the summer, at the end of the Report stage, and they are tightening the rules at the eleventh hour. In our view, those changes are unfair and likely to result in considerable hardship and lack of redress.
    The Lords amendment states:
    "The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if…the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, and…the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom."
    Amendment (b) would change the balance, so that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that there was undue delay in making the claim. There are many people who, through no fault of their own, do not immediately make an asylum application. It is not only Liberal Democrat Members who believe that; hon. Members on both sides of the House who deal with asylum cases know that there are such people, and current and previous Labour Front Benchers have said so in proceedings on earlier legislation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said so when he was Home Secretary. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) sought to pray against orders that would have had the same effect as the Lords amendment because he was unhappy about them.
    198
    Most persuasively, the very good Committee of Members from all parties in both Houses, which we set up to deal with human rights issues, said of the Lords amendment that
    "there is a significant risk that the new clause could lead to a violation of Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in cases where the circumstances did not amount to a violation of one of the Convention rights as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998… it is difficult to envisage a case where a person could be destitute without there being a threat of violation of Articles 3 and/or 8 of the ECHR. We reiterate that the Secretary of State has a duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Acts 1998 to avoid that risk. We draw this to the attention of each House."
    7.15 pm
    My experience is that people who come here who are ignorant or frightened of the system may well not come to the attention of the authorities for days or months. They are afraid to do so because they do not know what the consequences will be. The danger in the Bill—although, I hope, not the intention—is that many of those people will be ruled out from receiving financial support and from the ability to appeal against that decision because the Secretary of State could say that he was not
    "satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable"
    The phrase
    "as soon as reasonably practicable"
    means at the first available opportunity, which should be objectively defined. There should be an objective test, based on when the person knew that they were required to make a claim. I shall give the House one parallel. In civil litigation, where there is a three-year limit for action, people are entitled to start the clock not when they sustain the injury for which they are entitled to make a claim but when they become aware of their entitlement.
    I hope that the House accepts that the Government should have to satisfy themselves that any delay is undue, unreasonable or unjustified. This case is simply put, but it has huge implications because, in the long term, the Secretary of State may be in breach of the convention. In the short term, however, I am more concerned that many deserving people who will otherwise be destitute will not be entitled to the support that we, as a rich country, must give them when they come to us looking for asylum.
    Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the number of people who will become destitute. Is he aware that there are already thousands of asylum seekers who, having been dispersed to other parts of the country, have removed themselves to London from a place of safety and are sleeping on people's floors? We have a situation, mainly in London, in which the very poor are trying to house the desperately poor in their rooms.
    Simon Hughes: I agree. My experience from my constituency is that there are many people who do not claim support, do not receive it or are appealing against a decision so they are dependent on the charity of others in pretty much the same situation. The bigger danger is for people who have no one to look after them, because

    199
    they are likely to be out on the streets and open to abuse and exploitation. If we are trying to keep refugees and asylum seekers out of the hands of criminals, traffickers and exploiters, we are going the wrong way about it. I hope that the House will support amendment (b).
    Mr. Blunkett: I ask the House to reject the amendment on the very precept put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He gave an example based on civil litigation, saying that the clock should start when we presumed that people had become aware of their condition. I presume that people who come to this country to escape from death and torture do so to claim asylum, and I presume that they will claim asylum when they get into the country.
    There are people who fulfil other immigration and visa requirements and who remain here, sustaining themselves, for a long time, until they run out of money or their course finishes. They then claim asylum so that we may sustain them for a further period. We all agree, I hope, that they should be ruled out from receiving that support.
    The question is how reasonable we are regarding people who come here but do not claim asylum at the port of entry. We need to be reasonable and to take into account the trauma that people experience. We need to allow a reasonable period before we presume that people have come into the country for another reason and have been sustaining themselves, then when they can no longer do so, have decided that the asylum system would sustain them, being more generous than the equivalent something-for-something welfare to work system.
    We are saying to people, "If you have been here some time, by all means tell us how you got here, what your circumstances are, the means of entry and what you have been doing since you reached this country and we will provide you with support." That is what our proposals provide, and I think that that is reasonable. People with families will be sustained and those with special needs will be supported. That is in the proposal. People who have been in this country for some time and have decided to claim asylum can continue with that claim, but there is no reason on God's earth why we should sustain them. We should remember that those who choose to take part in the dispersal system receive not only sustenance, such as food and heating, but accommodation, equipment and other materials. As we do not automatically do the same for the indigenous population, it is not a lot to ask that we put these people on equal terms.
    Annabelle Ewing rose—
    Mr. Chris Mullin rose ߞ
    Mr. Blunkett: I give way to the hon. Lady.
    Annabelle Ewing: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of this provision and its apparent reasonableness, but if it is so reasonable why was the proposal introduced at the eleventh hour?
    Mr. Blunkett: One reason was that the number of people who have been in the country a long time and
    200
    have cottoned on to the new social security system has grown exponentially. The in-country claims are substantial.
    Mr. Mullin: I am listening carefully to what the Home Secretary has to say on this point. He will understand that many of us are concerned that the proposal will lead to destitute asylum seekers. We want to be assured that there is sufficient flexibility in the system to cope with the hard cases that arise. Is my right hon. Friend able to offer any reassurance on that point? I acknowledge all the points that he made, but I would still like to be assured that those who fall through the system for whatever reason do not end up sleeping on the streets.
    Mr. Blunkett: I think that our proposal to respond if people give us a complete and accurate account of their circumstances covers the point that my hon. Friend rightly makes. People are right to be concerned. Given the sparsity of time owing to the previous votes, I shall just show one commitment of good faith.
    Considerable concern has been expressed about the amount that we provide to sustain mothers with young children and small babies. The Minister of State and I are announcing tonight that, from February, we will increase the amount by £3 for mothers with children between the ages of one and five, and by £5 for those with children under one, so that they can have healthy food and milk on the same basis as the Department of Health provides elsewhere. If new mothers can show that they cannot breast-feed, we will introduce their top-up immediately. We are desperately trying to provide a sensible balance.
    Mr. Coleman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because I know that he has a particular concern.
    Mr. Coleman: In the past, I have heard my right hon. Friend make comparisons between an intentionally homeless local authority case and the circumstances in these proposals. He asked if we do not offer this provision to the indigenous population, how, we can justify giving it to asylum seeker. I put it to him that if someone is intentionally homeless—every hon. Member will have had an intentionally homeless case in which the decision has been wrong—a number of possibilities are open to him. First, there is an appeal or a review. The briefing that some of us have received advises that there would be an appeal. Can my right hon. Friend clarify whether there would or would not be an appeal? Secondly, if I am an intentionally homeless person given that decision and I lose my appeal, I have the right to claim housing benefit and income support. The comparisons that my right hon. Friend made between the intentionally homeless member of the indigenous population and the destitute asylum seeker who is refused support do not hold up when we look at the facts.
    Mr. Blunkett: Under our proposals, we are presuming that the people who claim late are accommodating themselves or are accommodated by others. They are not turning up as people who are homeless by dint of

    201
    being thrown out would turn up and ask for accommodation. We are dealing with late application for asylum, not destitution per se.
    Jeremy Corbyn rose—
    Mr. Gerrard rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
    Jeremy Corbyn: When this proposal was debated in the House of Lords, consideration was given to cases in which the situation in the country from which the person was fleeing had changed dramatically and they made a late application that could be considered. Could the Home Secretary explain to us under what circumstances such late applications would be acceptable?
    Mr. Blunkett: If the in-country circumstances had changed, perhaps because there had been a coup, the individual presenting an asylum claim would legitimately believe that he was at risk of death or torture if he returned to his country of origin. It is the change that has taken place in-country that makes the difference in respect of the judgment. I think that that is fair and reasonable. If someone's home country has been taken over or the regime has changed to one that would threaten them, we do not intend to send them back. They would automatically have a legitimate right to claim asylum and to be supported from the moment they made that claim.
    Mr. Gerrard: I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the fact that the number of people applying late is increasing exponentially and that is why something had to be done. I tabled two written questions that were answered earlier this month, one of which asked about the dates at which people applied—less than three months, six months or 12 months—and was told that the information was not available. I was also told that there were no statistics available on the length of time asylum applicants have been in the United Kingdom before making an application for support. I am not sure where the evidence comes from. If we do not have an appeal as well, what will actually happen is that appeals will take place and they will be—
    It being three and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, put forward the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 297.

    Division No. 349]

    [7:27 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Austin, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Barrett, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Berry, Roger

    Cotter, Brian

    Breed, Colin

    Cousins, Jim

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Doughty, Sue

    Burnett, John

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Burstow, Paul

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    202

    Gerrard, Neil

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Rendel, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Harvey, Nick

    Sawford, Phil

    Heath, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Keetch, Paul

    Thurso, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    McDonnell, John

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Willis, Phil

    Wishart, Pete

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Tome Brake

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Clelland, David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Allen, Graham

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Colman, Tony

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Connarty, Michael

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Baird, Vera

    Corston, Jean

    Banks, Tony

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Barnes, Harry

    Cruddas, Jon

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bell, Stuart

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Benn, Hilary

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bennett, Andrew

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Best, Harold

    David, Wayne

    Blackman, Liz

    Davidson, Ian

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Borrow, David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Bryant, Chris

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Burgon, Colin

    Edwards, Huw

    Burnham, Andy

    Efford, Clive

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Cairns, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caplin, Ivor

    Flint, Caroline

    Casale, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, rh Derek

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Challen, Colin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Clapham, Michael

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Gapes, Mike (llford S)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    203

    Gilroy, Linda

    McWalter, Tony

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Goggins, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Grogan, John

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hain, rh Peter

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hanson, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Martlew, Eric

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Merron, Gillian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hendrick, Mark

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Heppell, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Hermon, Lady

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mole, Chris

    Heyes, David

    Moran, Margaret

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Olner, Bill

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Organ, Diana

    Hutton, rh John

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Owen, Albert

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Picking, Anne

    Jamieson, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prescott, rh John

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Purnell, James

    Kemp, Fraser

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kidney, David

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Rooney, Terry

    Linton, Martin

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Love, Andrew

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Ruane, Chris

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    McCabe, Stephen

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Salter, Martin

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    MacDonald, Calum

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDougall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McIsaac, Shona

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McKechin, Ann

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Singh, Marsha

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Skinner, Dennis

    204

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Soley, Clive

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ward, Claire

    Southworth, Helen

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Spellar, rh John

    Watts, David

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    White, Brian

    Squire, Rachel

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Win nick, David

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stringer, Graham

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wyatt, Derek

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Joan Ryan

    Question accordingly negatived.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendment No. 84 agreed to [Special Entry].
    Lords amendment No. 99 disagreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 86.
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 55.

    Division No. 350]

    [7:39 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Blunkett, rh David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Borrow, David

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Brennan Kevin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Austin, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Bryant, Chris

    Baird, Vera

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Banks, Tony

    Burden, Richard

    Battle, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Bayley, Hugh

    Burnham, Andy

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cairns, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benn, Hilary

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Berry, Roger

    Caplin, Ivor

    Best, Harold

    Casale, Roger

    Blackman, Liz

    Caton, Martin

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Challen, Colin

    205

    Clapham, Michael

    Hermon, Lady

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Heyes, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cohen, Harry

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hutton, rh John

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Corston, Jean

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Jamieson, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cummings, John

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    David, Wayne

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kidney, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Doran, Frank

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Lepper, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Edwards, Huw

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Efford, Clive

    Linton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Love, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fisher, Mark

    McCabe, Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Flint, Caroline

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Follett, Barbara

    MacDonald, Calum

    Foster, rh Derek

    MacDougall, John

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    McKechin, Ann

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Foulkes, rh George

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    MacShane, Denis

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gardiner, Barry

    McWalter, Tony

    Gilroy, Linda

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mallaber, Judy

    Goggins, Paul

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Grogan, John

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hanson, David

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Miller, Andrew

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Mole, Chris

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Moran, Margaret

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mullin, Chris

    Heppell, John

    Munn, Ms Meg

    206

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Soley, Clive

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Southworth, Helen

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Spellar, rh John

    Olner, Bill

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Squire, Rachel

    Organ, Diana

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Owen, Albert

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Picking, Anne

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Stringer, Graham

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pound, Stephen

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Timms, Stephen

    Purchase, Ken

    Tipping, Paddy

    Purnell, James

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Trickett, Jon

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Truswell, Paul

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Robinson Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ward, Claire

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    White, Brian

    Rooney Terry

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wills, Michael

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Salter, Martin

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Woolas, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Sawford, Phil

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheridan, Jim

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Singh, Marsha

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Gillian Merron and

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mr. Fraser Kemp

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Barrett, John

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Gidley, Sandra

    Breed, Colin

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Hancock, Mike

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Burnett, John

    Burstow, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Heath, David

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Cotter, Brian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Keetch, Paul

    Doughty, Sue

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    207

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lamb, Norman

    Stunell, Andrew

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McDonnell, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Thurso, John

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Willis, Phil

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Wishart, Pete

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Rendel, David

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Sanders, Adrian

    Tom Brake

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 86 agreed to.
    Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inadvertently gave the House the wrong age groups when I addressed the issue of new additional family support for healthy eating and milk. I was correct in saying that we are going to provide an extra £5 for babies under the age of one, but I should have said that the extra £3 was for those between the ages of one and three, not one and five. My apologies to the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State's correction, which is now firmly on the record.

    Clause 69

      ADJUDICATORS
      Lords amendment: No. 127, in page 39, line 17, at end insert
      ", and
      ( ) may appoint one or more adjudicators as Deputy Regional Adjudicator."
      Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 153, 154 and amendment (a), 155, 156, 157 and amendments (a) to (f), 158 to 178, 179 and amendments (a) and (b), 180 to 183, 184 and amendments (a) and (b), 185 to 187, 188 and amendments (a) to (d), 189 to 191, and 215 and amendments (a) to (c).
      Beverley Hughes: The amendments in this group are for the most part minor and technical and I do not intend to speak to them, although I will be happy to answer any questions. I should, however, explain why the Government tabled amendments to non-suspensive appeals provisions in clauses 82 and 101 which were fully discussed in the other place but which this House has yet to be able to consider. Without delaying the House, I hope that I can set the provisions in the context of what the Government are trying to achieve through their overall approach to asylum and immigration, as outlined in February's White Paper.
      The strategy is threefold, and it is important to remember the three elements. The first is to return asylum to its proper purpose: a route through which
      208
      people who are fleeing persecution can readily and easily be identified and, once they have gained permission to stay, be integrated properly and helped to settle here. So returning asylum to its proper purpose is a very important part of the strategy. The second element is the need to do a lot better at integrating refugees, including opening a gateway—with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—for people to come in directly from out of country. The third element, because we do welcome migrants generally, is the opening up of managed legitimate routes for economic migration.
      Most Members will agree that we need to deal with the very large numbers who seek to remain here on the basis of asylum and human rights claims that are clearly unfounded, and whose motivation in coming has to do not with fleeing persecution but with other objectives—however understandable—that are outside the asylum system. The term "clearly unfounded" is not defined in legislation, but the courts have held that it constitutes a claim that is obviously without substance, or is bound to fail. An example would be those who come here for economic reasons, or those whose fears—even if true—would not amount to persecution, or to inhuman or degrading treatment. It is essential that clearly unfounded cases be identified and dealt with quickly. There can be no justification for allowing a person who has made a clearly unfounded claim to remain here to pursue a hopeless case.
      We debated the arguments for introducing non-suspensive appeals at an earlier stage. The amendments to clauses 82 and 101 build on this provision by introducing a list of countries where a claim will be presumed to be clearly unfounded.
      Simon Hughes: The Minister rightly points out that we had a general debate, and we shall come to the more specific view that the Government have taken in the Lords. Superficially, the argument is very appealing, but will she explain why the Government are proposing such a rigorous response in terms of their definition of manifestly unfounded cases? Throughout the 50 years for which we have been signed up to the refugee convention, people have regularly come from other democracies with cases that were found to be good ones. Most importantly, the Home Office's own statistics for this year show that about 40 per cent. of "manifestly unfounded" certificates are being overturned on appeal to the adjudicator. It seems that, when looked at more carefully, apparently manifestly unfounded cases are not unfounded. That would trouble anybody, and it is, I hope, a reason for proceeding much more carefully than the Government's proposals allow us to do.
      Beverley Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and it is a valid one, but he is not comparing like with like. Claims that have been dealt with will not go through the same system that we plan to use for the cases under discussion. I shall outline the system for the hon. Gentleman shortly, but I agree that we must ensure that the quality of the initial decision making, the care taken at that stage, and the building in of additional scrutiny are sufficient to ensure that decisions in cases so certified are robust and defendable. Those are very important points, and in view of the outcome of the cases that the hon. Gentleman outlines, we are building

      209
      that degree of rigour into the initial decision-making system. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what the stages are shortly.
      This country has a long tradition of considering every asylum claim individually to see whether a person would face persecution in his or her own country, and that will continue. In tabling these amendments, we do not rule out the possibility that a person from a generally safe country could be a refugee. However, the fact is that the vast majority are not refugees. This is true of the 10 countries that are the first in the queue to join the European Union. These countries—they are listed in the amendments—are all democracies. They have functioning criminal justice systems, respect for human rights and a commitment to dealing with elements in their society who target minority groups. For these countries, more than 90 per cent. of those who appealed against a refusal to grant asylum had their appeals dismissed. As Members will know, at a recent meeting in Luxembourg the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a declaration that member states should start from the presumption that any asylum application from a national of one of the 10 states is manifestly unfounded. We are therefore in step with our EU partners in adopting this measure. A significant number of asylum applications from these countries contributes to the total number that we are dealing with.
      Vera Baird: Do not the Minister's own figures make it perfectly clear that 10 per cent. of people who applied from white list countries did have a valid claim? Under this system, how will they be protected?
      Beverley Hughes: People will enter into the non-suspensive appeal process, but that will not remove the possibility of their seeking judicial scrutiny of their case by applying for judicial review. If an application were made, such a person would not be removed until the application was determined. If the application were approved, they would not be removed pending the determination of the judicial review itself.
      We must recognise that the fact that tens of thousands of people are using the asylum system has a serious impact on our ability to identify and integrate refugees. That introduces a degree of chaos into the system, and we really need to rationalise it. If we do nothing about these problems now, they will simply get worse as our EU partners take a firm stance, and the United Kingdom perhaps becomes a more attractive destination.
      8 pm
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned safeguards. Those affected by the measure will have safeguards to ensure that their claims are properly considered. They will have access to legal advice while their case is being considered. Their application will be considered by a specially trained officer. The decision to refuse—if that is the decision—will be checked by a senior officer. And random quality testing of decisions will be carried out by a legally qualified person. However, the measure will make it clear that very few applications from those countries will have a valid claim.
      210
      Circumstances change, and there may come a time when other countries achieve the settled conditions that are enjoyed by those on the list of 10. In that case, if large numbers from one of those countries continue to seek asylum, it may be appropriate to add that country to the list. Clause 82 has constraints to ensure that other countries could only be added appropriately.
      Mrs. Ellman: What powers will a Minister have to add other countries to the list and what scrutiny of that decision would take place?
      Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware of other provisions in the Bill for the establishment of an advisory group on in-country conditions. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that when he considers the range of evidence on the circumstances in particular countries that might justify inclusion in the list he will take the views of that group into account before reaching a decision. That decision would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, no country could be added without Parliament having debated and agreed its inclusion. Additions cannot be made unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that there is no serious risk of persecution in that state, or part of a state, and that removal to the country of the persons entitled to reside there would not be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. The opposite also applies: if circumstances change for the worse, the country can be removed from the list.
      Simon Hughes: The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I sit with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and other colleagues, pointed out that the documentation considered by the European Commission, in its assessment of applicant countries, contained good reasons for concern about human rights matters in all those countries. For example, the Minister will remember that for Estonia the Joint Committee listed the following causes for concern:
      "position of stateless persons, who constitute about 12.5% of the population; use of force by police; treatment, including arbitrary detention, of disabled and mentally ill persons".
      For the Czech Republic, the causes for concern include:
      "treatment of people in police custody; legislative discrimination against religious groups, especially minority religious groups: and widespread discrimination against Roma in education, housing and employment, despite attempts to improve the position".
      Those are just two examples. Although those countries are applicant countries, they will not satisfy human rights tests for all their citizens or residents. I share the Joint Committee's concern that we are making presumptions that are unacceptable on human rights grounds, because they will be rebuttable in theory but not in practice.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has provided the answer to his own point. The presumption is for the generality of people in a country, but it is rebuttable. The terms of the measure acknowledge the possibility that any particular individual may be able to establish, on grounds of his or her experience, that the general presumption does not apply in that case. As I have explained—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances on this point—we want to certify only

      211
      clearly unfounded claims. We do not want to certify individuals whose cases reach the European convention threshold. That is why we are taking great care in providing how certification decisions should be made, so that that eventuality is covered.
      Fiona Mactaggart: If the Minister could give the House an assurance that she does not intend to certify the cases of Roma from the accession countries, many of us would have our fears allayed. I have cases from Women Against Rape and the Refugee Legal Centre involving Roma from many accession countries who have had their cases certified, but under the present arrangements, that certification has been overthrown and they have been granted asylum. It is the situation of the Roma in the accession countries that is causing the greatest concern to many of us.
      Beverley Hughes: I have different experiences and I could cite different examples. In this country in the past few months, not a single application from a Czech Roma person has been successful. I do not claim that the Roma's circumstances are not difficult in some countries, but only in very limited circumstances will their claims reach the threshold of persecution or torture and inhuman treatment under the convention, or prove that the state in question cannot or will not protect them.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will wish to speak on the amendments he has tabled, and I will be happy to give specific responses to any questions that he has. However, I shall make some general points now rather than address each amendment individually. There are two groups of amendments, one relating to clause 82 and one to clause 101, which seek to achieve the same objective. They try to remove the human rights claim from the clauses. As was acknowledged by some Liberal Democrats in the other place, the amendments are wrecking amendments, because the clauses could not work if the potential to make a human rights claim is taken out. That would undermine the purpose of both clauses, because anyone making a clearly unfounded asylum claim could get an in-country appeal right simply by lodging an equally unfounded human rights claim. Therefore, we will not accept those amendments.
      Mr. Malins: I shall not detain the House for too long, but I wish to pose one question to the House. What is a safe country? Hon. Members will have been on holiday to countries that were perfectly safe for them but which might not have been so for some of their nationals. Equally, I suspect that we will have been to countries where the reverse applies—where we might have been in some danger, but nationals were not.
      The Government have to perform a difficult balancing act. They want to speed up procedures and at the same time they want to be fair. I understand that. I have a high regard for the Minister, so I shall tell the House that the Opposition have no difficulty with the Government's proposals on these matters. However, we do have a few queries.
      We discussed non-suspensive appeals a little in Committee, with the Minister's predecessor. Matters have progressed since then. The Bill reached Report
      212
      stage in the House of Lords in a slightly different state. The so-called "white list" is set out in Lords amendment No. 188, and the prospect of the Secretary of State adding a state by order is very much in line with Conservative party thinking.
      As always, however, the devil is in the detail. No hon. Member would want to send a person abroad to conduct an appeal if that meant that that person was being sent to severe danger and possible death. No decent person could ever want that, but it also makes absolute sense to speed the procedure up, so that a person whose case is unfounded can be told that he or she will be sent back to conduct an appeal from a country that is safe. Do we have bilateral agreements with the countries set out in Lords amendment No. 188 that mean that, following certification, we are able to send people back to those countries in the certain knowledge that they will be received and able to conduct an appeal from there?
      I may be wrong, but my understanding is that we have bilateral agreements with Norway and Iceland. Do we have such agreements with any of the other countries? I do not think so, but I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me a little more about that.
      We do not have long tonight for discussion of the nuts and bolts of these matters. I always enjoy discussing nuts and bolts rather than theory, but I hope that the Minister will give me—either this evening or in writing—a step-by-step guide to how the proposals will work in practice. All hon. Members feel strongly that we must make sure that a person who is certified and sent back to one of the listed countries should not be grossly disadvantaged. Such a person must be able to conduct an appeal, without prejudice or unfairness. If that person is not scuppered in that way, he or she will have a chance of mounting a proper appeal. I therefore want to ask the Minister a series of questions regarding the mechanics of certification and how the appeal procedure will work.
      I shall deal first with certification. The phrase
      "if the Secretary of State is satisfied"
      crops up all over the Bill, but the House knows that the Secretary of State does not examine all the cases. He cannot do so. He delegates, and so the person who must be satisfied is the determining officer. The initial decision maker will be a Home Office official, and that is the person who must be satisfied in these matters.
      The Minister has mentioned the special training and expertise that initial decision makers must have if they are to deal with these difficult matters. I asked a series of parliamentary questions earlier this year about initial decision makers. In January 2001, there were 761 initial decision makers in asylum cases in post, but the number had fallen in January this year to 697. I am sure that the number will have increased by now, and that the Minister will be preparing for the future by seeking to recruit more initial decision makers.
      8.15 pm
      In Committee, and subsequently, many hon. Members have told the Minister and the Home Secretary that it is vital to make high-quality initial decisions in asylum cases.
      Mr. Mullin indicated assent.
      Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that, as do all hon. Members. It is very important to get

      213
      matters right at the beginning, to avoid long-term problems. Getting matters right first time is very much in the interests of the Government and the country, and it is certainly in the interests of the asylum seeker.
      In July, I asked the Minister what plans she had to increase and improve the training of initial decision makers in asylum cases. I was disappointed to be told that, at that stage, there were no such plans. I think that the position may have changed. Indeed, an answer that the Minister gave me later in the year suggested that there were moves afoot to "maintain and improve" the quality of initial decision on asylum applications. I am pleased about that. All the non-governmental organisations involved in this matter place great emphasis on getting the decision right at the beginning. Nowhere is that more important than in cases where the stakes are high, as they are for people who are to be removed from this country so that their appeals can be heard from abroad.
      I want to ask a few questions about how the appeals will work in practice. In this country, if my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or I were convicted of an offence in the court, we would go to our appeals in person. That has always been the tradition. We understand and agree with what the Government are doing, but the Minister must accept that the proposals represent a departure from the norm. It is not what we in this country have got used to in the legal or asylum systems over many years.
      I want to put myself in the position of a person who arrives in this country and makes an asylum application. Let us say that I am from the Czech Republic, which is on the white list. I assume that an initial decision about my application will be made. How does that work? If the Minister cannot answer that tonight, I should be grateful if she could write me a note. After the initial refusal, I suspect that there will be a removal. Let us assume that I do not make any applications but that I am removed in any case. How quickly will that removal take place? Will I be at liberty in the period between the initial decision that goes against me and my removal, or will I be detained?
      After the initial decision has gone against me, will I have the opportunity to take competent legal advice, either straight away or in the intervening period, however long that may be, about the prospects for my appeal and how it should be undertaken? Will I have to lodge all my appeal papers before I go? I will get a chance, I am sure, to see my lawyer before I go, but what about after I am removed, when I am in the Czech Republic? Are there any circumstances—I think that the Minister will confirm that there are not—in which the adjudicator can say, "I demand to see this person personally"? I do not think that that can happen, but we need it spelled out. What about my legal help and advice after I have gone, if I have gone?
      In October, I asked the Minister about the circumstances in which asylum applicants from abroad who had been removed would be entitled to advice from lawyers, how they would get it, whether the lawyers over here would be publicly funded to give advice to people abroad and whether they would be publicly funded to travel abroad to take instruction, talk to witnesses or talk to the appellant himself or herself. That is a narrow question, but it is important for those who give legal advice and help to know, when someone is certified and
      214
      removed, what the scope is for providing, in a sense, a full legal service. I was told in a written answer by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), that the Legal Services Commission would authorise expenditure only in exceptional circumstances if an interview was absolutely necessary and there was no reasonable alternative such as communication by telephone, post, fax or video link. Sponsors, relatives or friends of a client based in the UK could also be used as a channel for instructions. Lawyers abroad could also be used as agents and paid out of public funds. Is the Minister saying that I could go back to the Czech Republic and consult a local lawyer in Prague who would then be paid by the Legal Services Commission? That is what seems to be suggested. In that case, what about the Legal Services Commission quality mark and standards?
      These are not flippant questions but real ones. It will not be very long before, under these procedures, people become certified. When that happens, they will have to go abroad and make their appeal from there. It would be helpful for the House to have answers to some of these purely practical questions. If the Minister could write to me, a copy of the letter could be put in the Library. These questions are raised quite frequently with me by NGOs such as the Immigration Advisory Service, which I had the honour to found some 10 years ago. They could matter very much to people who might be affected by the Bill. I notice the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) nodding in agreement. I hope that means that I have not overstepped my mark in speaking from the Conservative Benches. I am sure that I have not. I pose these questions to the Minister because Members on both sides of the House are approaching the issue with humanity, fairness and decency.
      In conclusion, we have no difficulty with what is proposed. We support the white list; we support the white list plus. I pay tribute to Lord Kingsland and to Baroness Anelay for the work that they and others have done in the other place. They found support and sympathy for many of their arguments from members all around their lordships' House. I hope that the Minister will accept our support for what she is doing. However, I hope that she will be prepared to say loud and clear that the Government will do everything as we would want it done to ensure that the system, which may be fast, is also patently and clearly fair.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I have two issues of concern relating to certification connected with white-list countries and people who may lose their rights of appeal under clauses 82 and 84.
      I raised the matter of certification in June and was reassured to some extent by the response of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that he wanted to ensure that the possibility of review was readily available. He continued:
      "We are keen to establish a pattern that will be checked by the judiciary on certification to provide us with a base on which to make common-sense decisions." —[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 802.]
      I referred to Roma in an earlier intervention. I have had a number of cases presented to me by the Refugee Legal Centre and by Women Against Rape. I do not

      215
      know the dates of all these cases, but most of them are of recent origin because in all cases—and the episodes complained about happened in countries including Poland, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—there have been certificated appeals which, under the present law, can be appealed against. The applicants have appealed and have been granted asylum. In many cases, applicants have been subjected to rape and their assailants have colluded with state forces, including the police. That seems to be exactly the sort of pattern to which the Home Secretary referred. There is an issue about the way in which the power exists to mediate the exercise of the certification process. Were the Home Office to do that in the case of the Roma, I believe that much concern would be mitigated.
      I am further concerned by the way in which clause 84(2)(c) is interpreted. Can the Minister give an assurance about its interpretation? Under this provision, if someone had had a right of appeal which they had not exercised, they could lose that right of appeal. At present, there is a way of testing that earlier before an adjudicator. Under this provision, someone can lose their right of appeal if they
      "would have been permitted or required to raise on an appeal against another immigration decision in respect of which he chose not to exercise a right of appeal."
      That would apply to someone who made an application, then made a fresh application and did not appeal against the refusal of their earlier application.
      I understand why the Home Office has introduced this clause. Some people exercise their right of appeal in a flawed way and use that to get more rights of appeal. I am fundamentally in favour of only one right of appeal. The present arrangement whereby people can spin out many appeals is ineffective; it creates cynicism about the immigration and asylum appeals process and is wide open to abuse.
      In some cases, however, people were not aware of their original right to appeal and I am concerned about them; for example, they might have moved—we all know how asylum seekers are pushed around the country—or they might have had a bad adviser. Some advisers are corrupt and cheating.
      Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of our constituents receive incompetent legal advice at the start of the process, so the damage has been done, however good their legal advice at the appeal stage. Justified cases are lost at appeal owing to the incompetence of earlier lawyers. People need the right of access to good-quality advice at the very beginning, but increasingly that does not happen.
      Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend makes a slightly different point, but he is right: we need to ensure that people have better access to advice. I hope that they can receive that advice in accommodation centres not only because they need it but because it helps the decision-making system to work well.
      8.30 pm
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady is an expert in this matter. I am sympathetic to her argument about a single appeal, but does she agree that an appeal cannot be
      216
      exercised fully and properly if, in many cases, it is made from abroad? The appeal will have to take place in this country if we are to ensure that it is properly carried out, wherever it comes in the process.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I agree, especially as regards people who, if they lost their appeal, could be removed to countries that are not even on the white list and where some groups are subject to the most grotesque violence. That is why I am concerned about these provisions.
      At lunchtime today, I received a letter from a colleague of the Minister in response to questions that I had raised. The letter stated:
      "Many of the people whose situations you describe should be making late appeals. The Home Office is bound to pass such appeals on to the adjudicator for an independent review of the timeliness issue and may in appropriate cases treat the appeal as in-time so that it proceeds directly."
      I shall be overwhelmingly happy if the Minister assures me that the interpretation of paragraph (c) will always be that if people chose not to exercise their substantive right of appeal earlier, the Home Office will allow an adjudicator to determine whether the appeal should treated as out of time. People who had well founded fears but who did not exercise their appeal at an early stage could thus have their appeal considered.
      Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The critical point seems to be the immigration officer's leeway in deciding whether to certify the case. Perhaps some guidance could be produced, so that if there were failings on the part of the legal adviser that had nothing to do with the applicant, they could be taken into account when deciding whether to certify.
      Fiona Mactaggart: In effect, that is what I am suggesting. The clause provides that one of the grounds for certification is that the substance of the appeal could have been raised at an earlier stage had the applicant chosen to do so. The decision about that issue of choice does not have to be dealt with in the Bill; in practice, it can be covered by instructions to immigration officers. However, the point is substantial. We need to ensure that the interpretation of the Bill is such that cases that ought to have a right of appeal can have that right. If the Minister can give us that assurance, the serious injustices to which the measure might give rise will not occur.
      Simon Hughes: This debate is important. As the Minister and the Conservative spokesman observed, we debated the principle of a non-suspensive appeal that would have to take place outside the United Kingdom during earlier stages of the Bill, but there was never a white list proposal.
      Like other colleagues, I remember debates on this issue when the Conservatives were in power and the Labour party was in opposition. The Labour party was very critical of the principle of a white list—the idea that one listed countries in advance with presumptions—and opposed it, as we do. I have not changed my view with the change of Government, and I know that some colleagues in the Labour party have not done so either.
      I am not convinced that the argument that the Government have given their Back Benchers is terribly persuasive. A parliamentary Labour party briefing on the amendments came into my hands yesterday, as these things sometimes do. It poses this rhetorical question:

      217
      "Is this a White List just like the Tories'?"
      It then gives an answer in an attempt to persuade Labour Members:
      "The situation is quite different. We are living in a very different world now, where we are seeing large flows of asylum seekers from countries which are just about to join the EU and where there can be absolutely no doubt about their safety."
      There is some truth in that, in the sense that there are new applicant countries to the European Union, but there are not many more asylum seekers. The number of those seeking asylum in western Europe has dropped by half over the past 10 years. So the argument for having a white list now, which was opposed by the Labour party only five years ago, is not borne out by the facts.
      The Minister was right to say that some of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me go to the heart of the principle of whether appeals should occur outside the country, and to the heart of the principle of a white list. That is because we are opposed to appeals abroad and we are opposed to a white list. We have not changed that view, so we shall try to amend the Bill to create the legislation that we wish it were.
      For the record, I should like to list the Liberal Democrat amendments, as the Minister referred to the amendments generally, although that is not a criticism. We have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 154, amendments (a) to (f) to Lords amendment No. 157, amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 179, amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 184, amendments (a) to (d) to Lords amendment No. 188 and amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment No. 215. Some of them are parallel, in that they apply similarly to similar clauses. I shall not go through each in detail.
      Mr. Letwin: Hallelujah!
      Simon Hughes: I agree with that response, and I am sure others do too. The Minister is right that the amendments would omit in part from the purview of the Bill applications for human rights asylum as opposed to other bases of claim. As an alternative, they would not limit the category to serious-only cases, and would prevent the Government from adding other countries—one of the criticisms, this—to the list by secondary legislation.
      Of course it is a good idea to have an advisory panel on country information, but it is less of a good idea if that panel does not have an obligation to give advice. There is the hint of a good thing without delivery of that good thing, as there is not as yet any obligation in the Bill to consult. That is also a matter that has been raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others.
      Jeremy Corbyn: One problem is that when a person is deported to, say, an EU applicant country and wishes to pursue an appeal, there is no individual monitoring of that person's circumstances—the degree of harassment that they might face from local official or unofficial forces, which object to the fact that the person has brought "shame" on their country by applying for asylum elsewhere. I believe that such people suffer considerable harassment as a result.
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. One question that I want to ask the Minister—I hope that she
      218
      will have a chance to reply in her winding-up speech—is: what tracking process will there be of people who return to the country from which they came? I do not think that many would find the following judgment flawed. The chance of someone being able fairly, without influence or disadvantage, to pursue an appeal in this country after having been sent home to the Czech Republic—to take the example of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—without the authorities in that country becoming aware of the people or person being put at risk is very small. The fact is that most appeals will not happen once the individuals involved have gone abroad. For the Government, the blunt truth is that those appeals are not intended to happen—it is intended that a whole series of appeals will be lost. That is why I put my question to the hon. Member for Slough. It seems to me that we could come to a perfectly reasonable view on a single stage of appeal, but only if an appeal takes place—evidence shows how flawed initial decisions often are—and takes place in this country.
      I have asked the Minister whether the monitor will be used to track people. My second question relating to the monitor is: what will the monitor monitor? The decisions are not adjudicator's decisions, which result in a decision: nor are they tribunal decisions, which result in a report. What will the monitor have? We are told that they will have a certificate, but will they have any more than that? Will they have the notes of the hearing? Will they independently take notes of the hearing? How can someone monitor whether the job has been done if they have no access to material on which to judge the initial decision? Proper scrutiny of a judicial or quasi-judicial process is not possible unless there is material to scrutinise.
      Home Office Minister Lord Filkin, when asked in the other place whether the white list would be the subject of advice from the advisory panel—whether the panel was to be asked about the countries on the list, the countries to add and those to remove—said that he did not think so. What is the point in having an advisory panel on countries if it is not to be asked for its advice? The purpose of having an independent documentation centre—for which the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and others have argued—and an advisory panel is to have independent advice on, say, the state of play in the Czech Republic as it affects the Roma community.
      Vera Baird: Is it not equally important to put into the legislation a positive obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to that advice? Currently, it appears to me that the panel is merely one of a number of sources of advice to which he might have resort when refining his decisions, but there needs to be, first, a duty to advise and, secondly, a duty to have regard to the advice.
      Simon Hughes: I agree absolutely. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which the hon. and learned Lady is a member, was highly critical of the Government's proposal. That Committee does an excellent job of examining new Bills, and it produced a second report on the amendments. Its members can speak for themselves, but the Committee was highly critical of the process envisaged and made it absolutely clear that it goes against the advice given by the United

      219
      Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which says that a state-by-state presumption is invalid and cannot be justified. The Minister in the other place did not give the undertaking to which the hon. and learned Lady refers. Colleagues who advise us—the Immigration Advisory Service is based in my constituency—have specifically asked whether the advisory panel will be asked to advise, but we have received no such assurance.
      The hon. Member for Slough gave lots of good examples—most drawn from the Refugee Legal Centre, which is an organisation with an excellent reputation that used to be based in my constituency but has now crossed the river—of people from each of the applicant countries who have suffered persecution and fled, and whose cases have been upheld. All the cases arose in recent years. Let me add one further case, which is relevant to more than just the issue of the white list of applicant countries.
      My noble Friend Lord Avebury, who is a diligent champion on these matters, took up the case of Jaqueline Kunan, an asylum seeker from Ivory Coast. I believe that he described her circumstances when the Lords debated the Bill last week. I gather that her case was reported on "Woman's Hour" yesterday morning. She was in Harmondsworth from June, then detained in Dungavel, and then returned to Harmondsworth on 21 October. She has had three solicitors, one of whom, it appears, did not do a particularly good job. She has with her a baby who was born a year and a half ago, and I understand that she is again pregnant.
      Jaqueline Kunan's claim is one that would normally be regarded as fundamentally unfounded, on the basis that the judgment given by the authorities was that she had not made out her case for asylum from Ivory Coast—a country where a military coup and takeover have occurred.
      8.45 pm
      In a couple of hours this week, my colleague Lord Avebury was able to substantiate independently the facts that the woman alleged, and in a way that made her case clear. With the assistance of the staff in my constituency office or other people, I have often asked for the facts to be checked, and we have been able to disprove the circumstances asserted against us. I do not yet have the confidence that the system will come to the rescue often enough of people in particularly vulnerable positions. The Minister accepted my point that 40 per cent. of the cases that were held to be manifestly unfounded had been overturned on appeal. When the Home Office did a spot check, it concluded that 85 per cent. of the decisions were satisfactory. By definition, 15 per cent. are not satisfactory, so 15 per cent. of—in that case—250 people, who may have had a terrible time, would be sent home, possibly to face persecution. We have a duty to deal with them.
      I hope that hon. Members will be sympathetic to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 154, if there is an opportunity for us to move it before the guillotine falls, or if not, that they will join us in voting against Lords amendment No. 157. That is a dangerous road to go down. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has advised against it. It is a fair interpretation
      220
      of the view of our Joint Committee on Human Rights to say that the Committee was very worried about it. We should not sign off the principle of people being sent abroad to appeal, or presume that certain countries will be satisfactory. Disproving that will often be far too difficult to achieve.
      Vera Baird: I have little to add. I rely heavily on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made most of the points that I had in mind. May I take the matter outside the white list arena for a short time? Suspended appeals were discussed in an earlier debate, but let us not forget that there will henceforward be a certificate from the Secretary of State that somebody's application, either on an asylum basis or on a human rights basis, is clearly unfounded. Such people will have no right to remain while making any kind of appeal, even if they do not come from an applicant country to the EU. There are all the hazards that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough set out in relation to people being returned to applicant countries in order for them to make their applications from there.
      Ten or, as Opposition Members have said, 15 per cent. of people have cause for complaint and have succeeded on appeal, even from those countries. That is bad enough, but we will be sending people back to other countries on the basis that their claims are clearly unfounded. In addition, there will be no independent advisory service with any of the duties that would attach to such a service to tell the Home Secretary when a country is safe or not, and there will be no duty on him to have regard to any advisory service before making such decisions. The advisory service is an extra protection, but it comes into play only when the Home Secretary is considering whether to extend the white list.
      In a sense, the white list people are somewhat better off. First, they have a 90 or 85 per cent. chance, because they are in a country that we regard as meriting application to the EU. Secondly, there will have been a screening process for that country through the independent advisory service, from which, I reiterate, it seems important to me that there should be a duty on the Home Secretary to accept advice, whereas people going outside the white list countries on the basis that their claims are clearly unfounded will have neither of those protections at all. They obviously will have no appeal in this country. They will have the prospect of judicial review, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to reassure me that nobody who had a certificate judicially reviewed would be removed before the judicial review, whether allowed or not, had gone to a full hearing. I framed that question in connection with white list countries. Can my hon. Friend give me the same reassurance that people who are not from white list countries who want to appeal to the divisional court against their certificates will not be removed before the applications have been fully heard?
      Beyond that reassurance, I seek a stronger reassurance, because a perusal of other aspects of the legislation seems to show that those who have been certified as clearly unfounded in their claim, even if they judicially review, whether or not they are going to a white country, will not be entitled to any asylum support while they wait for their case to be heard. Judicial review becomes a thin remedy indeed with no means of

      221
      sustenance and support while trying to implement it. Can my hon. Friend give me some assurance about what seems to be a lacuna in even the scant protection that the divisional court may be able to offer?
      Simon Hughes: Is it the hon. and learned Lady's personal interpretation or that of her Committee that the proposals as amended appear to apply to people whether they are inside or outside the UK? That has been a controversial issue. Does she accept that the UNHCR evidence is clear that a presumption against a person can be effectively rebutted only if that person has a right of appeal and is based in the UK? That is important.
      Vera Baird: I have made it clear that I do not speak on behalf of the Joint Committee in any of what I say. The Joint Committee raised the real difficulty that, on the face of the proposed legislation, the exclusion of the words
      "a person within the United Kingdom"
      seemed to mean that no one had a right of appeal anywhere. However, I took that point up with the Minister only recently, and I am now satisfied that a proper reading of the legislation leaves open that appeal from outside the country. I accept wholeheartedly what the hon. Gentleman says about the UNHCR and the need to rebut by having an appeal in the country. It is a thorny area for those who have a strong interest in human rights and ordinary decency.
      It seems that there will be resort only to the independent monitor who will produce a report only to the Home Secretary and presumably not deal with individual claims. May I suggest that the independent monitor should instead be answerable to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on behalf of the House?
      Beverley Hughes: In the four minutes remaining to me, I shall do my best to address the issues that hon. Members have raised, and any that I miss I shall deal with in writing.
      The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised a number of issues and invited me to write to him. I shall write to him on the many questions that he asked about the details of the process and make the reply public. We are still working on some aspects, but it is important that hon. Members should have the information for which he asked and I shall set that out as clearly as I can.
      I invite the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Member who would like to do so, to visit Oakington. Anyone who saw the process, the circumstances and conditions there might be reassured about the close attention to the issues of quality that we want to bring to bear on the process. For the record, the hon. Gentleman asked me about bilateral agreements, and it is important to remember that these clauses provide for two types of non-suspensive appeal. The first type, on which there has been most focus this evening, occurs where the Secretary of State certifies the claim to be clearly unfounded. In such cases, the person would be returned to their country of residence, so there would be no need for the bilateral agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The second type of case occurs when we refuse a claim and consider that there is a safe third country. The person concerned can appeal against that refusal.
      222
      Clearly, we would need bilateral agreements to make use of that process. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no bilateral agreements with other countries have yet been signed, but we need the necessary legal powers to pave the way for them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) expressed concerns about a person who had understandable reasons for not appealing against a refusal, but is denied a right of appeal on making a subsequent application for asylum. Certainly, the powers to certify under clause 84 will be exercised on an individual basis. If a person could have appealed, but did not do so and then applied again, we would consider what reasons they had for not appealing. I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the second application would be successful in avoiding certification. However, it would be judged on its merits and the reasons for not appealing in the first place would be taken into account, again on their merits.
      I should like briefly to mention Lords amendment No. 215, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. The advisory panel is an important development. As I said, we will consult the panel about countries that we are considering adding to the list, but I say in response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) that its job is to cover all countries from which asylum applications come.
      It being five and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 127 agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 153 agreed to.

    Clause 82

      APPEAL FROM WITHIN UNITED KINGDOM: UNFOUNDED HUMAN RIGHTS OR ASYLUM CLAIM
      Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 44, line 40, leave out from "70(1)" to end of line 42 and insert
      "where the appellant has made an asylum claim or a human rights claim (or both)."
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Beverley Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 59.

      Division No. 351]

      [8:58 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bell, Stuart

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Benn, Hilary

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bennett, Andrew

      Austin, John

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Berry, Roger

      Baird, Vera

      Best, Harold

      223

      Blackman, Liz

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fisher, Mark

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blunkett, rh David

      Flint, Caroline

      Borrow, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burden, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Grogan, John

      Cairns, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hanson, David

      Casale, Roger

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Caton, Martin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heppell, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hodge, Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Colman, Tony

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corston, Jean

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, rh John

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Davidson, Ian

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kidney, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Doran, Frank

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lepper, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Linton, Martin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Love, Andrew

      224

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ruane, Chris

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDougall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McWalter, Tony

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Squire, Rachel

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mole, Chris

      Stoate Dr. Howard

      Moran, Margaret

      Stringer, Graham

      Morgan, Julie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping Paddy

      Organ, Diana

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Trickett, Jon

      Owen, Albert

      Truswell, Paul

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Picking, Anne

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ward, Claire

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Prescott, rh John

      Watts David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      White, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Purnell, James

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Gillian Merron

      225

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Barrett, John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Beith, rh A. J

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      McDonnell, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Burnett, John

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Rendel, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Cotter, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Doughty, Sue

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Stunell, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Thurso, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hancock, Mike

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Harvey, Nick

      Wishart, Pete

      Heath, David

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tom Brake

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 157.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 62.

      Division No. 352]

      [9:11 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Borrow, David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tryNE)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brennan, Kevin

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Austin, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Bailey, Adrian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burgon, Colin

      Barnes, Harry

      Burn ham, Andy

      Battle, John

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cairns, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benn, Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Berry, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Caton, Martin

      Blackman, Liz

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Challen, Colin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clapham, Michael

      Blunkett, rh David

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      226

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heppell, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hodge, Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Coleman, lain

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, rh John

      Cousins, Jim

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Cope/and)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (We/wyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      David, Wayne

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Edwards, Huw

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Efford, Clive

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Linton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Love, Andrew

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Fisher, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, rh Derek

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Foulkes, rh George

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (Word S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Grogan, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Martlew, Eric

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mole, Chris

      227

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Helen

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Spellar, rh John

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Squire, Rachel

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Organ, Diana

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Owen, Albert

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Linda

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Picking, Anne

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stringer, Graham

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prescott, rh John

      Timms, Stephen

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Purnell, James

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Ward, Claire

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Barrett, John

      Doughty, Sue

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Bennett, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Breed, Colin

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bruce, Malcolm Burnett, John Burstow, Paul

      Gidley, Sandra Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hancock, Mike

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Harvey, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Heath, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      228

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keetch, Paul

      Sanders Adrian

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lamb, Norman

      Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Thurso, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

      McDonnell, John

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mahon, Mrs. Alice

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Willis, Phil

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Wishart, Pete

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Rendel, David

      Tom Brake

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 191 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 215 agreed to.

    After clause 13
    Lords amendment: No. 16, insert the following new Clause—
    "Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 1 shall not apply to this Part."
    Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Lords amendment No. 45 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 83, Lords amendments Nos. 85 and 87, Lords amendment No. 88 and Government motion to disagree thereto. Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 97, Lords amendment 98 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 100 to 103 and 110 to 125, Lords amendment No. 126 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 192 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 193 to 213, Lords amendment No. 214 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 216 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 223, Lords amendment No. 224 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 225 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 226 to 236 and 238 to 311.
    Beverley Hughes: These amendments refer primarily to the order-making power in Lords amendment No. 225. Most of what has been said about that amendment so far, both in the other place and outside, has been wrong, and much of it has been extremely misleading. We can only conjecture whether that was deliberate or not, but to put the matter beyond doubt we have altered the wording of the amendment. That may have been unnecessary, but the revision was not difficult.
    Three issues were raised in the other place in relation to Lords amendment No. 225: timing, scope and what was described as menace. On timing, there is little more I can say other than that we are where we are. As I think we all know, the Bill has necessarily evolved,

    229
    particularly in recent months as we have reached agreement with France during changes in the asylum system. We have had to develop policy and reflect that in the Bill. It is important that, notwithstanding extra strains imposed on Members, we have managed to produce good legislation in which we respond to reality, albeit a changing reality.
    The greatest misunderstanding has perhaps been on the scope of the Lords amendment. I ask the House to agree an amendment to clarify the scope of the power. I make it clear that it was always our view, based on parliamentary counsel's advice, that the power was narrow and limited.
    The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has a formidable skill—I am not sure how long it will last or how soon he will be found out. He can talk utter rubbish and be totally wrong but because he has a soft seductive voice and seems like a nice person, he is believed, even by rather lazy journalists who do not do their research to find out the truth of the matter.
    The right hon. Gentleman made two contentions on the "Today" programme about the Lords amendment—that the power would allow for changes to the Bill in future without recourse to a parliamentary debate, and that the power would enable the Home Secretary to change any previous laws. Both those contentions are completely and utterly incorrect. There would have to be a parliamentary debate and approval through an affirmative order if previous primary legislation were being changed, as is made clear in the Government's amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is being deliberately misleading or he has his facts wrong. He is such an assiduous person about detail that I cannot believe it is the latter.
    The power would allow changes only to previous immigration laws that are consequential to this Bill to ensure coherence and consistency. That is good common sense and good drafting.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady said that the amendment would allow changes only to previous immigration legislation, but if she is good enough to look at subsection (2) of Lords amendment No. 225, she will see the words
    "An order under this section may, in particular—
    (a) amend an enactment".
    That is any enactment. It is not confined to an immigration enactment. Indeed it goes on to say that the order may
    "modify the effect of an enactment."
    That clearly extends to statutory instruments made under any enactment. To say that the provision is confined to immigration legislation is not borne out in the statute.
    Beverley Hughes: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the first part of the Lords amendment, he will see that it says that
    "The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act."
    230
    Therefore, the enactment that can be amended or modified has to be consequential or incidental to the provisions of this particular legislation.
    Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
    Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to put forward the advice that he has been given but that is the view of the parliamentary counsel who are assisting us.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry to say this, but that is simply wrong. It is not a question of statutory interpretation. The provision enables an amendment to an enactment—any enactment. Is my hon. Friend prepared to say that it is inconceivable that it would lead, for example, to an amendment to a criminal justice Act, an education Act or anything else that is in any way incidental to these proceedings?
    9.30 pm
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend, despite his experience in this field, is simply incorrect. In order to be amended or modified, another enactment would, by definition, have to relate to the provisions in this Bill—in other words, to immigration—for it to be consequential or incidental. Those are the terms of the amendment.
    The order-making power would not therefore allow the Government to make provision that was not purely consequential on, or incidental to, something already in the Bill. [Interruption] To do so—as I suspect those hon. Members who keep jumping up and down know—would be ultra vires and unlawful.
    Simon Hughes: Why was this provision introduced at the very last minute in the Lords? As the Minister knows, such provisions are always controversial and always looked at carefully. In keeping with the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), myself and others, why does the word "consequential" not have its normal meaning—something that happens after the Bill and which is related to it? The definition is very wide, and could include almost anything in the Bill, such as accommodation centres and appeal processes.
    Beverley Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that, had the position been different in terms of the Bill's development, I would have preferred to table the amendment earlier. However, there is a point about which we and parliamentary counsel cannot be clear. Although we think that all necessary cross-references with other legislation have been made—I shall deal with that point later in relation to a question that the right hon. Member for West Dorset asked me privately—we cannot be sure that all the other tidying-up work has been done to ensure that the Bill relates to previous legislation as written, without the need for amendment to make such cross-referencing absolutely clear and appropriate. As with much legislation, once the Bill has been enacted, there will be a need for a power that parliamentary counsel can bring forward, in the ways outlined in the amendment—and, so far as amendments

    231
    to previous enactments are concerned, through the affirmative resolution procedure—to ensure that different Acts of Parliament are not in conflict with each other.
    Mr. Mark FisherCan my hon. Friend help us some more on the meaning of the word "consequential"? If, as a consequence of the operation of this legislation, a weakness was revealed and a future Government wanted to introduce new elements of immigration or asylum law to cover it—such a situation would be the consequence of our failings in passing this legislation—would they be able to do so? In other words, through the amendment, could they pass what in effect would be new primary initiatives?
    Beverley Hughes: I direct my hon. Friend to the wording of the amendment. He is perfectly capable of knowing what "consequential" means in these circumstances.
    Mr. Fisher: I am asking my hon. Friend.
    Beverley Hughes: Well, my hon. Friend knows what it means. It is a term that has been used in many clauses and much legislation, and I would have expected him to be familiar with it by now.
    Mr. Fisher: Name one.
    Beverley Hughes: I shall certainly name one. I want to get
    Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Beverley Hughes: No, I want to make some progress.
    Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Beverley Hughes: I will not, because I want to make a further point.
    Mr. Fisher: This is a debate.
    Beverley Hughes: It is, and if, on listening to what I want to say, my hon. Friend wants to intervene, I will allow him to do so. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. While the hon. Lady is addressing the House, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Fisher) should be quiet.
    Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The third issue that was raised in the other place was referred to as "menace", which I take to mean precedent. In other words, the amendment was regarded as setting a dangerous and menacing precedent in terms of the way in which business is done in this House. That is the issue that I wish to address tonight and I hope that I will answer some of the points that my hon. Friend has just made.
    232
    Clauses containing exactly the same words as the amendment should be familiar to the House. For example, the previous Administration, in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, produced a similar—if not more wide-ranging—clause to that before us tonight.
    Mr. Letwin: Would the Minister read out that clause?
    Beverley Hughes: Certainly. It states:
    "The Secretary of State may at any time by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the general purposes or any particular purposes of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it … An order under this section may in particular make provision for amending, repealing or revoking (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, or of an instrument made under an Act before the passing of this Act".
    That is from 1992.
    We have had examples of similar clauses in more recent legislation, such as the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and the Education Act 2002. Only this week, we have had the Enterprise Bill, which included the following clause:
    "Power to make consequential amendments etc … The Secretary of State may by order make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as he thinks appropriate … for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act; or … in consequence of any provision … An order under this section may … modify any Actor … may make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision."
    Only last night, we considered the Adoption and Children Bill, which contains the following clause:
    "The appropriate Minister may by order make … any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision … any transitory, transitional or saving provision, which he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of this Act … The power may be exercised so as to make … any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision".
    That is no different from the provision before us. In fact, the advice given to me suggests that the power in the Adoption and Children Bill is drafted in wider terms than that before us tonight in Lords amendment No. 225. It allows a Minister to make supplementary provision, as well as consequential and incidental provision, that he thinks is
    "necessary or expedient for the purposes of…giving full effect to any provision"—
    of the Adoption and Children Bill.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said earlier that the House always pays great attention to such matters. However, I have looked through the Hansard for the Adoption and Children Bill, and in the debate last night not a squeak was heard about the supplementary and consequential provision in that Bill by anybody.
    I wish to deal with a point raised privately with me by the right hon. Member for West Dorset about the scope of the Bill, so that I may put my reply on the record. He asked me whether the provision would allow us to rectify a direct conflict of law between the Bill and some previous legislation. I can tell him that it will: rectifying conflicts of law is a real priority for any Act. We hope that we have done most of that in the course of this Bill's passage through the House.

    233
    We may be left with a more common type of problem, involving consequential issues that are of lesser priority than correcting direct conflicts of law. For example, such cases might include references in other legislation that have been superseded by the Bill and which need to be substituted. Where there is no direct conflict, they might involve a possible lack of clarity if the statute book were not tidied up.
    My officials have provided me with an example of a consequential amendment that we know we need to make. The power that we are discussing would enable us to make it, but we could not do so without it. Section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 deals with the removal of asylum seekers to safe third countries, and refers to an appeal under section 65. However, the House will know that section 65 of the 1999 Act is being replaced by the appeal provisions in part 5 of this Bill. We will therefore use our consequential power to put that and similar inconsistencies right.
    Hon. Members have claimed that the provision is far beyond the scope of any similar provision in any previous Bill. That is incorrect. The House considered a Bill last night that is wider in scope, and no one objected. As to the claim that the provision is without precedent, I hope that I have clarified that there are precedents in previous Tory legislation and in Bills that have been enacted in this and the previous Parliament. Moreover, the Bills that have come before the House in the past few days have all contained this provision.
    I hope that I have reassured the House on the specific point about the provision. I am not sure why the matter gave rise to so much heat and so little light, or why people have been misled about the intention of the provision and about what it allows us to do. I do not like to talk of hypocrisy and fraud, but there has not been much enlightening comment from Opposition Members on this matter.
    Mr. Letwin: I am not absolutely confident that the Minister has made her case in the best way to achieve a resolution of this matter. I find myself in genuine doubt. It is not the case that I sat in the bath tub to read the provision and imagine its meaning.
    Mr. Blunkett: Or the shower.
    Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary helpfully suggests that I took a shower, but I did not even do that. I did not start this inquiry, which began in the House of Lords. I was present for that debate, to which a former Attorney-General, a Labour peer of great distinction, made a contribution, with commentaries being offered by leading counsel. I have consulted administrative lawyers. The Government Benches contain distinguished members of the legal profession. Behind me sits another silk, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) are both lawyers.
    Lawyers surround us. Lawyers abound, and these lawyers read the words in the Bill as it used to be. There may have been recent precedents of almost identical wording—I do not know. I did not attend to the details
    234
    of all aspects of the Adoption and Children Bill—we were rather preoccupied with one aspect, as the Minister may have noticed. I do not think that it is a defence of the original wording to assert that, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, this is a serial offence. That does not help us one iota.
    9.45 pm
    The question here is what is the meaning of the original provision and, much more important, the amended provision. I may have been guilty of excessive generosity. I may have been mistaken. I thought this morning when we saw the Government amendment to the Lords amendment—rather late, I may say—that we had made huge progress. I thought that there was a difference between two statements—certainly there appears to be one in ordinary English. Lords amendment No. 225 states
    "The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary"—
    I take it that the phrase "he thinks necessary" then governs the latter part of the sentence—
    "in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act."
    That seems to suggest that the Secretary of State could deem what was necessary in consequence of or in connection with the provision of this legislation and having so deemed could amend without restriction any enactment.
    There appears to this humble philosopher, and to a large number of lawyers whom this humble philosopher consulted, to be a difference between that and the more typical provision, which I have never liked—the Henry VIII clause is prevalent, as the Minister rightly says. There is a difference between the phrasing of Lords amendment No. 225 and the new phrasing suggested by the Home Secretary, which provides that the Secretary of State may by order make "consequential or incidental provision" in connection with the provision of this legislation. That seemed to remove or at least constrain the ability of the Secretary of State to judge whether something was consequential or incidental. It seemed to establish a category of thing that was genuinely consequential or incidental and to allow a modification of an enactment only if such a modification were necessary as a matter of it being consequential or incidental. Let us hope that that is the case.
    I was hoping that the Minister would give a learned reply to the next question raised across the Floor and that some jurisprudence would be put before us. I hoped that she would tell us not that parliamentary counsel—one set of lawyers among others—took a view but that there were cases that showed on judicial review the meaning to judges in English law of "consequential and incidental". I admit that our researches so far have not identified such cases. We may be fallible in this. I had hoped that the Minister would reveal that there was jurisprudence that made it clear to us—or ought to—that we were now in safe territory again and that we were talking about the very things—and I fully accept her intentions in this matter—that she listed.
    If the sole purpose of the clause as currently phrased is to rectify a direct conflict of laws, to rectify minor discrepancies of reference and to clarify matters where

    235
    a lack of clarity would otherwise prevail, it is of course harmless. The question is whether, as a matter of fact, it gives not to the present Secretary of State tomorrow but to some Secretary of State in future—establishing a precedent that will extend to a wider range of Secretaries of State in who knows which Administrations—the general ability to use what is, in effect, decree law subject to a 90-minute debate, to modify wild uncharted territory or enactments, or whether it simply provides for those Secretaries of State the ability to rectify discrepancies and conflicts of law. If the narrow interpretation prevails, I do not want to make a fuss about it—I see no reason to do so. If, however, the wider interpretation is correct, I see every reason on earth to make a fuss, because it is the fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy that legislation should proceed through First Reading, Second Reading, Third Reading and a whole panoply of devices to ensure proper debate rather than 90 minutes' worth somewhere, stuck in a hole in the corner.
    No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and perhaps even some Liberal Democrat or Labour Members will accuse me of being too complacent, too lacking in doubt and scepticism.
    Mr. Hogg: Too nice.
    Mr. Letwin: Indeed. Tonight, however, I shall take it on trust that the Minister has behind her not her unpersuasive remarks but some genuine jurisprudence, some legal opinion that can be put before the House in rapid order, so that when the measure goes before the Lords tomorrow I can reassure my noble Friends that we have genuinely achieved a constrained and acceptable power. The matter is of some importance because the Bill could founder on it.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, despite his comments on the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Minister.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether the narrow interpretation was correct. The answer is yes. We do not seek to introduce parent legislation by edict, fiat or anything else. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would introduce jurisprudence. We shall certainly look for examples for the Lords debate tomorrow, but I cannot promise that we shall be debating jurisprudence in the Lords, rather than what is before us, on a narrow interpretation that mirrors exactly what has been done, including under the last Conservative Government—not least in the Local Government Act 1992.
    Mr. Letwin: That is immensely helpful, not merely because of the Home Secretary's words but because he said them at the Dispatch Box. As I understand the implications of Pepper v. Hart, that will have some influence in determining how a court reads the provision.
    Mr. Hogg: Although it is gratifying to hear the words of the Home Secretary, it is important to keep in mind
    236
    that he can bind only his own Government. He cannot bind his successors. We are thus thrown back on the language of the clause and the amendment.
    Mr. Letwin: I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point: the Home Secretary cannot bind anybody but himself. Indeed, the history of his relationship with his predecessor as Home Secretary amply indicates that one Home Secretary does not bind the next. However, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the courts are likely to look at what the Home Secretary has just said when they interpret the statute, so the right hon. Gentleman's comments were most helpful. Let us hope, moreover—
    Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary did not give an interpretation, only a statement of his intent—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Letwin: As I understand the matter, under the Pepper v. Hart doctrine, for a Minister—especially the Home Secretary in a measure that he has sponsored—to make a statement of his intent is to give something close to an interpretation, or something that has some force as an interpretation. However, I shall leave that point as we are in the hands of great legal experts on both sides of the House—I am not among them.
    Let us hope that the point will be proved beyond doubt when the Home Secretary's gallant offer to produce some jurisprudential material is put before the House of Lords tomorrow.
    Mr. Fisher: Like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I was considerably reassured to hear the Home Secretary say that it was not his intention to interpret the provision as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that. However, the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) related not only to future Governments, but also to what is possible under the Bill.
    The fact that the Home Secretary has given his word about his intentions and about what he will not do is extremely welcome and reassuring, but it does not change the fact that another interpretation of the Bill would be possible. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary or the Minister would answer the genuine question that I put earlier. That was not about whether the provision was useful in rectifying or clarifying, but about whether it could be used to add to the Bill. That is a crucial element.
    My question was genuine, although the Minister seemed to think that I was trying to be clever and already knew the answer. Perhaps I am naive, but I do not know the answer. If weaknesses in the Bill are revealed later, does the word "consequential"—a consequence being a failing in the Bill—allow the present Home Secretary or a future Home Secretary to introduce completely new initiatives? They might shore up the measure—perhaps desirably so—but that is not the interpretation that either the Home Secretary or the Minister are trying to put on the matter. There is an enormous difference between the two interpretations and I genuinely seek an answer.
    Beverley Hughes: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The power would not allow

    237
    either this Home Secretary, or indeed any future Home Secretary, to introduce a new provision of the kind that he has described. The words that the Home Secretary has uttered from the Dispatch Box apply not only to him but to any future Home Secretary.
    Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for that clarification and reassurance. I suspect that that was heard on both sides of the House and I hope that other hon. Members will be reassured by it.
    This exchange has been very useful because this practice is becoming far too common. The Minister referred to examples going back to 1992. Both Governments over the past 10 years have been guilty of using such provision. Too many pieces of legislation have opened doors. It is one thing, in the words my hon. Friend used in citing the Adoption and Children Bill, to give full effect to a provision. Of course, when that is so, the phrase "consequential and incidental" makes absolute sense. Every piece of legislation needs interpretation at the edge, but that is very different from opening a door in order to add substantively to the initiatives taken in a Bill. If the Minister and the Home Secretary say that "consequential" cannot be interpreted in such a way under this legislation, I shall be satisfied, relieved and happy. However, I remain worried; it will be interesting to see the matter considered at greater length.
    Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we are on the last lap: we have considered 311 amendments in six and a quarter hours; 20 Government amendments were tabled late last night; and the Government also wanted us to overthrow 22 Lords amendments today. In this last group, there are three important matters, but we shall hardly be able to touch on two of them.
    There is a significant issue in Lords amendment No. 98, which changes the law retrospectively. Had we the time, we would have moved our amendment to omit the retrospective nature of the provision, but in the absence of that I ask the House to vote against the Lords amendment because of that fundamental breach of principle.
    There is a significant issue to do with the extension of powers outside the United Kingdom. Let us consider that we have immigration control at Sangatte, for example. We have argued that the same rights should apply to people whose asylum cases are processed there as they do in the UK. We therefore ask Members to refuse to assent to the proposed provision.
    The final issue that has occupied us is the amendment to the so-called Henry VIII clause. Both the Minister and the Home Secretary have given reassurance on the point, but the amendment should not have been tabled at the last moment and only in the Lords. Even as amended, we are not satisfied that the provision will not allow some risk of further major legislation. I therefore hope that the House will stand up against anything that allows the Government to take power for the Executive that has not been expressly authorised by Parliament.
    This Bill is full of new Executive powers. It takes away rights of appeal; it does not allow some people to appeal in this country; it leaves to Ministers decisions that were previously taken by the courts. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have tried for months in both
    238
    Houses to resist such proposals. We have put up a good fight in the other place and the Lords have done a very good job. As a commentator in the press made clear today, our job is to stand up to such Government usurpation of power. We shall do so, and I hope that colleagues join us in the Lobby when we have our last opportunity to vote against what are several steps too far and several powers too many in dealing with some of the most vulnerable in our society.
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 225, before clause 137, to insert the following new clause—Consequential and incidental provision.
    Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), leave out
    `provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or'
    and insert 'consequential or incidental provision'.— [Beverley Hughes.]
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.—[Beverley Hughes.]
    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 62.

    Division No. 353]

    [10:00 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Casale, Roger

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Caton, Martin

    Allen, Graham

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Challen, Colin

    Clapham, Michael

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Austin, John

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Baird, Vera

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Battle, John

    Clelland, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Coaker, Vernon

    Benn, Hilary

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Cohen, Harry

    Berry, Roger

    Coleman, lain

    Best, Harold

    Colman, Tony

    Blackman, Liz

    Connarty, Michael

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Corston, Jean

    Borrow, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cummings, John

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bryant, Chris

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Burden, Richard

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Burgon, Colin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Burnham, Andy

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    David, Wayne

    Cairns, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Caplin, Ivor

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    239

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dismore, Andrew

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Kidney, David

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Doran, Frank

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Edwards, Huw

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Efford, Clive

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Farrelly, Paul

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Linton, Martin

    Flint, Caroline

    Love, Andrew

    Follett, Barbara

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    McCabe, Stephen

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gapes, Mike (Itford S)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Gardiner, Barry

    MacDougall, John

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McKechin, Ann

    Gilroy, Linda

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Goggins, Paul

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grogan, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Hain, rh Peter

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hanson, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Martlew, Eric

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hendrick, Mark

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Heppell, John

    Miliband, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Miller, Andrew

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Heyes, David

    Mole, Chris

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Moran, Margaret

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Hodge, Margaret

    Morley, Elliot

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Mullin, Chris

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Olner, Bill

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hutton, rh John

    Organ, Diana

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Owen, Albert

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Perham, Linda

    Jamieson, David

    Picking, Anne

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Prescott, rh John

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Purchase, Ken

    240

    Purnell, James

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Stringer, Graham

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Trickett, Jon

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Truswell, Paul

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg Derek (Halton)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Twigg Stephen (Enfield)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Salter, Martin

    Ward, Claire

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Watts, David

    Sawford, Phil

    White, Brian

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wicks Malcolm

    Sheridan, Jim

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Singh, Marsha

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Woocward, Shaun

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wray, James (Glasgow (Baillieston)

    Soley, Clive

    Southworth, Helen

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spellar, rh John

    Squire, Rachel

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Charlotte Atkins and

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mr. Jim Murphy

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Barrett, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Keetch, Paul

    Breed, Colin

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Burnett, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Burstow, Paul

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    McDonnell, John

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cotter, Brian

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Doughty, Sue

    Öpik. Lembit

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Reid Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Rendel, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hancock, Mike

    Sanders, Adrian

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Harvey, Nick

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Heath, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    241

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Willis, Phil

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wishart, Pete

    Thurso, John

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Tom Brake

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 45, 88, 126, 192, 216 and 224 disagreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in their remaining amendments.— [Beverley Hughes. ]
    The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 57.

    Division No. 354]

    [10:16 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Coaker, Vernon

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Coleman, lain

    Colman, Tony

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Connarty, Michael

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Austin, John

    Corston, Jean

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cousins, Jim

    Baird, Vera

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Banks, Tony

    Cruddas, Jon

    Barnes, Harry

    Cummings, John

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Benn, Hilary

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Berry, Roger

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Best, Harold

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blackman, Liz

    David, Wayne

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davidson, Ian

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Borrow, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dismore, Andrew

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bryant, Chris

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Doran, Frank

    Burden, Richard

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Burgon, Colin

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Burnham, Andy

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Cairns, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Efford, Clive

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Farrelly, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Caton, Martin

    Fisher, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Challen, Colin

    Flint, Caroline

    Clapham, Michael

    Follett, Barbara

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clelland, David

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Gerrard, Neil

    242

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Gilroy, Linda

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Godsiff, Roger

    McWalter, Tony

    Goggins, Paul

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Grogan, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hain, rh Peter

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hanson, David

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Martlew, Eric

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Merron, Gillian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hendrick, Mark

    Miliband, David

    Heppell, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Hermon, Lady

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mole, Chris

    Heyes, David

    Moran, Margaret

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mullin, Chris

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Olner, Bill

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hutton, rh John

    Organ, Diana

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Owen, Albert

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Paisley, Rev, Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Perham, Linda

    Jamieson, David

    Picking, Anne

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Werwyn Hatfield)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Purnell, James

    Kemp, Fraser

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kidney, David

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Rooney, Terry

    Lepper, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Ruane, Chris

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Ruddock, Joan

    Linton, Martin

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Love, Andrew

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Luke, lain (Dundee E)

    Salter, Martin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCabe, Stephen

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Sawford, Phil

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Shaw, Jonathan

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sheerman, Barry

    MacDougall, John

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Singh, Marsha

    McKechin, Ann

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    243

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Soley, Clive

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Southworth, Helen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Spellar, rh John

    Ward, Claire

    Squire, Rachel

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Watts, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    White, Brian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Winnick, David Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Stringer, Graham

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wyatt, Derek

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. Jim Murphy and

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Charlotte Atkins

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Barrett, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Breed, Colin

    McDonnell, John

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Burnett, John

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Burstow, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Corbyn, Jeremy Cotter, Brian

    Rendel, David Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Doughty, Sue

    Sanders, Adrian

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spink,Bob (Castle point)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Stunell, Andrew

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Hancock, Mike

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Willis, Phil

    Heath, David

    Wishart, Pete

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Keetch, Paul

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Sir Robert Smith and Inverness)

    Sir Robert Smith and

    John Thurso

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John Heppell, Beverley Hughes, Mr. Humfrey Malins, and
    244
    Mr. Desmond Swayne; Beverley Hughes to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Enterprise Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

  Enterprise Bill
  Lords Reasons for insisting on amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move, That this House insists on disagreeing with Lords Reasons 1C and 176C to 186C.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
  Miss Johnson: We have always been clear that the Bill allowed the Office of Fair Trading to create a separate post of chief executive if it wanted to do so. Last week I reassured the House that I envisage reviewing the arrangements at the top of the OFT when John Vickers retires in 2005, so we would consider at that time whether a separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive was desirable. However, given the concerns expressed that the OFT should definitely have a chief executive, the amendment that I have tabled in lieu of the Lords amendment makes express provision for such a post in the Bill.
  The amendment also provides for a transitional period of two years during which a combined chairman and chief executive at the OFT could be appointed. Hon. Members will know that the OFT's particular circumstances have been critical to our decision not to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive between two different people at present. We are conscious that the OFT is about to enter a period of substantial change as a result of the Bill, and we want to ensure that there is continuity to lead the OFT through that change.
  We have already said that the Secretary of State will appoint John Vickers as chairman of the OFT for the remainder of his current term as Director General of Fair Trading, honouring the commitment made to him when he was appointed to that post. Given that commitment, and to provide the desired continuity while the OFT's new arrangements bed down, I remain of the view that the OFT should not separate the roles of chairman and chief executive immediately. The transitional provision will ensure that the commitments given to John Vickers are honoured, and it will assist the OFT.
  I remind hon. Members that in creating this new statutory authority the Bill is providing for a significant depersonalisation of competition and consumer regulation, and I have said before that I expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members. A two-year transition during which a combined chairman and chief executive may be appointed therefore seems to me to be sensible and apt.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: We return to this amendment, which we discussed only last Wednesday. This Bill has been a bit of a marathon, although I have not been involved with it for very long. This may, of course, be the last time that we discuss it in this House. The Bill has had nearly 750 amendments, largely from the Government, and nine new clauses. That is no way to prepare legislation. It was badly thought out and
  246
  badly prepared. There is confusion in the mind of the Government, as demonstrated by this amendment, and a lack of direction on their part.
  We have many reservations remaining but we think that the Bill is now, in part, sensible and useful. It deals largely with competition, insolvency and consumer protection, not with enterprise. This is a Government who stifle enterprise, wrapping business in red tape and regulation. They do not understand enterprise or business, and their Back Benches are largely populated by those who have made a career of opposing free enterprise.
  Amendment No. 1 shows the confusion in the Government's mind. The Cadbury report says:
  "The chairman's role in securing good corporate governance is crucial. Chairmen are primarily responsible for the working of the board, for its balance of membership … Given the importance and particular nature of the chairman's role, it should in principle be separate from that of the chief executive."
  The principle is what we are talking about. The report continues:
  "If the two roles are combined in one person, it represents a considerable concentration of power."
  The 1995 Hampel report said:
  "Our view is that, other things being equal, the roles of chairman and chief executive officer are better kept separate, in reality as well as in name. Where the roles are combined, the onus should be on the board to explain and justify the fact."
  More recently, the Minister said that the Director General of Fair Trading
  "currently has a wide range of functions in the areas of competition and consumer protection, many of which are being reformed in the Bill. The Government believe that in the light of the reforms, it is no longer appropriate for all those powers to be vested in one individual."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 April 2002; c. 12.]
  Even more recently, last Wednesday the Minister referred to Sir John Vickers, "who I expect to occupy both roles in future." In response to an intervention, she said that the question of how the role would be divided was largely academic. The next day, I read Hansard and found that the reference to "both roles" had been expunged. I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist, but I was concerned that an official from the Department of Trade and Industry had ensured that the reference to "both roles" had been taken out of Hansard. I raised a point of order about that on Thursday. Having spoken to the Editor of Hansard and to his Deputy, I am happy to accept that it was an error rather than anything suspicious. Nevertheless, there is some confusion.
  If we want companies to be run in a certain way, I suggest that the Government body that regulates and looks after them should be run in the same way. The chief executive considers the detail and the day-to-day operations, and the chairman oversees the strategy and provides the checks and balances on the chief executive. In the debate last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), like many others, asked who regulates the regulator. That is an important question, because he will be extremely powerful. The OFT post will have a tremendous impact on business and on the enterprise of this country.
  A report produced by the Strategy Unit in September entitled "Private Action, Public Benefit" is about the Charity Commission but it can be applied to the same position in the Office of Fair Trading. It says:

  247
  "The Chief Commissioner is currently both Chair and Chief Executive of the Commission … With the … higher public profile that the Commission is to adopt, there is a strong case for introducing separate Chair and Chief Executive posts. The Chair's particular role would be in ensuring good corporate governance and the smooth functioning of the enlarged board, and in representing the Commission in public and at high level within Government and the charitable sector."
  If I am allowed to quote Lord Razzall—
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Lord Razzall is a Liberal Democrat.
  Mr. Robathan: He is indeed a Liberal Democrat. I do not often quote Liberal Democrats or pray them in aid, however yesterday in the House of Lords he used the analogy of the BBC, and I think that it is a rather good one. It is also a public body. We may have our own views on the BBC, but would we want Greg Dyke to be both chairman and chief executive? I suggest that almost all hon. Members would answer no to that question.
  Sir John Vickers is an excellent man. Not only did he go to my college at Oxford, Oriel, but he was a fellow of All Souls, as we were reminded last Wednesday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I am sure that the Government will heartily deny the comments in an article in last Sunday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, which says:
  "The Government is heading for further embarrassment over sweeping powers to be given to the overhauled Office of Fair Trading, after it emerged that John Vickers, the designated chairman and chief executive, is willing to give up one of these roles. … an OFT spokesman confirmed that Vickers is 'neutral' on whether the roles should be split, adding: 'The decision is for Patricia Hewitt"—
  the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—
  "and Parliament.' … The Government's supporters say that best practice in a private sector boardroom is not necessarily applicable to that of a regulator."
  I think that, on principle, it would be helpful if it were dealt with by the regulator as well.
  I am sure that Sir John Vickers will do the job well, but confusion continues because, having denied our argument until last night, the Government have now largely accepted it. After Sir John Vickers there will be a chief executive and a chairman, separate and distinct.
  The Government have accepted our argument. I think that it is much better for good corporate government, and for the oversight of good corporate government by the OFT, for there to be two separate roles and two separate occupants of the posts involved.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I do not want to make a meal of this, because many of the arguments about the split functions of the chief executive and the chairman were aired the other day, and I understand that the Government amendments largely cover the principle for which we argued—that the roles should be separated. I accept that that considerable step has now been taken, and I do not see much purpose in prolonging the debate indefinitely.
  It is unfortunate that the Government prejudged the legislation, and that we are now having to build legislation around one individual's contract, but that is
  248
  a fact of life. There was a contract, which had to be honoured. I understand that the Government have now largely accepted that the legislation will have to be changed, and in the way that we have sought.
  I will say, however, that throughout our discussion of accountability I have been concerned with a slightly different point: the extent to which the key appointment of the chief executive will be subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny. Lord Borrie, who performed that role in the past, tried to address the issue when it was debated in the House of Lords. He gave a long list of ways in which he felt that this powerful appointment was accountable to Parliament. He listed the parliamentary ombudsman, the report to the Public Accounts Committee, the Competition Commission and the competition appeals tribunal, and asked rather wearily why on earth we needed more parliamentary accountability when all those bodies were available.
  Although obviously a distinguished man, Lord Borrie may not have quite got the point that has concerned many of us. The key issue is the process of appointment. Mr. John Vickers—I do not want to be pedantic, but I must tell the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that I do not think he has reached the knighthood stage yet—is clearly an outstanding individual, but if a future Government appointed a complete dud or made a blatantly political appointment, at what point could the House exercise some control or scrutiny?
  This is not an issue that could be taken to the ombudsman, to the Competition Commission—another quango—or to one of the courts. Scrutiny can only be exerted here. That is why I, along with other Members, have urged that when an appointment is made, Mr. Vickers's successor should be brought before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We do not need to legislate for that; all we need is some assurance from the Secretary of State, for reasons of courtesy as much as anything else, that the appointment will be referred to Parliament for scrutiny. I am not saying that Parliament should necessarily be able to veto the appointment, but I think it should be referred to a Select Committee for proper oversight.
  I am disappointed that that relatively small concession to parliamentary scrutiny has not been made, and I hope the Minister will make it. I do not think it necessarily affects our attitude to the amendment: it is couched in terms of the split functions, and that point has been conceded. But I would like to leave the Bill feeling that the Government had taken account of the concern about the considerable power vested in this appointment, and the view that it should be subject to more scrutiny.
  10.45 pm
  Bob Spink: I cannot agree that the roles of chairman and CE can be sensibly combined for any period. That is organisational nonsense. It would not pass even key stage 1 in management philosophy.
  I do not want to be a killjoy, but such confusion on the part of the Government should not be allowed to pass unmentioned. I am pleased that the Government have caved in on the amendment, but I cannot see why the transitional period should be set at two years. I had hoped for a more detailed explanation of that from the Minister. Perhaps there is still time for her to cover those

  249
  points. Why is it two years? Why not one year, six months or even two months? We need to ask those questions.
  If the structure of the OFT is not right, how can it do its important job in our economy? The answer is that it probably cannot. I like the idea of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that a new appointment should at least, out of courtesy, be scrutinised by the Select Committee. I hope that those on the Treasury Front Bench will take that on board.
  I will not delay proceedings further but I thought that those points should be raised.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I reiterate the fact that we have always accepted that a split could be made: the Bill always made it possible for the two roles to be split. However, we have always said that we wished to honour an existing appointment. In response to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the reason why we have gone for two years is that John Vickers retires in 2005. In fact, it will make little difference because the amendment relates to a process of appointment, not to any existing post holder. However, it is clear that, within two years, there will be a change at the top of the OFT. That change is recognised in the transitional period in the amendment.
  On the role of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry or indeed any other Select Committee, we are enthusiasts—I am sure that the OFT is—for parliamentary accountability, for seeing that that accountability is exercised fully, and for members of Select Committees taking an interest directly in the work of the OFT in its many guises. I trust that that work will go on. It is unlikely that we would want to go down the path that the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned. In any event, as he rightly said, the amendment is concerned not with that issue directly but with ensuring that, after the honouring of the two-year period, the two jobs of chairman and chief executive will be split. I gave the House an assurance that we would look at that matter. This is a more formalised arrangement to reassure this House and another place. I trust that Members will receive it in the spirit in which it is offered.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords reasons agreed to.
  Miss Johnson: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment 2A to Lords amendment No. 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, but instead agrees with amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
  As I said in last week's debate on Lords amendments, I am happy to accept the principle of Lords amendment No. 2—that the Office of Fair Trading should have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs. However, I consider it necessary to amend the Lords amendment to ensure that the OFT must have regard only to the principles of good corporate governance that may reasonably be regarded as being applicable to it, and to ensure that the OFT must also have regard to other relevant general guidance concerning the governance of public bodies.
  As hon. Members will know, we tabled an amendment last week, modelled on a similar provision in the Office of Communications Act 2002, to achieve
  250
  these changes. However, we have listened to the strong opinions in the other place, which favoured an amendment modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Today's amendment is therefore based on the 2000 Act, which includes a provision that refers to having regard to the principles of corporate governance, which may be reasonably regarded as applicable to "the Authority". Obviously, our draft refers instead to the OFT. We have added to that model a reference to having regard to guidance that is aimed at public bodies. This is an important change. The OFT will not be a company, so it must take proper account of guidance, rules and procedures for public bodies, such as Treasury rules on public accounting.
  By way of contrast, the Financial Services Authority is a private law body—a company limited by guarantee, on which statutory functions are conferred. The provision in the 2000 Act therefore needs amending to be fully appropriate to the OFT. I believe that amendment (a) achieves the Lords' underlying aim—that the OFT should have regard to the principles of good corporate governance—with a provision that is modelled on the 2000 Act. We have changed the provision only where necessary to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the OFT.
  Mr. Robathan: It is interesting to note that yesterday in the Lords, at the early hour of 6.41 pm, long before dinner, the Government could summon only 129 people in support of their position—seven fewer than they managed some 20 minutes earlier for the first amendment. I am not sure whether wiser and more learned counsel prevailed—
  Miss Johnson: Given today's circumstances, would it not be wiser for Opposition Members to refrain from mentioning support that can be achieved in furtherance of particular aims or objectives?
  Mr. Robathan: I am sorry, but I was discussing the matter in hand—amendment No. 2 to the Bill—rather than making cheap and foolish comments about the Opposition.
  Bob Spink: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend by suggesting that the Government's lack of support in another place was due to the contradictory nature of these amendments. According to any management textbook, the principles of good corporate governance generally require the splitting of the roles of chief executive officer and chairman. How does the Minister square that with her amendment?
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government are in confusion over this issue, which is why the Minister tried to deflect my observation with a rather foolish comment that had nothing to do with the matter in hand. However, our exchange must have been in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker; otherwise, you would have pulled me, or her, up. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may jest, but we are talking about corporate governance, a very serious matter in the light of Enron and of other scandals in the United States.
  What I and most other Opposition Members do not understand is why the Government exhibit such antipathy towards good corporate governance. Lords amendment No. 2, which was passed last night, states:

  251
  "In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
  I would not have thought that there was anything even slightly controversial about that, not even to Labour Back Benchers who have not followed proceedings on the Bill.
  As the Minister has pointed out, the exact words of the amendment were taken from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which instructed the Financial Services Authority to
  "have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
  The Minister has just told us that the FSA is a company, but is it a business? Does it make profits? I think not. I am amazed that the Government object to Lords amendment No. 2.
  Good corporate governance is the cry of the moment, especially on the Labour Back Benches. A ten-minute Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on 15 October, entitled "Corporate Responsibility". A Government White Paper on company law—which I am sure has been read by all hon. Members—was published in July. It is called "Modernising Company Law". It is a detailed document, but I shall cite only one example. It states:
  "we are also taking a number of other initiatives to promote improved corporate governance, such as…the work undertaken in the wake of the collapse of Enron".
  That is a DTI document with a foreword by the Secretary of State, so I question whether we are seeing joined-up Government.
  The Government's amendment appears to have been produced in a fit of pique. It dilutes the provision, although less so than the amendment they produced last week. It sends the message that good corporate governance is necessary for everybody except the regulator or a Government body. We can all make our own judgment about why the Government are so unhappy with the totally innocuous wording of Lords amendment No. 2. However, I know that discussions have taken place in the other place, and the Government have their huge and somewhat mindless majority here, so I will not press the issue to a vote.
  The Bill has been hugely improved by close scrutiny in both Houses, but especially in the Lords. The scrutiny of the Bill has forced the Government to think about what they are doing and to defend their case, however badly. I came to the Bill a little late in the day—
  Mr. Tony McWalter: It shows.
  Mr. Robathan: From my reading of Hansard, I do not recall that the hon. Gentleman took much part in the debate. I was astonished to read that the Bill has had nearly 750 amendments.
  Mr. McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman was on the Committee, so I will of course give way.
  Mr. McWalter: I wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I was on the Committee and made
  252
  several telling contributions. I have been watching the Bill's progress with a sense of paternal joy at the liberation of enterprise that it will involve.
  Mr. Robathan: I am always pleased to give way to my old bridge partner, and I knew that he served on the Committee. It was not he who made the sedentary intervention, as he knows.
  Mr. David Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: No, because I am about to finish my speech.
  Mr. Borrow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Opposition spokesman to name me as having made a sedentary intervention when I made no such remark?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I do not recall that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) named any hon. Member. As for interventions, who Members give way to is entirely a matter for them.
  11 pm
  Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly not bother giving way again.
  Before I sit down, I have to correct myself, as the hon. Member for Twickenham was right. Professor John Vickers has yet to be made Sir John Vickers. However, I am almost certain that I have heard him referred to before as Sir John, and I am sure that it is only a matter of time before the honour arrives in his post.
  I hope that the Bill does the good that is intended. We wish it well, with reservations. We shall not press the matter to a vote.
  Dr. Cable: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The original amendment was tabled in the Lords for two reasons. The first was to reinforce the argument for splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive, but that point has now been conceded and does not need pursuing.
  The second reason was touched on the by the hon. Member for Blaby, and is a bit more mysterious. The Financial Services Bill that recently went through the House contained a very simple phrase and description, but the Government feel, for some reason, that it is necessary to change it radically. I do not understand that.
  The language that has been inserted in the Bill about the appropriate roles of public bodies is equally applicable to the FSA. I do not understand the logic of the Minister's argument. She says that the amendment is necessary because the OFT is a different sort of body, but there is nothing in the change that relates to the difference between the OFT and the FSA.
  I think that what has happened is that the FSA was allowed to get away with a commitment to corporate governance, but that the civil servants decided that the formulation did not build in enough of the public service

  253
  culture. They did not want another quango to get away with the same thing, so they decided to toughen up the language.
  It is not worth pursuing the point through ping-ponging between the two Houses, but the amendment does seem to be an example of retrospective tidying up rather than an issue of principle for which the Government are fighting. However, I have no intention of pursuing the matter further.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall clarify the differences between the OFT and the FSA in this respect. There are a couple of crucial differences, and the first is that the OFT is publicly funded, whereas the FSA is not. Effectively, it is funded by a levy on industry. Therefore, although it may comply with them, the FSA does not have the same obligations as the OFT to take proper account of the guidance rules and procedures for public bodies. An example of that guidance would be the Treasury rules on public accounting.
  The existence of those differences is why we have been careful to make sure that an explicit formulation in this respect—and I believe that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will appreciate this—will pick up the notions of good governance, appropriately adapted from a private-sector context for the explicit public-sector responsibilities of the OFT.
  Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman a second on his feet.
  Bob Spink: Will the Minister name one industry in which the combination of the roles of chief executive officer and chairman in one person is accepted as good governance?
  Miss Johnson: My point was that the OFT is not a private company involved in industry. It is a public body, publicly funded to discharge public functions, and it is therefore different from the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: No. We are dealing with a basic point about corporate good governance. My understanding is that hon. Members of all parties accept that corporate good governance is an important concept, whose furtherance we all support. Indeed, I was grateful that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) remarked upon the White Paper on company law review which I launched in July. There is a considerable amount of other work being done on good governance in the business sector, and it is important that we recognise its value.
  We are simply trying to recognise both the proposals that were put forward in another place to recognise the formulation used in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 which, of course, I am only too happy to replicate. I want to modify those appropriately to reflect the OFT's public role. Having explained that, I hope that the House will feel able to support amendment (a).
  Question put and agreed to.
  254
  Amendment made: (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 in lieu of amendment 2A.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

  Enterprise Bill

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to motions 5, 6 and 7, which, for the convenience of the House, we will take together.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 24th October, be approved
      That the draft Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 24th October, be approved
      That the draft Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Fireworks
    11.7 pm
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am delighted, on this bonfire night, to present a petition calling for an urgent review of existing legislation of fireworks, which was signed by 220 of my constituents in the constituency of Gloucester.
    The petition declares that the existing legislation on fireworks is in need of urgent review.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to bring forward legislative proposals to require all public firework displays to be controlled by licensed pyrotechnicians; to license all vendors of fireworks to meet strict safety criteria, and to restrict the times of year at which fireworks can be bought.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Consumers for Health Choice
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I wish to present a petition on behalf of some 280 of my constituents, who are very concerned about the implications of the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products, particularly as these could materially infringe on their right to choose safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies in future.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Fireworks
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: On this anniversary of a famous event that took place somewhere near this Chamber a few hundred years ago, I wish to present a petition from 793 residents of Lowestoft in my constituency who are concerned about the nuisance and danger caused to people and animals by those who misuse fireworks; and by the spread of this practice way beyond the short period of time around 5 November to the extent that it constitutes antisocial behaviour.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons enacts legislation which would make it an offence to sell fireworks to individuals for private use at times other than the three weeks leading up to 5 November each year.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Maajid Nawaz
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  11.10 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Tonight, Maajid Nawaz lies incarcerated in a prison in Egypt. He was arrested in April and accused of belonging to the Islamic liberation movement. He is a 24-year-old married man with a child aged two. His mother, Mrs. Nawaz, my constituent, saw me at the beginning of her son's imprisonment to share with me her agony at the way that he is being treated.
  When Mrs. Nawaz came to see me at my surgery last Friday, she was even more distressed, because she had not been prepared for what she saw in Egypt when her son's trial began. He was brought into the courtroom in a cage, along with 25 other men. During the proceedings, incredibly—it is not common practice in British courts—drinks, ice cream and other things were sold, as if the trial were a trivial matter.
  During the trial, it transpired that there was no proper translation of the evidence; indeed, the evidence did not seem to be correctly presented. The trial is adjourned at present because of Ramadan, but I hope that as a result of the debate the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will do his best to ensure that justice is done. I know, too, that constituents of other Members currently in the Chamber are similarly affected.
  I want to make it clear that I do not want to criticise the actions of Ministers in this matter. Baroness Amos has done everything that she possibly can to secure justice for those in prison. The Foreign Secretary has done what he can. However, for whatever reason, the Government's protestations have not been entirely heeded.
  Maajid's arrest took place at 3 am on 1 April. It was a frightening experience. The arresting officers and soldiers had no warrant. They claimed that, as it was their country, they did not need one. I have evidence about what took place.
  Maajid was taken from his house at gunpoint. He claims that the security forces were brandishing semi-automatic machine guns, grenades and various bombs. The experience was extremely frightening. Dozens of soldiers were in attendance. It appears that there was overuse of violence, even though unarmed men were being arrested.
  Maajid's wife was told that he would be back in two days. That was in April. The phone cable was removed, leaving Maajid's wife, who has no command of the Egyptian language, alone in a foreign country with no means of communication with the outside world. Maajid was taken to a cell where he was blindfolded and handcuffed. He was quizzed about his ethnic origin and left to sleep on a concrete floor. At no stage were the families of the men informed why they had been arrested.
  Between 1 and 4 April, Maajid and the other men were held in a jail in Cairo. The House would not benefit from hearing lurid details of the torture that went on, but Maajid was forced to listen to people being tortured

  257
  by electricity. He was threatened, blindfolded, tied up with rope and deprived of sleep. His hands were tied behind his back. He had to share a blanket with another person, even though it was not big enough to keep either of them warm. When eating meals, his hands were tied together in front of him. The meals were simply bread and cheese. Maajid was often treated badly. I know that it is a complaint sometimes about British jails, but the toilet facilities were beyond belief.
  From 4 April, Maajid was transferred to another prison. He was forced to make statements while still in a state of shock. Increasingly, he was deprived of any sleep whatever. That went on for a month and a half, as Maajid and his colleagues obviously became more and more demoralised. They were denied access to beds, lights and other such facilities. They were revisited by the torturers from state security and tortured again while blindfolded. There were no mattresses; the men were again left to lie on a concrete floor in the dark. While all that was going on, is it surprising that some style of confessions were extracted under torture?
  The general complaint—of which I know the Minister is aware—is that Maajid and others feel that they were denied access to the British consul for roughly a week, and to lawyers for a month and a half. Gordon Brown, the head of the consulate in Cairo, has been given all this evidence and is acting on it.
  Maajid, his mother and the legal team believe that the Egyptian Government have broken the Vienna convention on consular relations by not informing the consul of the arrests until 10 days after they took place. The United Nations convention against torture has also been infringed by a failure to investigate the claims straight away and by not responding to an official complaint lodged by the United Kingdom consulate. Egyptian law and human rights law have also been infringed by denying the men access to lawyers for one and a half months despite attempts by the consulate to gain such access.
  Added to that, people can be held under emergency law only if they are thought to be drug dealers or terrorists, yet on 24 June, the terrorist charges were dropped and the men were instead charged with being members of a banned party. Suspects can only be held under emergency law for a maximum of 30 days, yet they were held under that law for two months and 24 days—another breach of the conventions.
  The solicitors assisting Maajid and others, Christian Fisher Khan, said that the charges are as follows. The first is that of promoting by speech and writing the goals of a group founded in violation of the provision of the law—the Islamic Liberation party—which calls for dispensing with the constitution and laws, preventing state institutions from performing their work, promoting among themselves and others the group's call for considering the ruling regime as oppressive and rising against it with a view to destabilising a state based on Islamic teachings.
  The second charge is that of possessing printed literature that promotes the movement's message, of distributing the literature and of showing it to others. The third and final charge is that of possessing a printing instrument—a computer—which would be used for propagating the movement's message.
  258
  Mrs. Nawaz came to see me on Friday to describe exactly how the trial was conducted. Twenty-six men were held in the courtroom in a cage in which there was standing room only. Ice cream, other food and drink were sold in the aisles to the public—during a trial in 2002. The men were not allowed any food or drink. They were allowed neither interpreters nor bail. The prosecution failed to disclose evidence and had to be ordered to do so by the judge.
  The men, after much changing of the charges, are accused, among other things, of possessing books that should not have been in their possession, even though the books are London university textbooks and freely available in Egypt—in fact, the men bought them from the annual Cairo book fair. According to a press release from the solicitors Christian Fisher Khan, Hodan Pankhurst, the wife of Reza Pankhurst, has said:
  "it has emerged from the trial proceedings that the so-called printed evidence against my husband and the others are actually taught in the Egyptian National Curriculum!"
  Charges were changed from
  "trying to overthrow the Government"
  to
  "being affiliated to a Moslem group that tries to overthrow the Government by speech and writing",
  which is a problem given that Maajid cannot read or write Arabic. The trial has now been postponed through Ramadan. Two committees were set up to examine the issues connected to the books seized. The judge has agreed to appoint translators for the next hearing so that the accused men will know what is going on. I am glad to say that the judge is unhappy about the fact that some evidence presented by the prosecution has nothing at all to do with the men who have been charged.
  Maajid was in Egypt as part of his university course, for which he was required to spend a year in either Egypt or Syria; he felt that Egypt would be the safer of the two countries. Maajid is a member of the Islamic Liberation party, which is not proscribed. That is the heart of the problem. Hassan Risvi and Hirosho Ito are not in that group: initially, they were held under the emergency law, but after 24 June they were held under criminal law.
  As I said, Egypt is in contravention of the Vienna convention on consular relations. Mrs. Nawaz has a campaign going in my constituency to get support for her son, and that is working extremely well—the local newspaper, the Southend Evening Echo is assisting, and Mr. Andrew Baker, Maajid's former headmaster, has written to me in some detail about Maajid and told me how incredible it is to him that Maajid has been accused of trying to undermine the state of Egypt.
  Forensic state doctors examined the men and found no evidence of torture, but that was done seven months after the alleged torture took place, and it is said that electrical torture can be administered in such a way as to leave no marks. Some of the men have lost the use of their limbs, or did so temporarily. They are, I am pleased to say, now freely allowed to use the toilet, and all those with Maajid in the cage have recently been contacted by their lawyers, so there has been some improvement there.
  It would appear that Maajid's telephone was tapped for a week prior to his arrest because he looked up the ILP website. Maajid signed a confession, but cannot

  259
  read Arabic. Reza Pankhurst signed a confession, but cannot read Arabic and needs glasses, which he did not have on him when he signed it. Hassan Risvi and Hirosho Ito both signed confessions but have been let go.
  Finally, Mrs. Nawaz is very worried that, in the light of what has happened in the past, if her son is found innocent he could be released into the community, not allowed to travel to another country and be rearrested. That is a real fear of Mrs. Nawaz. I ask that the Minister have a word with the Prime Minister. If, at some stage, he is minded to intervene, I know that Maajid, his mother and all right-thinking citizens would be extremely grateful for the Prime Minister's intervention.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for enabling me to intervene briefly in the debate on behalf of my constituent, Ian Nisbet, whose parents I have come to know well as they live in Brackley, very near my own home in my constituency. I echo the points that my hon. Friend made so eloquently. They are compelling points, to which I add a few comments of my own.
  First, I offer my sincere thanks to Her Majesty's ambassador in Cairo, and to all the consular staff both in Cairo and in London who have been involved in the case. I echo my hon. Friend's assertion that it is not a matter of criticising the Government in this case. We are all aware of the sensitivities involved.
  Secondly, we need to recognise that legal systems are different. Things that are seen in one light in London are now always seen in the same light in Cairo. The culture and conditions in prison, the operation of the legal system and the rules of evidence are not likely to be the same. We must respect some degree of difference, but that does not absolve us from concern if we feel that conditions are unacceptable or intolerable. It is an important part of the consular role and the Government's role to ensure that conditions are kept to an acceptable standard, and that accused people, who are very vulnerable when they are incarcerated, are treated decently.
  I draw the attention of the House to three brief points. The first is that the Islamic organisation in question is not proscribed in the United Kingdom, although it is in Egypt. That is a relevant consideration for any of us. The second is that a real concern about the evidence has been highlighted by my hon. Friend. I cite the fact that among the bundle of documents, which seems to have been comprehensive, was a sports magazine in English, a calendar, a bundle of till receipts from the supermarket, and a number of documents that do not appear to have an owner among the accused. The operation does not seem to have been very professional. That is a matter of concern.
  Finally, I echo my hon. Friend's concern about conditions not only in terms of the original arrest and incarceration, but in the conduct of court proceedings, which cannot amount to an acceptable trial if people are
  260
  held in cages, without being able to sit during the day, probably in considerable heat and discomfort, and in very large numbers. I would be extremely grateful for the Minister's response. We are aware of his difficulties, but we are anxious to have his co-operation in the fullest possible Government attention to the case.
  11.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the Adjournment debate and on bringing this important case to the attention of the House. I know that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), have taken a keen constituency interest in the case and have followed it closely. I assure all the hon. Members and others who are present that the Government take the issue seriously and will continue to take a very close and direct interest in the way in which the case is handled.
  I welcome the opportunity to set out the assistance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided to Maajid Nawaz and two other British nationals who remain in detention in connection with the case. I am grateful for the kind words of hon. Members about FCO staff, and I shall pass on those messages to them.
  On 1 April 2002, Maajid Nawaz, a student at the university of Alexandria, was arrested. Hassan Rizvi, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst were also arrested on 1 April.
  Consular staff at our embassy in Cairo immediately sought confirmation of the arrests from the local authorities. On 7 April, it was officially confirmed that the four men had been detained by state security and we immediately sought consular access. Our consul and vice consul were allowed to visit Maajid Nawaz and the other detainees on 11 April. They appeared well but said that they had been intimidated and treated roughly in the initial days of their detention. One of the men made serious allegations of torture. The men did not, at this time, request independent medical examinations, nor did they wish embassy staff to raise the allegations of mistreatment and torture formally with the Egyptian authorities. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
  In the meantime, every effort was made to secure information on the judicial process under which the men would be prosecuted. Our ambassador met senior Government officials on 18 April and 7 May, and the prosecutor general on 8 May, to seek information. My noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for consular matters, met the Egyptian ambassador to London on 9 May to raise our concerns about the treatment of the detainees. On 22 May, Maajid Nawaz and the other men saw their legal representatives for the first time.
  We were then able to ascertain that the men had been arrested under a ministerial decree issued by the Minister of the Interior. On 23 June, the decree was

  261
  overturned by the prosecutor general and the case transferred into the normal court system.
  The detainees appeared in court on 4 July, 20 July and 3 August. On 4 August it was announced that three of the detainees were to face charges and that the fourth, Hassan Rizvi, was to be released. Mr Rizvi was released from custody on 12 August and subsequently returned to the United Kingdom. The relatives of the detainees were aware of the exact details of the charges faced.
  The trial commenced on 20 October. Proceedings were adjourned after five hours and recommenced on 29 October. The judge, over the next three days, presented the prosecution evidence to the court and, on 31 October, proceedings were adjourned. The trial proper is expected to start on 21 December. Staff from our embassy in Cairo were present during the hearings and we hope to have someone present during any trial.
  During court sessions the detainees were being held in a cage. We acknowledge that conditions have been cramped and that there have been difficulties with access to toilet facilities and the provision of drinks and food.
  The lawyers registered protests with the presiding judge, and by 31 October conditions had improved. I am also pleased to be able to inform hon. Members that the detainees were able to speak to their relatives by telephone from the judge's chambers, I understand on 31 October.
  We were concerned to learn about the allegations of mistreatment and torture suffered by Maajid Nawaz and the others. As I have said, when we first learned of them, the detainees asked us not raise them formally. However, the allegations were serious, and therefore were raised informally by our ambassador in meetings with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 11 April and with the Interior Minister on 18 April. The allegations were also raised when our ambassador met senior Egyptian Government Ministers on 7 May, 8 May, 24 June and 26 June.
  On 1 July, Maajid Nawaz, Reza Pankhurst and lan Nisbet wrote letters to the Prime Minister setting out in detail the treatment they had suffered in the first four days of their detention. A request was also made for an independent medical examination.
  On 3 July, the Foreign Secretary was able to raise the case when he met the Egyptian Foreign Minister. On 25 July, my noble Friend Baroness Amos wrote to the Egyptian Foreign Minister to ask that an investigation be conducted into the allegations and that the detainees be allowed access to an independent medical examination.
  On 19 September, our ambassador met the prosecutor general who assured us that he had been asked to conduct an investigation into the allegations, but said that that was not yet complete. On 25 September, our ambassador wrote to the prosecutor general to ask for the results of the investigation.
  We have continued to press the Egyptian authorities for a formal response. Most recently, on 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spent time discussing the case and the allegations of mistreatment
  262
  and torture with the Egyptian Foreign Minister when they met in Cairo. Our ambassador spoke with the Foreign Minister on 21 October and with the Interior Minister on 24 October. A formal reply from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is still awaited.
  We have been active in trying to ensure the detainees' welfare in detention. Since Maajid Nawaz was arrested on 1 April, concerns about prison conditions have been raised by the detainees and their relatives in the United Kingdom. We are unable to seek better conditions for British prisoners than those afforded to local nationals. However, through representations made to the authorities by consular staff and by working with the relatives, improvements to the prison conditions have been secured. That culminated in a move to newly refurbished cells equipped with toilet facilities in September. Maajid Nawaz, lan Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst do not currently have any complaints about the prison conditions, although they obviously had serious concerns at an earlier stage.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: I thank the Minister for giving way. Speaking very briefly, one appreciates the sensitivities involved and our feelings are, of course, with the relatives and friends of those who are currently detained in Egypt. Does my hon. Friend accept that the difficulty that he appears to be having in getting responses to the proper queries that we have raised is un usual from a Government as friendly and helpful as the Egyptian Government have always been? One hopes that the answers will come forward very quickly, but in the meantime, will he reassure the House that British visitors to Egypt, of whom there are tens of thousands every year, need have no particular concerns? Will he acknowledge that the Egyptian authorities are extremely sensitive to these matters, but live in the light of the desperate difficulties that they experienced at Luxor some time ago?
  Mr. O'Brien: There are certainly serious problems in relation to terrorism in Egypt, and the Egyptian Government are working hard, not least in co-operation with our country and others, to seek to resolve those issues. I certainly acknowledge that they have to be prepared to deal with their concerns, but we also need to ensure that any British citizens who are detained are treated properly.
  The point made about whether the detainees would be able to leave the country if they are acquitted is important. We know nothing at the moment to suggest that, if they are acquitted, the Egyptian authorities would not allow them to leave Egypt. However, the formalities involved could mean that an actual release takes several days. The fourth person in this case, Hassan Rizvi, was released on 12 August following the announcement of the intention to release on 4 August, and he was able to leave the country on the same day.
  On the suggestion that the Prime Minister might be involved, I hear that request from the hon. Member for Southend, West and I shall certainly consider the appropriate time when it might be looked at.

  263
  In conclusion, I assure the hon. Gentleman and others that Ministers in London and our ambassador in Cairo have taken a close personal interest in this case. Consular staff in Cairo have worked extremely hard to ensure that we have done all that we properly can to assist Maajid Nawaz, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst since their detention on 1 April. In London, our consular division has tried to maintain contact with the relatives and keep them informed of developments.
  264
  Baroness Amos met the families on 7 May and 3 July. Mrs. Nawaz was able to meet our ambassador in Cairo to discuss the case during her recent visit to Egypt.
  We have done what we can and we will continue to do so. This is a difficult case that is obviously traumatic for the families, and we will do all that we reasonably can to help and assist them through this difficult period.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Post Office Network
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to introduce this important debate and I am grateful that my colleagues have taken the trouble to attend.
The issue of the post office network has been in front of Governments for a long time. Since the fag end of the last Conservative Administration, Governments have been struggling with the possibility of migrating benefit payments from giro books to automated credit transfer and with the opportunities that that might offer. That will have a big impact on the future of the post office network.
I intend to make a few opening remarks and I hope that my colleagues will join in the debate as it unfolds. I think that I speak for everyone when I say that there is no objection in principle to the concept of the migration of benefits. As the current generation of benefit recipients passes on, it is sensible for the Government to contemplate the longer-term possibilities. For example, my 23-year-old son has just finished a computer science degree at Glasgow university and the likelihood of his wanting to receive his pension by means of a paper giro book is remote.
In principle, we have no difference with the Government on this issue, but genuine concern is being caused by important practical and administrative implications of the programme and by the way in which the migration is being organised and rolled out. The operation is huge and it is important that we get it right. If we do not, essential weekly payments to many families who have to live on low incomes will be prejudiced. The viability of the post office network and the Government's sensible plans to develop and promote e-government will also be prejudiced. A lot is at stake.
I am sure that hon. Members will ask a series of questions to clarify the state of play. Have the Government got a fallback position? Is there a plan B if the roll-out begins to go wrong? How will the Government react if the migration comes unstitched at the seams, errors are made and other problems arise? We would like to be reassured that contingency planning is taking place, that risk assessments have been carried out and that proper arrangements are being made in case unintended consequences make the migration process more difficult than is imagined.
We need that reassurance in the short term. It is five short months until the project goes live. When I talked to representatives of some of the banks that are important players and partners in the exercise, they said that a commercial administrative project on this scale would be piloted for some 18 months before it was rolled out live. The Government have set a very ambitious
2WH
timetable. We are all crossing our fingers in the hope that everything goes well, but the chances are that something will go wrong and we need to anticipate that in the best way possible.
The viability of the network in the long term is also a matter of concern. Together with my close colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), I have been in dialogue with a group of postmasters and postmistresses in south-east Scotland. I have to say to the Minister, and I report this to him accurately, that they are losing faith in the project. They are a group of dedicated, committed people, who are trusted by people in their communities. They would be excellent ambassadors and general practitioners, as the PIU report of June 2002 envisaged, and would be excellent people to keep on side. I report to the Minister as honestly as I can, and with as much conviction as I can, that they are reaching the conclusion that the Government are not acting properly or in good faith on the matter. That is an issue of serious concern. It is not me who is saying that, it is those people, and I trust their judgment. They are entrepreneurs who are doing the best that they can, but they can see no long-term future for their businesses. If that is true, it is a matter of real concern for us all.
The PIU report was published in June 2000. It posited the twin platforms of a universal bank, which would be a platform on which sub-postmasters could build an income stream in the future, and the concept of "your guide". The local postmasters saw that those two elements could provide a way forward, and that gave them confidence. The report was well written, the tone was positive and it embraced all the questions that they felt needed to be embraced. They were pleased that the 24 recommendations in the package of measures were as good for them as they could have possibly hoped.
Since June 2000, many of the opportunities presented by those 24 recommendations have been squandered. Many of the recommendations have been watered down. That is certainly the perception of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is a matter of real concern. The last recommendation in the PIU report was that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the Post Office and all its works, should make progress reports to the Prime Minister from time to time. I am interested to know whether any progress reports have been made. If they have been, could copies of them be placed in the Library so that we can see what progress the Secretary of State feels is being made? There is a suspicion in post offices throughout the United Kingdom that little progress has been made since the report was published in June 2000.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned "your guide". I do not know whether he actually saw it when it was trialled; it was trialled in my constituency, in Leicestershire. It was very popular with sub-postmasters, and they were very distressed when the project was scuppered because it failed to receive the support of the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments.
Mr. Kirkwood: That was a timely intervention, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I was coming on to "your guide". I studied the pilot in his constituency with great interest. I agree that it passed all

3WH
the tests that were set for it as far as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters was concerned. It was an information network that had the potential to develop commercial and public sector services, in a way that would have produced an income. It would have involved postmasters and postmistresses in the process so that the concept of a general practitioner could really have been sustained, developed and built on.
The abandonment of "your guide" was a retrograde step. We are still trying to understand the consequences of that decision. The decision was wrong, and it will have a direct financial effect on Post Office Ltd. I would like to know the Government's assessment of the financial effect of the cancellation of "your guide" on Post Office Ltd. I would also like to know what the alternatives are. Commercial schemes are supposed to be available to the Post Office to keep the network viable. What is the alternative to "your guide"? It has now gone, which is a shame, but it is right that the Government are held to account. They must come up with an alternative commercial scheme that will replace the benefits that "your guide" could have provided. That is an important issue, and I hope that the Minister will have a chance to deal with it.
I turn to financial assistance for the rural network. I encourage hon. Members from urban constituencies to discuss the diversification programme for urban post offices. The future for such post offices will also be severely prejudiced if they are left to the free market with no support after 2005.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the urban network is suffering from many of the problems that he describes in relation to the rural network. Last week, those of us who represent urban constituencies received a letter from Consignia that listed our local post offices and indicated that about a third of them were set to close. For many of our communities and local parades, the threat is one not simply of damage to the future viability of the business but of immediate closure.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. I was told at the weekend that when, as part of the reinvention programme, the Post Office wrote to some 8,000 or 9,000 postmasters and postmistresses to ask how many of them would like to take a retirement package with a payoff enabling them to exit their businesses with dignity, some 3,000 opted in. If the Post Office had repeated that exercise after the abandonment of "your guide", twice as many people would have done so.
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I think that I know the answer to this question, but perhaps he can put it on the record. Does he support in principle the compensation arrangements that are being offered as part of the urban renewal programme following the recommendations in the PIU report?
Mr. Kirkwood: The answer is yes, but I do not want the package to be capped. If we are to be fair to
4WH
postmasters, a package that enables them to leave their businesses with dignity should not be artificially constrained by the financial needs of, or diktats from, the Treasury. Nevertheless, I take the Minister's point. The compensation arrangements are a sensible part of the package, and I encourage the Government to continue to develop them.
As for financial assistance to the rural network, I understood that the partners were to be consulted—indeed, recommendation 6 of the PI U report anticipated that—but I am not sure that that has ever taken place. Does the Minister think that it has?
I want to tax the Minister about the social network payment. Various leaks have suggested that sums of up to £450 million over three years will be provided to subsidise the network. That is a significant amount of public money, but the key factors are whether it will be ring-fenced money that is transferred from—presumably—the Department of Trade and Industry to Post Office Ltd. or Consignia and how much of it will be passed on to the counters in the rural post office network.
Mr. Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman raises a most important point, but the key aspect is not whether the money will come from the DTI, but whether it will be dragged in from the resources of the Royal Mail or will be fresh money. That is the question that the Minister must answer.
Mr. Kirkwood: Absolutely—that is crucial. There is a suspicion out there that the money is to come from some £1.8 billion—£1.8 thousand million—that was creamed off from Post Office profits in the past and is now held as Government stocks or deposits. If it is to be new Treasury money from the consolidated fund, that is a different matter, but it would be extremely useful if the Minister could tell us more.
The other essential issue is that of managed choice versus free choice. I should be happy if the Minister said that everyone and anyone who wanted a Post Office card account would be welcome to have one. I suspect that he will not say that. I am tempted to offer him a Bank of Scotland £5 note as an inducement, but that might be out of order. I do not think, however, that I would be in danger of losing my money.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend has hit on a very important point. There is real confusion among the public over this matter. The Prime Minister himself gave apparent promises, which are now undermined by what is happening in practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only the sub-post offices are suffering from the long period of indecision and lack of clarity over the viability of their businesses? The former Crown offices, which have been privatised in the past eight years, are in the same position.
Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with that point, which is well made. We need better and further particulars about how the process will work. I have looked at some of the journeys, as they are called, described in the literature sent out by the Government to war pension claimants and child benefit recipients. The process is complicated, but it seems quite clear that people will have to "pass" a

5WH
telephone interview before they will be allowed to take a card account at the post office. That is a real worry. It is also worrying that the Department for Work and Pensions seems to be in engaged in a process that will disallow—with a capital D—the promotion of Post Office card accounts by postmasters to their own customers. That seems suspicious, and a retrograde step.
Sir Robert Smith: On the point about an unlevel playing field, a sub-postmistress in my constituency was most distressed when representatives from the bank came into her sub-post office to ask for forms to sign people up for having their benefits paid directly into the bank. Of course she did not hand the forms over, but she is not allowed to encourage people to use the post office. I am extremely worried that, in the long run, many people who have always managed their money by cash will be put in a difficult position because they will have to start managing their money through a bank account.
Mr. Kirkwood: Exactly. That is another good example of where suspicion is being built up in the system, which I do not think the Government can ignore. I suspect that the Minister is being told by his advisers that the process is on track, on time and under control, but that is certainly not the perception held by people pursuing their business behind sub-postmasters' counters up and down the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Heath: That suspicion is undoubtedly fuelled by the information coming directly from the Department for Work and Pensions. For example, the application process for child tax credit gives no opportunity to use the Post Office card account—it is not offered as an option to the recipients of that benefit. That seems a tremendous abdication of responsibility on the part of the Department for Work and Pensions, which seems to be distancing itself from the entire Government programme in this area.
Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed. All of this points in the same direction: the Government are capping the number of such accounts. They have set up a business case that means that the number of card accounts that they are prepared to live with will be capped at about 3 million, because anything more than that will start costing them real money. If that is the case, the Government should say so explicitly. The official line, of course, is that there is no cap, but that does not seem to be the case in practice. All the examples given by my hon. Friends in important interventions underline the real suspicion out there that the Government are not coming clean.
It is worse than that. In the Government's application to the European Union for state aids, a couple of paragraphs, which I would quote if I had time, posit the idea of inducements to stay out of Post Office card accounts. That is deeply worrying, because it is a bribe to people to enter basic or full-blown bank accounts rather than use post offices. I can see the reason for that, because there are 3 million unbanked claimants at the moment and I do not know how the Government can
6WH
work round it if people do not offer to open bank accounts. However, if financial inducements of any kind were offered, it would be a clear sign of bad faith on the part of the Government, which would be deeply worrying.
Mutual advice is essential, and I cannot understand why the Government have not produced a simple leaflet explaining the merits of the three direct methods of payment that are being countenanced after next April. If such a leaflet could be agreed by the partners and made widely available, it would deal with some of the apprehension, fear and uncertainty that some retired people feel about what will hit them after April. No such document is available, and that is not sensible.
I noted with apprehension that SchlumbergerSema was awarded the contract for the roll-out of what is Orwellianly called a customer conversion centre. The company delivers medical services, so it comes with a track record that is, at least, questionable in terms of how it delivers services to the public. In turn, it has subcontracted the call centre to a company called not Vortex but Vertex. What assurances do we have that the Department will control those subcontracts and that mutual advice will be given?
The Government must tell the House how many of the approximately 15 million claimants who now use branch post offices they estimate will move to each of the three separate accounts that are being offered as alternatives to girocheque payments next April? We need to know that. We also need to know how much postmasters will receive in transaction payments for those who transfer in April. Those are important questions.
The Minister knows that much depends on putting back into the system the confidence that has been lost since the PIU report was so badly watered down. A subsidy for a social transfer network may be all very well in the long term, but my postmasters want viable commercial businesses. They do not want subsidised businesses or to live for ever off the back of subsidies from central Government. As things stand, they are not confident that in the long term their businesses will remain viable.
Mr. David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the problem and the reason why consultation is needed is that communities must "use it or lose it"? We must encourage communities, particularly parish councils, to look to the future. Part of the problem is the age profile of some postmasters and postmistresses and the property portfolio. They must be ready for the future and build new market possibilities.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The matter is not easy. It involves perceptions and vulnerable people who may be set in their ways and have confidence in the cash-based, weekly payment system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must continue to use rural and urban post offices or the network will continue to erode. That would be in no one's interest. I hope that the Minister accepts that this is an important debate and that he will answer as many of our questions as possible. Otherwise, the mood of pessimism will gather and get worse.
9.53 am
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate. The subject is important to everyone in the House, which is illustrated by the good attendance here this morning. I am sure that it is one of many debates that we shall have as the subject continues to occupy us.
Like other hon. Members, I have kept in touch with Post Office Counters Ltd. The communications that come to us are full of warm words, but warm words butter no parsnips. I want to flag up for my hon. Friend the Minister the concern felt in my post office community in Plymouth. I acknowledge the work that he and his predecessor, now the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), have done to secure a not insignificant package—¤210 million, I think—which will help the urban network reinvention programme. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that he hoped to hear from urban Members, and I have a totally urban constituency.
It is seven months since postmasters heard from Consignia. In April, it wrote to them outlining the package that it was hoping to develop subject to the European Union's approval. The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness introduced the motion to release the money on 15 October, and the programme can now proceed.
We all hope that there will be a match between post offices choosing to go or to stay and our constituents' need for existing and new post office services. I talked to Mr. David Oakland, one of my sub-postmasters in Plymouth, who is treasurer of his local association. The Minister's predecessor met my local association and was impressed by its members' commitment to finding a new way forward for post offices, and by their understanding of the need for change.
My hon. Friend the Minister would be most welcome to meet my post office community to discuss some of their concerns and listen to their ideas for the way forward. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that there is a need for people to be able to feel confident that support exists for remaining post offices, not just by giving them money but by encouraging the business that can sustain them and giving returns on investment. We must give people the confidence that we are serious about encouraging the new banking arrangements. I am aware of the good track record on social inclusion and its financial aspects that the Minister brings to his job. Post offices must be confident that we are serious about fully encouraging new banking arrangements, and helping them to secure small business banking.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, there is apprehension about whether support exists. I want to flag up with the Minister two sources from which that stems. First, I understand that some post offices, which have made an initial appraisal of what is expected of the offices receiving the investment to develop services and take on extra work, are concerned that the expected extra work and the income generated from it may not break even in terms of investment for some time. I think that they are expected to match that investment funding in some way.
8WH
The second source of apprehension is the experience with the Inland Revenue. Mr. Oakland wrote to me before I rang him, and drew to my attention the concern that in the middle of negotiations with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters the Inland Revenue sent out literature before it had finished consultations on advice leaflets available in post offices that did not mention the post office solution. The Revenue unilaterally brought forward the start date. That experience has undermined people's confidence in just how serious the Government are about enabling post offices to take on such business. That view is reflected in relation to the Veterans Agency and the Child Support Agency. Mr. Oakland is going to send me those views, which I will take up with the Minister.
Sub-postmasters are not filled with confidence about their future by that experience. They need to feel that their business is financially viable and they must be given greater confidence that it is worth their while to invest their energy as well as their money in the future of the Post Office.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained why we must be careful to protect the interests of future users of the Post Office card account that he mentioned in the debate on 15 October. However, I would like him carefully to consider how the information about it—the helpline—could act as a barrier. Could the service be evened out in some way? I appreciate the point that he made about it, but I would like him to consider whether those who are ticking a box to go through a bank account might be invited also to tick a box to ask for information about Post Office services and how their bank will work with the Post Office to offer new services.
Such information is important to people in Plymouth such as Mr. Nix from Crown Hill, who wrote to me recently about the continued availability of Post Office services:
"I am the first to accept progress and understand pension books are outdated but I cannot believe the government would endorse 'Postmaster Generals' being pressurised to withhold information on such an important subject."
In the debate on the motion to release money for the programme, my hon. Friend was kind enough to assure me that hon. Members will be properly consulted and that Postwatch will have sufficient resources to help us to ensure that Post Office services meet the needs of present and future generations of our constituents.
Will my hon. Friend encourage Post Office Counters Ltd, to give an extra guarantee about services within half a mile in the poorest 10 per cent. of wards? Is there scope for new post offices, particularly in areas where work must be done on financial inclusion? I am thinking in particular of an area in my constituency, Mount Wise, in which the necessary facilities do not exist. Will he confirm that natural communities cluster around post offices and that in Plymouth, which is a very hilly city, the geographic layout of the city will be taken into account in the criteria that are used?
Members of the Efford community forum and I have been working very hard to get the Torridge way shops back in use again. That is the one part of my constituency that has gone downhill since 1997. The post office and Co-op shop are still there but other shops have closed. The post office business may not be thriving as it should and may not have the track record to justify

9WH
being chosen for the new programme, but I hope that special consideration will be given to the investment needed to sustain post offices in communities such as Efford.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It may be helpful if I remind everyone that it is customary to commence winding-up contributions 30 minutes before the end of the debate. Looking at the clock, I see that we have only 27 minutes left. The Chair always seeks to allow everyone to speak, as far as is possible, but it will be very difficult under these circumstances, so I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to be brief, succinct and to the point.
10.4 am
Mr. Richard Page: Mr. Cook, may I begin by—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the House in its wisdom decided to hold meetings in this Chamber, it selected the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel to act as Deputy Speakers. While they occupy the Chair, they are to be addressed as Deputy Speaker, please.
Mr. Page: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my lapse.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on choosing and securing the debate. I have a strong suspicion that today's debate will not be the last on the subject, and that there will be many more of them in the coming months. It is apposite that we are having the debate on the first full day on which the organisation is called the Royal Mail Group, the name to which it changed from Consignia—of course, shareholders approved both names. Whatever I am going to say today, I attach no guilt to the Minister. He is innocent, and the guilty have moved on—in some cases they have been promoted. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about why the changes were not brought forward earlier and why they were not piloted.
One year after the Labour party gained power, delays in getting things moving were drawn to its attention. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said:
"we are rebuilding a Post Office from the wreck left by the previous Government. From day one of this Government we have made the Post Office a priority and will continue to do so."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol.331, c. 501.]
One year later, when he was reminded that things should be got on with quickly, he said that he had
"to deal with the shambles"
with which I had left him
"and … introduce measures for the future of the Post Office in a sophisticated way".—[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol.323, c. 269.]
The tune did not change. One year after that, the Minister at that time, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said:
"We do not want to upset"
10WH
the Conservative Benches
"unduly. If I was being kind, I would call their stewardship maladroit. If I was being unkind, I would say that Postman Pat's black and white cat would have provided better stewardship of the Post Office over the term of the previous Government."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 868.]
We heard nothing in 2001, but it all came out on 13 June, when we found that Consignia had lost more than £1 billion and the post office network, which we are discussing today, had lost £163 million. It does not look as though that will change over the next year or so. If we were being maladroit, what is the verdict on the Government? They are losing more than £1 billion, they are going to make 30,000 people redundant and they are closing more than 3,000 post offices. Perhaps the Prime Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and tell us exactly what he thinks of his stewardship of the Post Office. I say that with genuine anger because post offices and sub-post offices are closing, and I wonder what reasons are behind it.
One year ago, I asked why the Government had come forward with a plan to close post office facilities by introducing automated credit transfers without having a parallel plan ready to provide post offices with an alternative income. Why were those plans not implemented in parallel? Why were they implemented to different time scales?
Again, I am going to tread down the path laid out by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. At present, 15 to 16 million people use our sub-post offices, and it has been calculated that some 3 million people have a Post Office card account. We have to ask how the figure of 3 million has been calculated because I do not know the reasoning behind it. We might be tempted to think that the remaining 12 to 13 million people will use basic bank accounts, but 85 per cent. of the 15 to 16 million people who use sub-post offices already have a high street bank account, in which case why would they want a basic bank account?
If anybody wants a Post Office card account, they are interrogated as to why they want one, not as if it were a matter of customer choice but as if they had to obtain permission. There is a real danger that an individual is going to say, "Oh blow that. I won't bother. I'll simply opt to have the ACTs into my bank account." Why can the customer not choose? Why have they got to be given permission? The major concern is that the important footfall of 15 million people going into sub-post offices every week will diminish.
Mr. Robathan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Work and Pensions told the chief executive of the Post Office, Mr. David Mills, that sub-postmasters were not to put up posters saying that it was still possible to receive benefits in cash?
Mr. Page: I was aware of that. It is just one of the ways in which the sub-post office customer is being forced in a particular direction. My worry is not so much the loss of income from benefits payments but the loss of footfall. The massive sum of £5.45 for each Post Office card account will be a poor means of making up the shortfall. It is small wonder that thousands of sub-

11WH
postmasters and sub-postmistresses want out. I blame the Government for having created such a despondent mood in our sub-post office movement.
Mr. Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend said that excessive numbers of sub-postmasters wanted to give up. Has he any idea how many?
Mr. Page: I have heard that it is some 3,000. We do not know whether they are the same 3,000 who are to be chopped by the Government. Let us hope that they are, in which case it will work out amicably. However, I understand that some postmasters will be forced out of business even if they want to continue, because their offices do not meet the criteria. I shall not go through the report published by Postcomm the month before last, although it raises huge concerns about the direction and success of the sub-post office movement.
The arrangements are being introduced in a rush just a few months before ACTs come into operation. Can the Minister tell us what contingency plans have been made in case something goes wrong? Does he agree that if £150 million per year is earmarked for rural post offices over the next three years, Horizon running costs are £100 million, the reinvention of the sub-post offices—Labour spin for "Let's close 3,000 sub-post offices"—will cost £70 million a year and the banks are having their arms twisted for £36 million, that comes to some £356 million a year? We shall "save" £400 million by the introduction of ACTs, so the whole exercise will produce a so-called saving of £44 million. I worry whether that is a genuine figure, and I am concerned about the loss of footfall. Our sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will go through a very hard time.
I urge the Minister to tell every Member of Parliament in every constituency which sub-post offices are to be closed. In my constituency, 13 are scheduled and tagged as urban. Those who run them are worried; they know that they are at risk. The sooner they know their fate, the better they will be able to plan for the future.
In conclusion, the Royal Mail Group, as it now is, faces huge problems from overseas competition and from licensing arrangements that might allow competition from countries in which we cannot compete. The disaster that our post office network is experiencing has occurred because the Government have been far too slow and far too late in bringing forward their plans.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the threatened closure of sub-post offices under this Labour Government is a worry for the elderly? That segment of our population relies on the post office; for many, it is the centre of their social world as well as being important for the services that it provides.
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend speaks about the effect that the loss of footfall may have on sub-post offices. As I said, it is not only that no money will be coming from transactions across the counter; they will also lose other sales as a result of the loss of footfall. If they lose that income, the sub-post offices will be at risk; and £150
12WH
million a year will not be enough for rural sub-post offices. If post offices are lost, the character of the countryside will be destroyed—never mind what will happen in urban areas. As I said at the start, the Minister is not guilty. He has a huge responsibility for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind not only my advice with regard to their own contributions but their acceptance of interventions, especially from those who only recently entered the Chamber.
10.15 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Let me preface my remarks by agreeing with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page): my hon. Friend the Minister is certainly not guilty. In fact, the hon. Gentleman himself may be one of the guilty men. The Conservative Government were guilty because of their signal failure to ensure that the Post Office management stood up to its responsibilities. In the Post Office, the present Government have inherited one of the most incompetent management structures in British industry. The charge that I put to my hon. Friend is that if the Government are not prepared to get a grip of the Post Office management, we will have replicated the mistakes made under the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did us a service by introducing this debate. It is vital that the pressure is kept up on the Government by Parliament, and by the Government on the Post Office.
The whole of my constituency falls in that part of the world where every ward is in the most impoverished 10 per cent. of wards as allowed for by the Government and the Post Office. I was told that their criteria meant that no post office should be closed if the next nearest post office was more than half a mile distant. That provides my impoverished constituents with better facilities, but as an elderly constituent told me recently, even half a mile by zimmer frame is a long way. That may sound like a joke but it happens to be true. In impoverished urban areas, people—particularly the elderly and the vulnerable—have far less access to the motor car and the other social structures that support them. I strongly applaud the logic of giving them that extra protection.
I must ask for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that I cannot accuse hon. Members of lying, and I would not want to, but am I allowed to accuse the Post Office of lying? That effectively is what it did in terms of its promise about the closure programme.
In my constituency or near it, five sub-post offices are not operating. Two of them have been non-operational for well over 12 months. The Post Office tells me that they are not closed but are simply not open. That is a difficult concept for my constituents to grasp. The Post Office argues that it is looking for new sub-postmasters and mistresses to operate them, but the charge against the Post Office is that it is deliberately not looking for

13WH
replacement people. Those sub-post offices have de facto become part of the closure programme. The two post offices in question are in West Gorton and Rusholme, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
The charge is one of deliberate deception. I have put forward the name of a local business person who is anxious to take on the role of sub-postmaster in one of those sub-post offices. He has an impeccable trading record and no criminal convictions, but the Post Office will not take him on, saying that it does not have to give a reason. Frankly, the Post Office should give its reasons for including a post office in its closure programme—albeit by subterfuge—if there is a business to be run and someone willing to take the commercial risk of investing in it.
More worrying are the cases of the Clayton Bridge and Oldham Road sub-post offices, which recently closed. In Oldham Road's case, the lease ran out—the Post Office presumably did not know that it was going to, even though the position must have been clear from the legal documents for many years. The post office was closed even though the decision was disputed. My local council says that Oldham Road was more than half a mile from the nearest facility, but the Post Office claims that it was only 0.4 miles away. The dispute could be resolved by running a pedometer along the road to find out who is right. The Clayton Bridge post office, in the Newton Heath ward was, by the Post Office's own account, 0.7 miles from the nearest facility. The Post Office told me, however, that both post offices would have closed anyway because of circumstances beyond its control—the expiry of Oldham Road's lease and the lack of co-operation on the part of the sub-postmaster at Clayton Bridge.
The Post Office's decisions are undermining the promise that the Minister made in good faith in Parliament. That is why I must make accusations in this Chamber about deception and lying on the part of the Post Office's most senior management. I look to him to take the Post Office firmly by the throat and to squeeze until those responsible begin to tell the truth and to operate in a manner consistent with his undertakings to the House. The Post Office owes that to him and to my constituents.
10.21 am
John Barrett: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to him for his hard work over many years in support and defence of our post office network.
There are 21 post offices in my constituency, and according to correspondence that I recently received from Consignia, 18 are classed as urban. One third of urban post offices are due to close, so by the law of averages, six of mine will go. That prospect has left many constituents deeply worried. Indeed, they are so concerned that 6,000 of them have signed my petition, which makes it clear that local post offices are at the heart of local communities and that something must be done about the closures. That worry has quickly turned to anger, however, because like me, my constituents do not believe that the case for so many closures has been
14WH
made. Postwatch has said that 3,000 closures are too many and are unnecessary, and my constituents are inclined to agree.
However, it is not simply urban offices that face a problem, and there are still serious questions about the future of rural post offices in my constituency. In a letter that I received some months ago, the Post Office told me of its intention to close the post office in Dalmeny, a small village in my constituency. Betty Hardie, the local postmistress, had worked there for many years but was heading for retirement. Consignia's inability to find a replacement left the post office facing closure. The sub-postmistress has decided to stay on in the meantime while alternatives are considered. We are having to rely on individuals' determination to continue local post office services that are under serious threat because the future of the income that they generate is uncertain.
I mention Dalmeny because the blame for such circumstances falls squarely at the Government's door. The problem is that they have failed to tell Parliament, the post office industry or the public how they intend to make up the massive loss in post office revenue that will arise from ACT. I searched through the Hansard report of 15 October, but found no answer from the Minister. Clearly, no answer will come from the "your guide" scheme, despite the relatively successful pilot. If the Government do not provide answers on this crucial issue, they will leave the remaining urban and rural post offices with an uncertain financial future. No sane person will want to enter an industry that is so full of uncertainty. Cases such as that of Dalmeny village, whose post office faces closure because of the failure to find a replacement sub-postmaster, will become more common. I call on the Minister to take this opportunity to address that crucial point.
The briefing prepared by the regulator Postwatch last June gives an excellent background to the Government's policy to move the payments of benefits and the state pension to automatic credit transfer. On page 4 of that document, under section 5.3, it states that it is important to
"ensure benefit recipients are fully and fairly informed",
and
"that there are no hidden pressures to favour one type of account over another".
It goes on to say that
"the information presented to benefit recipients must be complete and impartial."
Postwatch clearly had concerns that pressure could be applied to those on benefit in favour of one of the options on offer, namely ACT into current or universal bank accounts. As more and more evidence comes out that customers continue to be pressured not to take up the Post Office card accounts, it is clear that those concerns were justified. I ask the Minister to take those matters seriously, as such evidence clearly goes against the recommendations of Postwatch.
It has been said many times, but it deserves to be reiterated time and again, that post offices are vital to the communities that they serve. The closure programme, veiled by the Government under the heading of regeneration, the prospect of losing six or more post offices in my constituency, and the insecurity that will remain, are frightening to me and my constituents. They must not be allowed to happen.
10.25 am
Mr. John MacDougall: I think that everyone is concerned by the impact that the review has had on communities and on sub-postmasters and mistresses, but we must accept the reality of the situation. Taking no action at all did nothing to keep down the distance between the community and the post office, nor can it guarantee that the cause of concern will be automatically removed. Some 3,500 post offices closed under the last Conservative Government. I am not suggesting that anyone is to blame for that, but those are the facts. Taking no action would mean that post offices would close in any case, so it would do nothing about the distance that the elderly and others have to travel back and forth. Cleary, then, action has to be taken.
The history leading up to today's debate and the way in which some matters have been handled have not been helpful. However, I think that the Minister is not to blame in that regard, and that the Government are doing everything they can to address a complex issue. I, too, have concerns on communication, and hope that increasing efforts will be made to convey the scale of the challenge that lies ahead. We cannot overlook the fact that the post office network is the largest retailing network in the UK, and it must be handled as a serious business if it is to play a part in providing services in our communities. I think that it is better to have a planned rather than a reactive way forward. We must of course get approval for some of the measures that the Government want on remuneration and reinvestment for those post offices that wish to remain in he system.
Clearly no one wants post offices in their constituency to go. As was said earlier, however, without the custom coming through the doors, post offices will inevitably close. It is far better to structure the way ahead rather than simply to react.
10.27 am
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate and apologise to him for not having been present at the start.
Without arguing about how we got into the present situation, and understanding that many throughout the country are relying on him to find the way out of it, I urge the Minister to look at the debate in the round. The new powers that Government have given the regulator in respect of post office services must be examined. Can the Minister assure me that he will consider carefully the possibility that the regulator will seek to bring greater controls in exchange for the proposal to increase the price of a first-class stamp? That could have a real bearing on the rest of the post office network and is important to today's debate.
As someone who represents a constituency that is both urban and rural, I am anxious to ensure that the £15 million for the urban network should be readily available. I remind the Minister that there is a letter from me in his in tray on his desk that asks whether some flexibility could be given to the way in which the Government determine which of the most deprived constituencies should benefit from that £15 million. In my constituency, there are many wards that fall within
16WH
the 15 per cent. of the most deprived areas. The Government should show some flexibility in that respect. Many of those wards have parts that fall within the 10 per cent. most deprived, so we should be entitled to some of the £15 million that is going to help the urban network.
If the Minister could give me that assurance, I am sure that Mr. John Morris, the chairman of my constituency branch of the sub-postmasters' federation, would be most heartened.
10.30 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) who, not only today but over the past five years, has kept this issue under discussion, through his Select Committee work and in repeated debates. He has reminded us constantly that there is a clock ticking for this process.
We have had many debates on the subject, so I do not want to go over again how we got where we are and who is to blame for it. I simply want to pose a series of questions to the Minister, because I am unclear in my mind about how the process will work. The central issue, as it has always been, is how the £450 million of income to the Post Office will be replaced. Frankly, I do not think that we are any the wiser about that than we were two years ago when the performance and innovation unit report was introduced.
We had a full debate on the urban regeneration programme on Opposition day a few days ago, but some issues were not resolved. What happens if, as now seems increasingly likely, there are far more urban post offices trying to close than there is compensation for? The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) hit the nail on the head when he referred to the odd phenomenon of post offices that are neither closed nor open. I suspect that we shall have a lot of post offices in that position. What happens if 5.000 of the 9,000 want to close? I believe that that is the ratio in some of the big cities. Will 3,000 be compensated while the others are left in limbo, or will the compensation money be spread more thinly? How will the rationing process be handled? Again, we must ask why there is a cap.
I would also like to know how the appeals process will work. Again, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central hit the nail on the head when he suggested that half a mile is a long way for someone with a zimmer frame. It is also a long way if there is no bus route or there is a steep hill. My experience of Post Office Counters Ltd. management is that it is often appalling and totally insensitive to the needs of local communities and local entrepreneurs. I cannot understand how the appeals process will be managed.
Postwatch is to handle the process, and so far it has done well, but with only three or four appeals at a time. How will it handle 1,000 or 2,000 appeals? What are the mechanics of that? Can the Minister reassure us that there will be a proper case-by-case investigation when local communities are deeply unhappy with the closure process? Where are the resources that would allow the process to happen speedily and thoroughly?
Mr. Tyler: I have a local example. In my constituency, the Post Office has said that the distance to the nearest

17WH
post office is four and a half miles and that it is undulating. For a pensioner without a car, the information that the route is undulating will not be helpful.
Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend is right. Even in urban areas where the distances are smaller, many of the same problems of access apply, so a process must be in place to consider the closures carefully.
On the rural programme, we have had a leak relating to the social transfer, which is a subsidy or payment of some description of £400 million to keep the rural post office network intact over the next few years. That is welcome. However, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has already asked how we can be sure that the money goes where it is supposed to go. If it is a general payment to Post Office Counters Ltd. or Consignia—the Post Office—how do we know that it will meet its purpose? Even if the money is designated for the rural network, what will happen? Will individual sub-postmasters apply for it and receive a payment based on their turnover? Must they submit an individual business plan against which payment may be made? We know that there is poor take-up of the investment programme for rural post offices. How will the large programme be managed? I ask that because there is a massive lack of certainty about, and confidence in, the network, and confidence will not recover unless people understand how the payment flows will work.
Several hon. Members said that we know from anecdotes and people to whom we talk that people are either actively discouraged from using Post Office card accounts or are simply not told about them. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters produced a leaflet but was told that it was not possible to use it. The initial reason given was that Post Office management would not allow it. I checked that with the Post Office and it was adamant that the Government, rather than it, imposed a ban on advertising. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, although I appreciate that it was not his Department but the Department for Work and Pensions that forcefully said that Post Office business could not be promoted through card accounts. We must be clear about what is happening in the Government.
Can we get a bit closer to the arithmetic? The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said that a Post Office card account costs about £5, although I do not know where that figure has come from.
Mr. Page: It costs £5.45.
Dr. Cable: If we gross up that figure to 15 million customers, it amounts to £80 million, which is the amount that it would cost the Department for Work and Pensions to equip every user of the network with a Post Office card account. In order to save the Department for Work and Pensions £80 million a year, the Department of Trade and Industry is providing subsidies of £400 million to the rural network and compensation of £450 million to the urban network. The whole thing is completely insane. We might be working with the wrong numbers, which the Minister can clarify, but we can see that peculiar economic arithmetic that does not add up is being used. Will he explain, precisely, the savings made by not using Post Office card accounts more widely?
18WH
My final point is very simple and returns to one of the main themes of our debate in the House two to three weeks ago. We were then aware of the termination of the "your guide" system, although I do not want to go over the rights and wrongs of that again. The Minister took a positive stance and said that he had not abandoned the principle of post offices continuing to offer a general practitioner service, although that would not happen through the "your guide" mechanism. Will he spell out what the general practitioner service will involve, and tell us whether the Government will support that financially? We have lost a main mechanism, but that might not be the end of the story. What will the Government put in its place?
10.38 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate. That is not just a normal courtesy of the House; the debate has shown that cross-party concern exists about the future of the post office network. Indeed, there is increasing worry about whether the network has a future.
Since the Government came to power in 1997, they have had no clear policy on the Post Office, which was illustrated well by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). In 1997, the Post Office was making a profit, but Consignia is now losing £1.2 million per trading day. How long is that sustainable? I understand that the company is supported by Government bonds from past Post Office profits, but how long can that go on?
We have heard, and we recognise, that the post office has a special place in the hearts of people in this country. That is a fair comment about which I doubt that there is any dispute. I received a letter yesterday from an 87year-old pensioner who lives in Essex. He told me that he is practically housebound and that, although he can reach his current post office, it is under threat of closure. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, this is his perception. He says:
"What am I, and thousands or millions in similar circumstances, to do?"
Age Concern has written to us all to say that, for the elderly in particular, there is a special place for post offices. I understand that the Post Office has a slogan saying that they are "an essential part of everyday life".
The Conservative party has been running a "save our post offices" campaign and we have collected thousands upon thousands of signatures. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but last year 547 post offices closed and I think that I am right in saying that only some 200 closed between 1990 and 1997. The situation is rather different now.
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman's figures are somewhat inaccurate. In 1991–92, well over 400 post offices closed.
Mr. Robathan: However, over the period, the average figure was 200. I notice that the Minister does not deny that 547 post offices closed last year.
Mr. Timms: I am happy to deny that, because the figure was substantially lower. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an earlier year.
Mr. Robathan: The figures that I am looking at are for 2001, and I think that we are still in 2002—but never mind. Let us not get bogged down.
Mr. Page: The figures released are for 2001 and they show that 547 post offices closed. Those figures were released by what is now called the Royal Mail Group. In the years to which my hon. Friend and the Minister referred, there was a planned closure programme in which various sub-post offices were offered the chance of voluntary closure.
Mr. Robathan: I will let the Minister respond to these points in his speech. The figures have come from the Royal Mail Group and the Minister must address why it may have got them wrong—although I doubt that it has.
In my constituency—as, I suspect, in everybody else's—post offices have been closing. That has been happening with alacrity over the past five years. I can think of examples in Swinford, where I used to live, Claybrooke and Enderby St. Johns. Rural areas often have similar needs to those in urban areas. We have heard about a lack of transport in urban areas, but in rural areas there is often something like one bus a week. To use new Labour terms, poverty, exclusion and deprivation exist in rural areas as well.
Postcomm's report last year said:
"The services offered by Post Offices branches are particularly important for certain vulnerable groups in rural and in urban deprived areas, who are more affected by closures than other members of society."
When a post office closes, it leaves a hole in the community, so what are the Government doing? In June 2000, the PIU reported and the Prime Minister famously said:
"I welcome this report which the government fully accepts."
Postwatch's annual report for this year says that the slow progress has been very disappointing. Since the PIU's 2000 report, about 1,000 further post offices have closed.
I would like to consider three aspects of the network, beginning with the urban network. Only last month we discussed urban reinvention. We are told that some 3,000 sub-postmasters definitely wish to give up. That is quite neat, because the Government propose, with the Post Office, that perhaps some 3,000 post offices will be closed. Furthermore, approximately a third of sub-postmasters expressed an interest in giving up. It therefore seems as if half the remaining post offices will remain under threat. I hope that we will hear further details from the Minister.
The Postwatch annual report says that sub-postmasters have become increasingly desperate as rumour has fed rumour. Postwatch wants to know whether it will be given sufficient time for consultation on each proposed closure.
Secondly, I would like to consider urban deprived areas and, specifically, the post office fund for urban deprived areas. Sadly for the Post Office, this comes under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. On 15 October, its website said:
"It is expected that the fund will become operational in Summer 2002.
Further details when available will be posted on this page."
After I raised the issue, the website changed. It now says:
"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to launch the scheme in the Autumn of 2002."
20WH
I am not quite sure how long the autumn goes on for, but it continues:
"The proposed scheme will seek to contribute to the regeneration … it is expected to support "
It is all very well having a wish list, but sub-postmasters and people living in urban deprived areas want to see some Government action on this. Perhaps the Minister can tell me when the autumn ends and when that will happen.
Thirdly, there is the rural network. We have heard of the large sums of money that are likely to support rural post offices over the next three years. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all rural post offices. At DTI questions last Thursday the Minister said that the announcement would be made shortly. When will that be? What are the details? Most fundamentally, what happens after all the money has been spent over the next three years?
The Government will take away on average a third of a postmaster's income when the universal bank comes into operation in April. What will be the interest rate for the current card account? How many inquiries have there been? How many accounts does the Minister expect? Will it be only 3 million, or will more be allowed? After all, 1 April 2003 is less than five months away. What is the response of the public to the bullying announcement that they will no longer be able to receive cash if the Government have their way?
We have heard before about the 20 steps that it takes to open a Post Office card account, as opposed to the one that it takes to have money paid into a current account at a bank. The card account will also not have a CAT standard. Indeed, in response to a parliamentary question that I tabled recently, the Minister said:
"The Government has no plans to produce a CAT standard for the Post Office card account. The card account is the only account of its type. quite distinct from current accounts and basic bank accounts." [Official Report, 31 October 2002; Vol. 391, c953W.]
The Government will apply that standard to basic bank accounts and yet it cannot apply to the Government-sponsored account. It seems perverse that the account will not measure up to the Government's standards on charges, access and terms. Furthermore, the Secretary of State said that CAT standards would help to combat financial exclusion. A City source was quoted in The Daily Telegraph last week as saying:
"The Universal Bank account will not be eligible for the CAT standard. It does not provide any of the basic facilities. This must be a huge embarrassment to the Government."
I do not want to detain the Chamber too long, although there is much more to be said about this. All I would say is that the Government's behaviour has added to the confusion and uncertainty and the feeling that they have been dithering over the Post Office for five and a half years. There is a lack of support across the Government. The Department for Work and Pensions refuses to support the DTI on "your guide" or indeed on the concept of the universal bank and support for the Post Office in general. There is a lack of joined-up government. The executive summary of the PIU report referred to new lines of business. I will name three of them; e-commerce; one-stop shops for Government information transaction; internet learning and access. None is coming forward.
We understand why sub-postmasters want to give up. They look to the future and see no plans for a sustainable commercial livelihood. The Government are

21WH
taking away one third or more of their incomes from benefits payments. What will replace that? The National Federation of Sub-postmasters speaks for most, although not all of the small business men who run our sub-post offices. In a briefing it sent last month it said:
"It is now over two years since the publication of the PIU's report… During this period, sub post offices have continued to close at an alarming rate, morale throughout the network is at an all-time low… Of the 24 recommendations made by the Cabinet Office's PIU, very few have been implemented, funding has not been delivered… the timescales for implementation of recommendations have slipped further; the development of new roles for subpostmasters has ground to a halt; and there is widespread stagnation and inactivity across a wide range of the recommendations."
That deserves an answer, as does the following resolution passed at the federation's conference on 15 October:
"That this conference demands Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to avert the collapse of the nationwide network of post offices."
The Government have not responded to that, as far as I know. At the moment, we see fog in the future, which I fear may conceal impending chaos and further closure.
We have heard today, from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, about the mess over which this Government are presiding. The Government are responsible for the situation. What will they do about it?
10.49 am
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate. He has long played an important role in social security matters as Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and in many other matters as well. The debate will make a useful contribution to the discussion.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) rightly reminded us that Consignia is no more. As of yesterday, we may speak of the Royal Mail Group, which faces very tough challenges. It needs to respond to the changing demands of its customers, to wider changes in society, and to the impact and opportunities arising from new technology.
The post office network provides a vital local service. It serves some 28 million people every week, and is the largest retail network, not just in the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) rightly said, but in Europe. It includes half as many branches again as all the banks and building societies put together.
However, people are not using their local post offices as much as they used to. Some 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit payments via bank accounts rather than by order books, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996. Over the past five years, the number of retirement pensions and widow's benefit payments paid by order books and giros has decreased by more than 1 million, from slightly more than 6 million to less than 5 million, even though the total number of pension recipients has risen by more than 1 million. Incapacity benefit payments at the post office have fallen even more dramatically, from more than 2.5 million to less than 1 million. Similarly, over the past five years, Girobank transactions at post offices have fallen by 37 per cent., as has the number of stamps sold.
22WH
The post office network must adapt to changing lifestyles, changes in people's preferences and new ways of doing business. Last year, the Post Office's operations overall lost £1.2 million per working day. The ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses—the way in which people have moved on in the past—has taken a very severe knock.
There is a clear need for change in the post office network. That is why the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit to develop the strategy for modernising the network about which we have heard. It made 24 recommendations, all of which the Government accepted.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked me particularly about the annual report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeps the Prime Minister regularly informed of progress on the matter. However, Postcomm will publish an annual report on the state of the post office network, which contains the updates to which he referred.
We have been able to implement all those recommendations only because the Government have made the biggest ever investment in the Post Office—nearly £500 million—on modern online computer systems for every post office in the country.
We are making good progress on preparations to introduce the universal bank from next April. The ambition is to build on the uniquely trusted ground that the Post Office has, and to modernise and extend its commercial banking arrangements so that it becomes the nation's leading provider of access to bank accounts—the universal bank. That is our ambition for the post office network.
All the high street banks have now signed up to deliver their part of the plan. There are two strands to universal banking: first, full access at any post office, anywhere in the country, to the basic bank accounts that will, from next year, be offered by every major bank and building society. Currently, those institutions, between them, account for 99 per cent. of all the current accounts in the country, and they will offer new, basic bank accounts that will be fully accessible at any post office. The second strand is the Post Office card account, which will be solely for benefit recipients. They will be able to use it only at a post office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) asked about the literature issued by Inland Revenue and the lack of reference in it to the Post Office card account. Sub-postmasters have expressed several concerns about that. My impression is that people are happy with the literature issued by the Department for Work and Pensions, but less so with the Inland Revenue literature. When I examined that literature, however, I noted references to the Post Office card account—exactly on a par with references to basic bank accounts. If hon. Members wish to draw my attention to further concerns about the literature, I shall be happy to examine it further. However, I would encourage them to read the literature closely: if they do,

23WH
they will find that the Post Office card account is dealt with exactly on a par with the basic bank account, as I said.
Linda Gilroy: The main point on which assurance is required is that the Post Office card accounts will be treated on a level playing field. I assume that my hon. Friend wants that, too.
Mr. Timms: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly the Government's intention. Both accounts will be introduced from April next year, when the migration to automated credit transfer will begin. Card readers and PIN pads are being rolled out across the whole network. The work is ahead of schedule, with 40 per cent. of post offices, including both post offices in the House of Commons, already equipped. So Members can see them for themselves.
The emphasis of the migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. No eligibility requirements will apply and—to answer a couple of hon. Members' questions—no cap will be placed on numbers. Customers will choose the most suitable account for their circumstances. The package also represents a good deal for sub-postmasters, who will be paid for providing banking services to a wide range of customers, not just to benefit recipients. We can look forward to many more customers entering post offices to access bank accounts, which will provide the potential for substantial new business based on developing the post office network as the universal bank.
Conservative Members asked about the number of closures. Last year—in 2001–02—262 post offices closed. The significantly higher figure referred to was for the previous year. It reduced so sharply because of the changes introduced by the Government, particularly the
24WH
assurance that no avoidable closures of rural offices would be allowed. I am pleased to say that the falling trend in post office closures has been maintained into the first six months of the current :year—127 closures up to September. The trend is falling, though more undoubtedly needs to be done.
We debated the urban network on a Government motion—not an Opposition motion—in the House on 15 October. I welcome what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. It remains the case that too little business exists for the number of post offices in urban areas, but we want to ensure that postmasters who want to leave are able to do so with dignity. Of just more than 9,000 urban post offices, more than one in eight has 10 or more other branches within a mile, and 155 offices have 15 or more such branches within a mile. For reasons that I have outlined, the volume of business is insufficient to support so dense a network. We must restore the urban network to commercial viability, restoring also the confidence of the sub-postmasters. That is critical if we are to attract much-needed new investment into the network.
In some parts of the country, Liberal Democrat representatives have started campaigning against the closure of post offices that are not going to close. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said about that. No doubt as we speak, his party is, in its finest traditions, writing "Focus" leaflets attempting to claim credit for saving those post offices. That activity is presented as being in support of the post offices concerned, but in reality nothing is more likely to undermine a successful business than telling people that it is threatened with closure, so I hope that we will not see that. I was not aware of the Conservative party's "Save our Post Offices" campaign, but I look forward to hearing more about that, too.
To conclude, much change is needed in the post office network, but the Government are putting in place measures to make that succeed.

Cyprus
11 am
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I shall begin by declaring an interest, in that I have just returned from a visit to Cyprus as Labour vice-chair of the Friends of Cyprus with a delegation. The Cyprus House of Representatives met our expenses. We also visited the Morphou rally, for which the Barnet Friends of Morphou and the Morphou municipality met our expenses.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on his well-deserved promotion. I look forward to working with him on this issue. It is rather strange for me to be making a speech about Cyprus in English; usually I speak about it in Greek, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I lapse into the demotic.
Our debate could not be more timely: a series of factors are coming together to create probably the best and the last window of opportunity for a settlement for a very long time. Failure this time would be extremely serious. At long last, the European Union accession process is acting as a catalyst to try to concentrate people's minds, particularly those of the Turkish Cypriots. The Copenhagen summit takes place on 12 December and, if all goes to plan, the accession treaty will probably be signed in April. There have been elections for a new Government in Turkey, and the United Nations is likely to launch a new plan, probably in a matter of days, through the UN special representative, Mr. Alvaro de Soto. I met him in Cyprus and found him to be a very impressive diplomat.
The Greek Cypriot presidential elections are scheduled for February, so that is also part of the time frame in which we are working. Once we get beyond the Copenhagen summit. the opportunity for manoeuvre will become increasingly restricted, because of those elections and the April accession treaty process. I believe that the Greek Cypriot elections could be postponed if a settlement framework were in place and the Cypriot National Council agreed. This is the last term for Mr. Clerides, and I am sure that he would like to go out having seen a settlement of the Cypriot problem, which has bedevilled his life in politics for so long.
One cannot talk about Cyprus without coming to the situation in Turkey, which I know is of particular interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Turkish EU accession process is extremely important, and there were three major developments in the summer, with the changes in Turkish law to allow for minority rights, the end of the death penalty and press liberalisation. We will have to see how those changes work out in practice.
The Turks have in the past used Cyprus as a pawn in their negotiations with the EU. Indeed, there has been great brinkmanship over these issues, including at Helsinki. With the old Government in Ankara, that brinkmanship continued as part of the lead-up to Copenhagen. The Ecevit Government somewhat overplayed their demands, as far as the domestic audience was concerned, in asking for a date for accession talks to begin. Even setting a date for a date will be difficult. That raises the question of how much progress has been made on the Helsinki track.
At the weekend, we saw the success of the Justice and Development party—the AKP—in the Turkish elections. I thought that that significant development
26WH
was possible after my visit to Turkey three years ago, when the elite of the Turkish political system seemed disconnected from the population at large. One could envisage an Islamic party—not the fundamentalist sort, but one such as the AKP—coming forward. The AKP is not part of the musical chairs that has dominated Turkish politics for so long, so the fact that it has, I think, achieved an outright majority gives a signal for, I hope, some progress. The AKP party has signalled a strong pro-European stance, and it is significant that Mr. Erdogan, the leader of the AKP, has said that his first overseas visit will be to meet the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Simitis. That is a welcome trend.
I hope that the new Government in Turkey will be reformist on human rights issues, not least over the party's own leader, Mr. Erdogan, who is barred from being a Member of the Turkish Parliament because of a poem he read out several years ago. Inevitably, the AKP will need to keep one eye looking over its shoulder at the army, whose role is always a factor in Turkish politics, as it sees itself as the defender of Kemalism and the secular state.
Mr. Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are some concerns about the Islamist element within the AKP? There also appears to be something of a vacuum over who the Prime Minister of the AKP Government will be.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is clearly a vacuum now, although I hope that the early statements made indicate how the AKP is to develop. We will have to wait to see to what extent the Muslim aspect of the party's background plays a role in policy development, but it has tried to make it clear that it does not see itself as a Muslim party but as the equivalent, perhaps, of the Christian Democrat parties in the European Union.
As I understand it, the AKP has not so far made any public statement of its position on Cyprus. That is probably a good sign, because it suggests that it might not be carrying some of the baggage of the Ecevit Government, which has made development so difficult. There is a clear indication of a desire for settlement across the island. Among the Greek Cypriots, President Clerides' Government have shown great flexibility. They see the prize as demilitarisation of the island, with an end to the unpopular policy of universal conscription, and the peace dividend, which would avoid using so much of the island's resources to pay for armaments. They want an end to the long-term tensions and instability on the island, which have, from time to time, flared up into incidents on the green line.
Above all, the difficulty is the changing demography of north Cyprus. I am sure that the Greek Cypriots are very concerned about that. They do not want Turkey as their neighbour to the north, but the Turkish Cypriots.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows I have been a long-standing friend of Cyprus, as has he. Does he agree that one of the most positive things reported in the western coverage of the Turkish elections during the past few days has been that, for the first time, more than 80 Turkish Cypriot

27WH
organisations are protesting openly about the military occupation of the illegally occupied zone in north Cyprus and about the settlers from Anatolia?
Mr. Dismore: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to that shortly.
We now see a real desire for settlement among the Turkish Cypriots, too. They are now, again for reasons of demography as much as anything else, possibly a minority in their own land. When their young people go to study overseas, they stay away because they see no future for themselves in Cyprus. Many Turkish Cypriots are now applying for Republic of Cyprus passports, even though that is illegal under the Denktash regime, with a view to emigration. There are now more Turkish Cypriots in London than in Cyprus. The economy is desperate, with the bank failures of the past couple of years. If anyone has anything to gain from the European Union, it is the Turkish Cypriot community.
That is reflected in the support for the opposition to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) just referred. It is significant that support comes from not only Turkish Cypriots but some Turkish settlers, who see their own futures likely to be blighted by what is going on in occupied Cyprus. That is evidenced by the Opposition parties' very good showing. For once, they were able to co-operate in the local elections, in which they won all the major prizes earlier this year. However, the problem remains that the Opposition in northern Cyprus is fragmented, which is unhelpful in trying to achieve a settlement.
It is fair to say that the Denktash regime is under much pressure. It is embattled, and does not seem to be acting in the interests of its people. As a result, it is increasingly resorting to oppression, including the jailing of journalists such as Shener Levent, whom I had the opportunity of meeting while I was in Cyprus. There is a rumour going round diplomatic circles that he tried to get himself jailed on purpose. He absolutely refutes that allegation, and also says that there are far easier ways of getting jailed than what happened to him. His newspaper, Evropa, was firebombed twice. Increasingly military courts are used for political oppression, with opponents of the regime like Izzet Izcan and Oskar Osgur facing many trials during the next few months.
While we were in Cyprus, 15 Spanish journalists were in the north, visiting the editor of Kibris, the Denktash-supporting newspaper. While they were attending a lecture on press freedom, representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Administration turned up and ordered them to leave the north immediately under pain of arrest. We have to make it absolutely clear to the Denktash regime that that sort of behaviour is not just unhelpful, but downright unacceptable.
The harassment and prevention of bi-communal contact on the island by the Denktash regime is extremely serious. It is bizarre that business people can only meet off the island to discuss common interests. Only last week, representatives of seven Cypriot trade unions were prevented from attending the fourth trade union forum on the island at the Ledra palace. Mr. Denktash has indicated his hostility towards the
28WH
European Union, refusing to meet the EU ambassador, Mr. Van der Meer, who is extremely frustrated by his position. It is no wonder that when I talk to Turkish Cypriots, they tell me that they are under occupation every bit as much as the Greek Cypriot people. The regime works against the interest of its people.
The United Nations process has moved on. It is a difficult one, but two technical committees have been half established. One is considering the continuity of legislation after settlement, the other is considering the question of international treaties. The Greek Cypriots have already started work. They are ready, and their work is advanced. The Turkish Cypriots have yet to nominate their representatives to those committees. We were told that that would happen when Mr. Ergin Olgun, Mr. Denktash's chief of staff, returned from New York where he has been with Mr. Denktash, who is recovering from a recent operation. However, that still has not taken place.
I take comfort from the assurances given by Mr. Hakki Muftazade, that in the absence of Mr. Denktash someone else will have to conduct the negotiations if the worst comes to the worst. I am concerned that the suggestion of a third committee was not accepted by the Turkish Cypriots. It would probably have been the most important, as it would deal with the effects on individuals, bearing in mind the need for the approval of any solution by both communities in a referendum. The UN plan and discussions have been conducted under a news blackout. It is important that that continues, although it inevitably leads to press speculation, leaks and great difficulties in preparing the respective communities for the outcome of the negotiations. It is important that the UN process produces a package as a whole, with good and bad for both sides. It must not be presented as a take-it-or-leave-it plan to the two communities. They must have the opportunity to discuss their concerns. Far too often, we have seen take-it-or-leave-it plans introduced, particularly by the Turkish Cypriots, which have simply led to discussions running into the ground.
The plan must not be technocratic. It cannot work on the basis of splitting the difference between the two communities. We have to recognise that the Denktash regime is a rejectionist regime, whereas the Government of President Clerides has indicated great flexibility and a willingness to make concessions. We must recognise that both sides have to accept the settlement in a referendum, and each community will have to vote.
I think that it is fair to say that Turkish Cypriots would accept virtually any UN plan to alleviate their position if they were given a chance to do so. However, there is a risk, if the plan is not acceptable to the Greek Cypriots, of a rejectionist faction of Turkish Cypriots exploiting that for its own ends. We were questioned quite firmly by some who suggested that if the Turkish Cypriots voted yes, and the Greek Cypriots voted no, it would effectively mean that the EU should not let them in, thus creating through the back door the linkage that has been rejected on so many occasions in the past.
We must recognise that Greek Cypriots would see further compromise as painful. Many believe, particularly in the diaspora in the UK, that too much has been conceded already. The plan has to recognise the sensibilities of the dispossessed, the vigorous democracy that is Greek Cypriot political life, and the

29WH
sacrifices that they believe they have already made. The UN plan must be fair and just. It must recognise human rights and abide by UN resolutions: the bi-communal, bi-zonal federation plan and the framework set out in the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979. It must provide security for both communities, as well as demilitarisation. That will inevitably involve the presence of small detachments of the Greek and Turkish armies. One of the outstanding questions—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer it—is whether those detachments will form part of the international security force under international command or act under their respective national commands. If possible, the former would be far preferable.
Turkish Cypriots have expressed concerns about the nature of the state and have become hung up on the question of two states. We should remember that the state of Cyprus was created in 1960 after decolonisation. The republic of Cyprus joined the UN and the Commonwealth and started the European Union accession process. That state must not be succeeded in international law, but continue as it is in relation to the outside world. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise, so that Cyprus had to reapply to join the UN, the Commonwealth, the EU and all the international treaties and obligations to which it is party. However, any settlement will inevitably involve changes to internal state arrangements to reflect the bi-zonality that must be its essence, in that it will be necessary to decide which functions of the state are federal and which are devolved to the two communities. In that connection, we must consider the electoral system and whether cross-voting will be possible. Without cross-voting, there is a risk that rejectionists on both sides could create problems, as we have seen in Northern Ireland.
The UN third committee, which was not established having been vetoed by the Denktash regime, was probably the most crucial in relation to issues that touch people's lives. It was intended to consider property rights and the boundaries between the two zones. Any settlement must be based on individual property rights. It must recognise the rights of refugees, not retrospectively permit what is now euphemistically called ethnic cleansing. It must provide freedom of movement around the island.
In relation to property rights, we must consider where the new boundary between the zones will he. Clearly, it must be north of Morphou and Famagusta. The right to return must make provision for refugees from Kyrenia. At least in the short term, freedom of movement is a way of making progress in that regard. There must be compensation for losses—that is a live international legal issue, as we have seen in the Loizidou case—but equally there must be recognition of the investment that has taken place over the past 28 years. If someone has spent considerable sums of money building on a bare plot of land, the settlement must recognise that additional property right. The way forward is to offer a variety of options to try to provide for as many eventualities and choices as possible. Ultimately, the rightful owner of a piece of land or home should be able to decide what they want to happen.
The issue of Turkish settlers is problematic. They, too, have human rights that must be recognised. It would be wrong if they were to be forcefully dispossessed from homes where they have lived for some
30WH
time, with nowhere else to go. It might be possible to provide them with ample funds to return to Turkey and resettle there or to give them limited residence rights in the Turkish Cypriot zone. Some pointers might be provided by what happened in the Baltic states in relation to the Russians who settled there. There may be a case for limited citizenship—for example, for those who married Turkish Cypriots or speak Greek or English as other languages.
Many serious practicalities will be involved in achieving a settlement. People will have to be moved before a territorial adjustment can take place. Millions of mines will have to be removed, which will take many years. Some of the abandoned buildings, especially in Varosha, are in a terrible condition. It will be necessary to rebuild the infrastructure; the Americans have signalled that they are willing to help with that. Another difficulty is the healing process. A Cypriot-style truth and reconciliation commission might be a way forward. There is undoubtedly a case for letting relatives know about the fate of missing persons. Without progress on that, the situation will be very difficult.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good start in confidence-building would be a readjustment of the green line to take into account Varosha and some of the other areas that were strongly within the Greek Cypriot community prior to 1974?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important practical point. That could happen quickly, because no one would be displaced as a result. However, a lot of money would need to be invested in Varosha given the condition of the buildings, which have been neglected for 28 years. Many of them suffered severe damage during the Turkish invasion and were never repaired.
It is important to stress that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together. We know that from London: there is no green line down the middle of Green lane. At the German Cypriot forum, the Bishop of Morphou indicated a willingness to go back to Morphou, even under the Turkish Cypriots, to worship at Agios Mammas and to meet with "his brother the Imam".
I found one thing particularly touching. After the Morphou rally, 1 went to the United Nations open day at the Ledra Palace hotel, and while I was there I met two people from Morphou whom I had seen at the rally. They were friends. At the bi-communal event they met two Turkish Cypriots who were living in their houses in Morphou. The process was obviously painful, but they were able to discuss the matter in a sensible way and to recognise the realities of both sides. One of the Turkish Cypriots was herself a refugee from Limassol. She would like to return to her home, should a settlement permit that.
The fact that people are coming to terms with extremely difficult situations and can talk in a civilised way to the very people who they may perceive as having deprived them of their homes, provides great hope for the future. People are speaking as a result of bicommunal contact, however hard it is and however difficult Mr. Denktash may make it. The politicians on the island, and Mr. Denktash in particular, must allow these contacts to flourish. They must allow all the people

31WH
of Cyprus—Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and all the minorities—to live together in peace, security, justice and democracy, with respect for the human rights of all who live on the island.
11.21 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I also declare an interest. Together with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I travelled to Morphou recently. That was facilitated by the House of Representatives in Cyprus and by the municipality of Morphou. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on an important subject at a key time.
Nobody present needs a lesson in Cypriot history. Many hon. Members know the island even better than I do, but just occasionally these debates reach a wider audience and so there are certain things that I would like to say—to remind myself, if not others.
About 15 years ago I travelled to Berlin with the excellent former Member of the European Parliament, Christopher Jackson. It was my first visit there. On a very warm summer's night at about midnight, I went to the viewing platform at the Berlin wall with my MEP. On the free side of the wall there were rabbits playing on the grass and crosses to mark where people had died. We climbed to the top of the wall. It is impossible to forget the sight. It looked like two miles before there were any lights at all. Gun tyres and bleak concrete were all that could be seen in both directions.
I hoped then that the Berlin wall would come down within my lifetime and, of course, it has. If I were to say to most people in America, in this country and in the European Union that effectively there is a Berlin wall in a free western state, they would look at me in blank amazement. However, one can go to Astromeritis and lay wreaths in memory of those who died during the invasion of that little church, and then go down the dusty track for a mile or so until reaching the barbed wire. One can meet the UN soldiers on duty, and I pay tribute to the tremendous job that they do. If one stares into the distance and sees the church of Morphou and the houses that some of the people own and would like to return to, one begins to realise what division really means.
It is a shame on this country, the European Union and the western world that the island of Cyprus has been divided since 1974. It is a shame and a disgrace that there are Turkish Cypriots—the hon. Gentleman said that there are more Turkish Cypriots living in London than are living in their own land—and Greek Cypriots, many of whom live in London, who are unable to live in their own homes or visit their own churches or the graves where their ancestors are buried. We have tolerated that for 27 years.
I ask the Minister to clarify a position and give a reassurance this morning. In the main Chamber of the House of Commons the other day, the Prime Minister made a statement following the European summit. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I questioned him about Turkey's desire to enter the European Union, its desire to secure what has become known as a rendezvous date—a date for talks about talks—and the need to reach a settlement in Cyprus.
32WH
I confidently expected the Prime Minister to say that there could be no further progress on Turkish entry to the European Union until there had been a settlement in Cyprus. It was made plain at Helsinki that there was a pathway. We wanted it and fought for it. Many of us would like to see a free, democratic, human rights respecting and economically sound Turkey in the EU, but that cannot happen unless the prerequisite—a settlement in Cyprus—is achieved. That was made abundantly plain in Helsinki but now, without further progress, the begging bowl is out for more.
The Prime Minister clearly indicated that he did not regard a settlement in Cyprus and Turkey's progress towards inclusion in the EU as directly connected. He may not have meant to, but he gave that impression. When he summarises the debate, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify precisely the position, because many of us and many of our friends in the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities strongly believe that the wrong signals are being sent out.
The hon. Member for Hendon—my hon. Friend, in this context—has made it clear that time is running out. Concern has been expressed that Cyprus is about to be sacrificed on the altar of expediency: the human rights of Turkish and Greek Cypriots to live in their homes and to travel where they wish without having to go through barriers and barbed wire, and the rights of the united communities to live in peace on their island and to trade where they wish on their island and beyond it, are about to be sold down the river because the United States and the United Kingdom require the use of an air base in Turkey for other fairly obvious purposes. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a clear assurance this morning that that is not the case.
We have a few short weeks, as journalists say—I am never quite sure what a short week is, as opposed to a long week. Nevertheless, there is very little time between now and Copenhagen in December in which to reach a settlement. It can be done. As mentioned earlier, two committees have been set up. However, a third must be set up, because the issues that affect real people's real lives—particularly their homes and property—must be resolved.
If a framework agreement is to be reached between now and December that allows a united island of Cyprus to join the European Union on 1 January 2004, which is what we all want, it will have to be sold to the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities in referendums. Unless those communities are confident that their fears, concerns and aspirations are being addressed, they will not vote in favour and the deal will fall. I fear that if that window of opportunity is not taken, we shall not see an agreement in Cyprus, possibly for many years.
On the positive side, we know from our visit—we visited both sides of the green line—that there are very many people of good will. We met Turkish Cypriots of good will; some brave people who are prepared to stand up to say and print what they believe. The Greek Cypriots of good will want a settlement; they are being denied it because once again politicians are getting in the way—I cannot think where we have heard that before.
Mr. Hawkins: As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution with which I entirely agree. Does

33WH
he agree that one of the greatest concerns is the continuing role of the Turkish military? The worry that many of us have, as friends of Cyprus, is that whatever the men of good will on the Turkish side of the green line may want, the Turkish military finds Cyprus too useful as a military training ground for it ever to be happy to allow it to come back under democratic control.
Mr. Gale: I shall come, briefly and in closing, to the circumstances surrounding the Turkish military and its participation in events.
I should like to say to the Minister, who I am sure has maintained his paid-up membership to the National Union of Journalists, as I have, that some of the brave people need help. Shener Levent, the editor of Afrika in the northern occupied part of the island, wryly said that he was likely to spend Christmas in prison. I said that I hoped he had sent his Christmas cards and written his articles before being jailed yet again for saying what is true. He has dared to say that the regime is getting in the way of what real people want—they are crying out for a settlement. Those human rights issues must be settled before Turkey can make any real progress towards the European Union. Economic issues must also be settled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the Turkish military, and thus to what is known in diplomatic parlance as the deep state: the state behind the state, which runs the country no matter what the electoral process delivers. However, we have an opportunity because in the past two days, the Turkish people overwhelmingly elected a new Government. That creates a chance for the Minister and his colleagues, the emissaries of the United Nations and the United Kingdom along with Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots to move rapidly forwards, between now and Copenhagen in December, to reach the settlement that so many people so badly want. If that is not done, I do not believe that history will forgive those of us in the Chamber this morning.
11.33 am
Richard Burden: 1 congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate.
I declare a similar interest, having also been on the Friends of Cyprus visit to the island a couple of weeks ago. I have previously been to Cyprus, but this was my first visit as a parliamentarian. I have been interested in these matters for some years, and Birmingham has a substantial Cypriot community. As it was my first visit as a parliamentarian, I was acutely aware of the danger of returning and drawing too many conclusions from what is inevitably a snapshot picture obtained from being there for only a couple of days. With that health warning, I want to make a few observations.
The first concerns the impact of EU accession. It is absolutely right—my hon. Friend referred to this—that there should be no preconditions in the way of Cyprus's accession. However, the prospect of that accession has successfully concentrated minds on the negotiations. This is a time of great opportunity, but there is also a danger that that opportunity could be wasted. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) have said that we must not let that opportunity go by and that any settlement proposals
34WH
must have the confidence of the people of Cyprus and their support at the ballot box. That presents a dilemma, to which my hon. Friend and both hon. Gentlemen referred. If the negotiations are to go ahead and UN proposals are to come forward, there must be space for that to happen. That means discussions taking place in a climate that is conducive to reaching a settlement away from public view. At the end of that process, the proposals and ideas must win support. If the people of Cyprus have not felt involved in the process, it could be risky when it comes to a referendum at the end of the day.
I shall address my observations to that issue and three matters that are important to recognise if we are to ensure that people in Cyprus are confident about the future. They are practicality, identity and vision.
It was absolutely right to refer to the third committee. There are huge issues in Cyprus and the principle of property rights is vital to any settlement if it is to stick, but those matters must also have a practical application for people and make sense to them. People must understand that. Some of the discussions that we had during our visit suggest that the ways in which to achieve that may not be as difficult as they appear to be at first sight. That will be realised only if the work is done now to ensure that the details of the way in which people may be affected by the settlement are sorted out so that when the package is available it makes sense to them, they can see how they relate to it and they can see a future for themselves and their families. That applies to people on both sides of the green line. It must make sense and that means detailed discussion on issues of practicality now, not in future.
The second matter concerns identity. As in so many conflicts, symbols are important. My recent visit to Cyprus was my first as a parliamentarian. I was simply on holiday the previous time, but one of my abiding memories was driving along the road from Larnaka to Nicosia and seeing the huge Turkish flag in the hills. Everyone on the other side of the green line saw that symbol of occupation and dispossession every day. If a settlement is to work, it is important that there is a process of coming to terms with that past and recognising that identity.
My hon. Friend referred to a Cypriot version of the truth and reconciliation commission, and it is important to understand and recognise in the settlement the reality of the occupation and dispossession. The hon. Member for North Thanet described graphically the reality of not being able to go to one's home; of knowing that it is there but not being able to reach it. I chair the all-party group on Palestine, and know the huge importance that people feel and attach to being denied the right to go to the place in which they or their parents were brought up. I am sure that that feeling is no less real in Cyprus. I am aware of the reality of checkpoints and the impact that the prevention of freedom of movement can have, and that will be no less real in Cyprus.
It is important that Turkish Cypriots and the regime come to terms with the reality of what has happened over the past 28 years. It is positive that an increasing number of Turkish Cypriots are speaking out. That is why it is unacceptable that action was taken against the likes of Izzet Izcan and Oskar Osgur and, as the hon. Member for North Thanet said, why it is particularly

35WH
unacceptable that action continues to be taken against Shener Levent and Afrika for doing no more than speaking the truth.
Symbols are also important the other way round. Turkish Cypriots need to know that when we talk of a bi-zonal federation we, and everybody else, mean that in practice as well as in theory. They have to be confident that their rights will be respected. I attended an interesting meeting of people in the north who do not support the Denktash regime and want to see a settlement. However, somebody attending that meeting had his own agenda and was not interested in a settlement. He easily deflected the views and positive hopes of others, and was able to sow seeds of doubt on what the Cyprus of the future would be like. We can take two lessons from that. One is that people who have that sort of agenda need to be confronted. The other is that we need to understand that it is easy to deflect discussions and conversations, and that in order for that not to happen we need to ensure that people feel that their concerns are being addressed.
The other difficult question that needs to be taken on board is that of Turkish Cypriot identity. There are people born in Cyprus whose parents came over from Turkey, who are now adults, and who have known no life other than that on the island of Cyprus.
In order to move forward, we need not only to come to terms with the past and identity, but to have a vision of what the future can hold, which is why bi-communal activities are vital. That is why the work of the bi-communal choir, which visited Istanbul earlier this year, is so positive. It is entirely unacceptable that veiled threats, and sometimes not-so-veiled threats, from the Turkish Cypriot regime should be put in the way of people involved in bi-communal activities. As is often the case, non-governmental organisations are showing the way forward, and some 86 Turkish Cypriot NGOs are engaged in that work. Friends of Cyprus organised the visit that we made a few weeks ago, and its work in international affairs is important.
We also need to be cautious about the way in which we use language and terminology. I want particularly to refer to the difficult word "new". My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is right that there should be no question of trying to go back by assuming or implying that the Republic of Cyprus is anything other than recognised and internationally legitimate. When some people refer to the prospect of a new Cyprus they mean casting doubt on that recognition, legitimising the occupation or ignoring what has happened over the past 28 years, but their version of newness has no place in Cyprus's future. But there still can be a new future for Cyprus that can be greater than its past. As part of the European Union, a great deal can be built out of the common heritage of Greek and Turkish Cypriot: Cypriots.
We must be clear what we mean by "new", but we should not be scared of the word. I say that having met the former mayor of Famagusta, who has spent his entire adult life engaged in the politics and development of Cyprus. He knew those in the British Labour party such as Ernie Bevin and has been involved, or has known somebody who is, in virtually everything that has happened in Cyprus since the 1940s. However, when
36WH
we met him, we looked out over the town that he cannot visit. It is still virtually a ghost town, a symbol of occupation.
What was encouraging about him was not only that he was acutely aware of the heritage of injustice, which he wanted to put right, but that he had a positive vision for the future. He was not hidebound by the past, nor scared of a new future for the island. If, as an international community, we are to promote a settlement based on justice, it is important for us to recognise what has happened in the past. However, we should not allow the ghost of the past to get in the way of our building a common future for Greek and Turkish Cypriots, based on existing resolutions. They should then be able to find a way forward that is new for both communities and better than anything that has happened before.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is customary to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate, which will be at noon. I am anxious that all right hon. and hon. Members should have an opportunity to express their views. I ask Members to keep their contributions concise and to be cautious about accepting interventions.
11.45 am
Bob Spink: I shall register an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have visited Cyprus with the parliamentary Friends of Cyprus, and I am sure that I will do so again. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on having secured the debate. It is extremely timely and he showed great foresight in applying for it. We have been treated to three exceptional speeches this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke passionately and insightfully about a subject on which he is recognised to be a great expert, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke with deep understanding in a very thoughtful speech that raised some interesting points.
This is a good time for the debate, thanks to the perplexing Turkish election result. It could be helpful, but that remains to be seen. The new AKP Administration have given some promising early signals, which I welcome. It looks as though they want to face west and will not embrace the fundamentalist-flavour Muslim tendencies that have occasionally been unhelpful to the international community. I hope that those are good signs and that they are accurate indicators for the future. It would be helpful for the new Turkish regime if the European Union were to give positive signals back, particularly with regard to Turkey's possible accession. That would represent an offer of hope, a light at the end of the tunnel.
Turkey must feel that it has a real choice and that a future path in the EU will be hugely more beneficial than any other route that it might take to its destiny. I hope that Europe is listening carefully to the current signals and that it will respond appropriately. I am sure that the Minister and the other Front-Bench spokesmen will be discussing that.

37WH
It would be good not only for Turkey if it faced west. Not only would it help Turkey to tackle its human rights issues and get to grips with developing a true and genuine parliamentary democracy, which would give the people more prosperity. It would be extremely good also for the international community and for geopolitical stability if Turkey were to come into the bosom of Europe, which is where it should be. That is much more important than the economic factors, although they are important. Nevertheless, the total demise of the common agricultural policy may be another helpful move in allowing Turkey to make progress in that direction. However, if I progress down that track, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will call me to order.
There is a desire for settlement throughout the beautiful island of Cyprus. Of course, that settlement must be a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation with a plan for single sovereignty, and it must include ingredients such as flexibility and good will. Give and take on both sides will be needed to achieve a settlement. The Greek Cypriots could be forgiven for being rather cynical because, over previous years, we have seen Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Cypriots operating ratchet diplomacy. Rather than give and take it has been take, take and take; the Greek Cypriots are rightly cynical about that. However, although one can understand their sense of injustice, they must be prepared to approach this new window of opportunity with a fresh heart and with good will.
Mr. Denktash is about to return to Turkey after undergoing heart surgery. We must send our good wishes to him for his future health. However, if he is not well enough to move the talks forward, particularly the work of the technical committee on property and territory and so on, those talks should not be frustrated: other people must take over. For instance, funds must be made available for new building, so that settlers can be accommodated in the Turkish-occupied part of the island when, if appropriate, property is returned to its owners. We must not forget—I know that most Greek Cypriots will not forget—that the Turkish settlers, too, have human rights.
The last few weeks in the run-up to Copenhagen will see many of these issues developing quickly, so I shall not trail through them now. No doubt the Front-Bench spokesmen will clarify the position on them and on progress with the accession process. Like other hon. Members, I have friends in the business community and personal friends in Cyprus, and they give me the strong impression that the majority of Cypriots, whether Turkish or Greek, simply want a solution. They have the good will and warmth of heart to find a solution. I hope that the politicians and pressure groups will allow it to emerge, because it sometimes seems that they are standing in the way of the people. There will of course be a tremendous temptation for the rejectionists on both sides to try to score points, but I hope that that will be dismissed.
Cyprus is at the most challenging point in its recent history. The accession of Cyprus must proceed, and I believe that it will act as a catalyst to solve the problems. I do not have real faith that a solution will be found before accession, although I hope and pray that that will be the case. If it would help to make progress with the settlement, and if the settlement seemed to be on the
38WH
stocks, perhaps it would be possible to delay Mr. Clerides's elections in Cyprus, so that he can make a positive contribution to the settlement, as he has always sought to do.
Finally, I call on Mr. Denktash to be open and honest on the missing persons issue. Progress on that matter would cost little to either side, and any concept of humanity and human rights demands that it should be made.
11.55 am
Mr. Andrew Love: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate. It is timely. I also congratulate the Minister on his promotion. He is known as a good friend to Europe and a strong supporter of enlargement.
I should declare an interest as a regular visitor to Cyprus, who takes a great interest in the island and in seeking a solution to the division.
Britain has a special relationship with Cyprus, which goes back to 1878. We have been directly involved with Cyprus ever since. Many Cypriots who live in this country came here in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and especially in 1974, but people should not be deluded into thinking that they are not passionate about what happens on the island. A letter that I received last week will give hon. Members a flavour. It says:
"This is not fair! I mean the Berlin Wall was taken down, why not our Green Line? We are only a small island and an even smaller nation within it. Everyone wants the island because of its strategic position."
That was written to me by a Maria Manford, who is aged 11. The issue is important to many people in this country.
I shall discuss three issues. First, in line with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I refer to bi-communal contacts. The island has been divided for 28 years, and during that time the level of contact between the two communities has declined, as everyone would recognise. People have grown older and forgotten and a new generation has grown up within the communities, which have both changed tremendously. The Turkish Cypriot community has been isolated in that period and there has been mass immigration of Turkish people from Anatolia, which has changed the situation in the north of the island. The living standards in the republic have grown enormously, perhaps more distinctly than other changes that have occurred on the island. Therefore, inter-communal contacts are crucial.
I shall not describe all the ways in which those contacts are struggling to happen. My hon. Friend's predecessor as Minister for Europe went to the Ledra palace and spoke to both communities, so I hope that he will find an opportunity to visit the island during his tenure. Inter-communal contacts are necessary because they foster respect and, perhaps even more importantly, understanding between the two communities, and create a positive climate for the talks. The Government have a role through international communities to sponsor those contacts.
I refer briefly to the European Union negotiations. It is in the interests of both the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot communities that Cyprus enters the EU. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about

39WH
the Brussels summit, he confirmed that Cyprus is on course, will complete the accession process in December, will sign up in the early part of the new year and will join in 2004. The Helsinki declaration was reaffirmed at the talks. It reads:
"If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council's decision on accession will be taken without the above being a precondition."
That is very important. It goes on to say that
"the Council will take account of all relevant factors."
Will the Minister say something about those?
Turkey has just held elections, and we will be feeling our way for a while as regards its attitude to the European Community. We clearly want it to take a positive attitude, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed in his speech that it would. We want it to make progress, but—to respond to concerns expressed by other hon. Members—it must meet the same conditions as every other candidate country if it is to join the EU. Will the Minister say a little about what those conditions are likely to be?
Many people, including many in the Cypriot community, see EU enlargement and the accession of Cyprus as a catalyst for the UN-sponsored negotiations—and, my goodness, we need one. For 28 years, we have had failed negotiation after failed negotiation. Earlier this year, the parties decided to meet face to face, and everyone took heart from the fact that they were beginning talks. However, the UN had to admit in July that progress was "glacial" and that neither party—but particularly the Turkish Cypriot representative—was moving forwards as fast as it could.
There are three steps that the Government must take to address the issue. First, it is critical that we redouble our efforts, in all the organisations in which we are involved, to bring the two communities together for talks. Secondly, we must recognise that accession can be a catalyst and that it will assist in resolving the division of the island. Thirdly, it is critical that any solution is in line with UN resolutions in the acquis communautaire, and I hope that the Minister will refer to that. That is the framework that the UN should use, and concern has been expressed in that regard. Britain should talk about that framework. It has been the framework for the past 28 years, and if we live up to its goals, we can find a solution. Cyprus will then be united, and there will be a revolution in how things are done. That will be good for both communities and for the international situation in the eastern Mediterranean.
12.2 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate. I also congratulate those who have contributed so far to our well-informed and thoughtful discussion. There seems to be a remarkable degree of unanimity on the issue.
The Liberal Democrats fully support United Nations and international efforts to resolve the differences between the Cypriot communities. We support the UN view that a settlement must be based on a state of Cyprus that has single sovereignty, a single international personality and single citizenship. That
40WH
will eventually require the formation of a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, but such a settlement should not be reached through partition or succession.
The future of Cyprus and the shape of the final settlement can ultimately be resolved only by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities in free and open negotiations. Any solution should be based on reconciliation and respect for the fundamental human rights of both communities. We urge both parties to participate fully and in good faith in the UN's efforts to broker a peaceful agreement.
An increase in military strength on the part of either community will be counterproductive. A controlled reduction in the amount of military equipment will be an important step in the peace process. In that regard, the UN peacekeeping mission must be free to undertake its mandate. That requires an end to the restriction that the Turkish Cypriot authorities and the Turkish military imposed on its operations. Both communities should cease provocative infringements in the UN buffer zone.
As many hon. Members have stressed, the future of Cyprus lies in the European Union. We urge the Turkish Cypriot authorities to engage with the Republic of Cyprus to prepare for accession to the EU. We hope that accession will act as a spur to reconciliation and a peaceful resolution.
Of course, however, the future of Cyprus does not lie entirely in the hands of the Cypriots. By definition, past and present relations between Greece and Turkey lie at the heart of the current division of the island. I believe that Greece's imminent presidency of the EU and Turkey's aspirations to EU membership can provide a vital catalyst to the resolution of internal and external disputes over the future of Cyprus, which could come much quicker than we might otherwise have hoped.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the recent statements by the Greek Government, supporting Turkey's accession to the European Union. At the very least, these statements remove the threat that Greece could veto an application by Turkey, which would in turn threaten to destabilise the progress that Turkey is making towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria. We hope that Turkey in turn recognises that strongly supporting the UN Secretary-General's efforts to bring about a successful and comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem should be among the very first political priorities in its accession partnership.
If Turkey's EU candidacy is to proceed, many reforms are vital. In fact, great progress has been made over the past few months through legal and constitutional changes. Above all, however, progress on Cyprus is essential. The previous Turkish Government argued that the Republic of Cyprus is legally barred from acceding to the EU. The British Government have not accepted that argument and neither have the Liberal Democrats. We can understand why, from their perspective, many Turks feel that the EU is acting unjustly and with some bias in allowing the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to apply for EU membership. The population of the Republic of Cyprus is of course almost entirely Greek Cypriot. The application excludes the participation of about 200,000 Turkish Cypriots in the north of the island.
Whether still divided or not, the Republic of Cyprus will almost inevitably be accepted as a member of the EU at the Copenhagen European Council at the end of

41WH
the year. If no settlement has been reached over Cyprus by then, it would seem that some provision will be made for the Turkish Cypriot community in the north to come under the flag of Cyprus at some future date. The newly elected Turkish Government must come to terms with that fact.
Commentators in Turkey with whom I have spoken recognise that, should Cyprus join the EU as a divided island without at least an imminent settlement, it will be a serious setback to Turkey's EU candidacy. Cyprus's entry to the EU as a divided island would be a serious setback to reform and the development of a European outlook in Turkey. There would also be a danger that, should southern Cyprus—the Republic of Cyprus—join the EU before negotiations on Turkey's accession had been opened, it would use its newly acquired veto to block Turkey's application for the foreseeable future.
There is, however, a strong feeling that a settlement may at least be reached between the Greek and Turkish communities in the near future. Both communities need to recognise the urgency of reaching a settlement in the few weeks remaining this year, which would be in the best interests of all concerned. Seen from a wider perspective, it appears that the remaining obstacles to a settlement need not be insurmountable.
There is now a strong case for Turkey's allies to engage in robust confidence-building with the Turkish establishment and the Turkish armed forces in particular, emphasising the benefits of a settlement over Cyprus. We urge the Government to work closely with the United States, in the context of Turkey's pivotal role in NATO and in the war against terrorism. We urge the Government to work closely with Germany, which has the strongest links with Turkey among the EU states. Recognising our unique and enduring links with the island, the Government must work closely with the Republic of Cyprus. There must now be a concerted and combined effort to persuade Turkish doubters of the benefits that a settlement in Cyprus would bring to Turkey, in terms of advancing its EU accession and in enhancing regional stability. If Turkey can be persuaded to trust the European Union on Cyprus, and to assist in achieving a settlement, its own prospects for EU membership can only be advanced.
With the Copenhagen summit fast approaching, the urgency of achieving a settlement in Cyprus cannot be denied. There are elections in Cyprus early next year, as other Members mentioned. Accession treaties will be signed in April 2003. There will be serious consequences for the European Union's relations with Turkey if a divided Cyprus accedes to the EU.
Turkey has a new Government with a clear mandate, which provides an opportunity that should be seized now. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs believes that it is in the best interests of Turkey, Greece and the EU to have a settlement, and we echo that. We urge the United Kingdom, as one of the original guarantor powers for Cyprus, along with Greece and Turkey, to co-operate with Germany—Turkey's largest and most significant EU neighbour—to lead EU efforts to achieve a solution.
Failure to use that diplomatic window constructively will lead to disappointment in Turkey and problems for all member states' attempts to foster good relations with Turkey, which is of great strategic importance to the
42WH
EU, NATO and the international community in general. Turkey is also, of course, a significant future member of the EU.
Failure to use the diplomatic window constructively would also severely hamper efforts to contain Saddam Hussein's ambitions in Iraq and undermine the prosecution of the war against terrorism. There is no doubt that vigorous diplomatic efforts to build reassurance and confidence in Turkey about reaching a settlement on Cyprus would bring these wider benefits.
Positive moves to reach a settlement would assist negotiations to finalise the terms under which the EU can use NATO military assets for Europe-wide operations. Those negotiations are under way, and a fresh mandate was issued to Javier Solana at the Brussels summit only last week. Delays in finalising the EU-NATO agreement are primarily due to the dispute between Greece and Turkey, and Cyprus lies at the heart of that dispute.
There can be no question that a settlement in Cyprus has a far-reaching influence on our security, defence capability and, most importantly, our European and foreign policy objectives. The Government have a prime responsibility to recognise the importance of a settlement for Cyprus to the UK's wider interests and to recognise the opportunity to take the initiative now.
12.11 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: First, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing the debate and on his speech. I congratulate other hon. Members on their high-quality speeches. I also congratulate the Minister for Europe on his promotion, and I wish him well in his new role.
Cyprus is increasingly important as its application for membership of the European Union progresses. The United Kingdom has close links with that country, is not least because of our common Commonwealth membership. I congratulate Cyprus on its progress with its application to join the EU. It has led the pack of accession countries in closing the chapters, which is a tribute to the quality, hard work and determination of its Government. We warmly welcome Cyprus's prospective membership, and we look forward to working with it inside the EU. Cyprus, with its location in the eastern Mediterranean, will undoubtedly be an increasingly valuable and important link between Europe and the middle east.
We have had a special relationship with Cyprus for a long time. The UK has been greatly involved in the life of Cyprus, and the involvement and links remain. The UK has a thriving and successful Cypriot community—both Greek and Turkish—that enriches our national life with its customs, culture and enterprise. Cyprus is very close to our hearts.
The UK retains two sovereign military bases in Cyprus, and it is one of the state's three guarantors. We support the British Government and the international community in attempting to find a solution to the island's current division, which happened in 1974 with the partition of the island after the seizure of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops and the creation of Turkish administered northern Cyprus. The green line running across the island that is policed by United Nations troops is an ever-present reminder of the island's divisions.

43WH
United Nations ideas for a bi-zonal and bi-communal federal government, which were submitted in 1992, remain central to discussion of the island's future. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that that should be stated explicitly. The announcement of the Denktash-Clerides talks in January 2002 was encouraging, and it is a great disappointment that further progress has not been made. Although I appreciate that the talks are currently at a delicate stage, can the Minister spread further light on any progress and on the shared aspiration to reach a successful agreement before the Copenhagen meeting?
In the final analysis, only the two communities in Cyprus can come to an agreement with which they are both happy and with which they can both move forward. The United Kingdom's role should be to offer advice, to facilitate talks without getting in the way and to support the United Nation's efforts as we have been doing.
Alongside the talks on the political disputes on the island there is the issue of missing persons. Since 1974, a number of people have been missing on both sides of the green line. That continues to cause considerable and understandable distress to families. I welcome the UN Secretary-General's appeal to both parties to address that issue seriously. I also welcome the recognition by the two leaders that, although the issue should be dealt with separately from the main settlement talks, it must be dealt with in parallel with those talks. I am pleased to read on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website that our high commission in Nicosia is taking a close interest. Should the current negotiations prove successful, as we hope that they will, what effect do the Government think that that would have on the status of the British sovereign bases on the island?
I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). We do not believe that the present division of Cyprus should hinder the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union. Negotiations between Cyprus and the EU began in 1998 and have progressed rapidly and successfully. Cyprus is on course for membership, as planned, in 2004. Although we hope that a political solution to the island's division can be found, we do not believe that any such solution should be a prerequisite to Cyprus becoming a member of the EU. We have always recognised the Republic of Cyprus and its accession to the EU would not contravene, in any way, the provisions of the treaty of guarantee. However, to echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who made an especially powerful speech, we also welcome Turkey's intention to become a member of the EU.
We call upon Turkey to use its influence to assist in the construction of a solution to the Cyprus question. Notwithstanding the uncertainty over the future attitude of the new Turkish Government—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke tellingly—we believe that Turkey has a valuable role to play. Does the Minister agree that it should be made clear to Turkey that its accession to the EU would be severely set back should it consider the annexation of northern Cyprus?
44WH
The resolution of the island's division would greatly benefit the island's communities. The Turkish Cypriot community has not thrived since the island's division quite the reverse. Both communities will remain cut off from parts of their heritage while the green line remains. Given our historical connections with the island, it is right that we should play a part in the peace process and give it our fullest encouragement.
I have made it clear that we do not regard a settlement as a prerequisite for Cyprus's membership of the EU, but no one disputes that a settlement would be highly desirable. We hope that a settlement will come about, and we look forward in the near future to sitting alongside Cyprus in the EU as trusted, valued and longstanding friends and allies.
12.18 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing this debate; and I welcome the vigour and power of the speeches and, in particular, the moderate and reasoned way in which arguments have been advanced. The authorities on both sides of the green line in Cyprus, as well as the authorities in Ankara, would be well advised to study the speeches of the two Opposition spokesmen—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). There was little in either of them with which the Government would disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is a powerful advocate of the interests of the Hellenic community in Europe. He threatened to make his speech in Greek. I have heard him speak that language with considerable elegance, so it was no empty threat, believe me. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), too, is well known as a committed friend of Cyprus. He placed the whole problem in a much wider historic setting, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I have visited the beautiful island of Cyprus on many occasions, although not recently, and nothing would give me greater pleasure if my appointment as Minister for Europe, the vista of which opens before me, could begin with a settlement of the Cyprus problem. I thank hon. Members for their congratulations on my appointment.
The Cyprus problem is of deep concern to the Government and to diplomats. I thank those who have drawn attention to the excellent work of our High Commissioner in Nicosia, but others in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have worked very hard to bring about such a settlement. I am a little nervous of making unqualified statements in this job, as a distinguished predecessor in the 1950s—a Mr. Hopkinson—once said at the Dispatch Box that Cyprus would never become independent. However, Cyprus became independent under the great leadership of Archbishop Makarios, and Mr. Hopkinson ceased to be a Minister. Those who invite me to make unconditional statements may find me a little diffident.
Let us not forget that it is the 25th anniversary of the death of Archbishop Makarios, whose wise leadership is remembered by all. Let us also not forget that it was not the Turks who overthrew him, arrested him and sought to chase him from the island, but Greek Cypriots in the last expression—the last flurry—of European fascism

45WH
and of interference of the military in the affairs of a European state. I draw special attention to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), both of whom in their different ways insisted on the importance of opposing what they referred to as "rejectionist" politics. I remember visiting the refugee camps in Cyprus in the 1970s. Over two or three years, they became smaller and smaller due to the great energy of the Cypriot people. who did not want endlessly to maintain a life in a refugee camp. They found outlets for their economic entrepreneurship, much of which has enriched our own communities in the United Kingdom.
Reference was made to the strength of the people of the Greek Cypriot diaspora and to the extent to which the people of the Turkish Cypriot diaspora may be able to talk more easily in Green lanes than they can across the green line in Cyprus. That is an important point, because throughout Europe there are great communities of people who have been ejected from their lands. There is current controversy in central Europe over people of German or Austrian background who lived in the Sudetenland of Bohemia. That is a very sensitive issue. Millions of Poles were expelled from their native homelands in 1945. However, I believe that a line must be drawn under history at some stage. It is right to draw the Chamber's attention to the opportunity that lies before us in the next few weeks to leave the rejectionists' line of the respective diasporas to one side. Every encouragement should be given to all the interested parties of both communities to seize that opportunity. That is the combined and unified message from the House and from the debate, the timing of which is excellent. It will have served more than the usual purpose of airing a great cause, which matters deeply to the people of this country.
Settlement is the goal in front of us—Cyprus coming into the European Union and Ankara under its new Government looking west, as hon. Members have put it so eloquently, to a European destiny. If we are to reach that goal, it goes without saying that a settlement is needed. I therefore urge the two leaders of the respective communities in Cyprus to redouble their efforts in the short time left to reach agreement before the Copenhagen Council.
I thank and congratulate the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his special adviser Alvaro de Soto, who have worked tirelessly and patiently to bridge the gaps between the two sides. One can feel the quickening pace of history in the eastern Mediterranean up through the Dardanelles to Constantinople, as I prefer to call it, and on into Ankara. I am sure that hon. Members join me in supporting the UN at this time; if it can help to accelerate the pace of history, so much the better to help both sides to reach a settlement. That is attainable but if it is to work it has to be lasting and comprehensive and both sides must feel it to be just. That means that a settlement that works will cause some pain to both sides, but surely the prize is worth the pain. We say no to rejectionism.
The UN Secretary-General has asked all those close to the talks to preserve a blackout on their content, so right hon. and hon. Members will understand why I do not go into detail. However, there is a settlement that
46WH
meets the key interests of both sides and the national interest of the two motherlands, Greece and Turkey, and that settlement is attainable. Such a settlement will banish the Greek Cypriot nightmare of Turkish Cypriot secession and recognition and it will banish the Turkish Cypriot nightmare, which is a real one, of domination by the Greek Cypriots. It will mean a Cyprus with a single international personality speaking with one voice in the European Union and in other international forums. It will mean a Cyprus with two politically equal entities with responsibility for their own affairs; Greek and Turkish Cypriots will be masters in their own houses.
Much has been made in the debate about the interrelation between Cypriot accession to the European Union, which will be decided at Copenhagen, and the issue of Turkey looking to Europe. We strongly support Turkey's application for European Union membership and look forward to the day when it is seated at the Council table. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in response to the election results from Turkey:
"Britain and Turkey have much to do together, particularly in the run-up to the Copenhagen European Council. I very much hope this will include progress on Cyprus. We must all redouble our support for the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus."
At Copenhagen we will be looking at the next stage of Turkey's candidature, which we want to move forward, within the framework of the Helsinki European Council conclusions.
We will need to consider many difficult technical points, but if we make each technical demand a sine qua non and put it on the table we will not be able to get to Copenhagen with the possibility—thanks to the very great work by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his team and by British diplomats—of the prize, at the beginning of the 21st century, of a settlement, a solution to the problem of Cyprus.
The British Government will do their best; I am happy to write to hon. Members if they feel that I have not mentioned or replied to particular points in my remarks. My message again and again—I speak as a friend of Cyprus, I hope—that will allow this problem to be solved is that it is up to the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish Cypriots to make the gestures to arrive at a settlement, not to demand that all their conditions are met. Do that, and the eastern Mediterranean moves to peace and the European Union moves forward more strongly in the 21st century.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): We now move on to the next debate in Westminster Hall this morning, initiated by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). It has come to my attention that one or two Back-Bench Members—in other words, not the initiator of the debate or the Minister—wish to speak. It is the custom of the House that if any hon. Member wishes to intervene in an Adjournment debate they must seek permission of not only the initiator of the debate and the Minister, but the Chair. One or two colleagues on the

47WH
Opposition Benches have already spoken to me. If there are others, perhaps they will acquaint me after I have called the hon. Member for Blaby to speak.
Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not necessary. I call the hon. Member for Blaby.

New Midlands Airport
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one or two Labour Members may wish to make short interventions. I have spoken to the Minister about that, as they may have done. This is not a partisan political issue; it unites the people who live in the area potentially served by the airport. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue. It is the first occasion since the announcement on 23 July that the proposal to build a new airport between Rugby and Coventry has been properly aired in the House.
The proposal has galvanised opinion in the area, not least in my constituency. Driving through places such as Ullesthorpe and the Claybrookes one sees hundreds of signs saying "Stop Rugby Airport". I have received hundreds of letters—too many, in fact—from people opposed to the airport. There are already many thousands of signatures on a petition that I started. Other hon. Members in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, particularly, I suspect, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), may have received even more letters. Feelings are even stronger in those areas than in Leicestershire. A protest march through the villages of Church Lawford and Kings Newham attracted 7,000 people despite the pouring rain.
The proposal arrived out of the blue on 23 July, although many people in the Department of Transport had been working on it for many years. I shall not forget the shock on the face of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth when he questioned the Secretary of State about the issue. Half his constituency was about to be covered by a runway. It is an extraordinary proposal—it harks back to the days of central planning in the Soviet Union. Central planning like that has not been practised since the 1950s or 1960s in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"The old predict and provide approach … is dead."—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 865.]
He was referring specifically to housing, but I think that his words apply here too.
The proposal to build an entirely new airport seems to run contrary to the whole tenor of public policy and contradicts various policy documents. First, the flood plain of the Avon would be covered in concrete and tarmac, contrary to all the pronouncements following recent heavy flooding. We all know that flooding is likely to get more frequent and worse as a result of climate change. Government policy, as laid out in planning policy guidance 25 on development and flood
48WH
risk, rules out such large developments on flood plains. The accompanying press release dated 17 July 2001 states:
"Comprehensive new planning guidance directs development away from flood risk areas."
It quoted the then Planning Minister—now the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—as saying:
"Firm guidance against development in areas that regularly function as flood plains is overdue."
She added that high-risk areas should be avoided unless they were absolutely essential for development. The policy guidance itself states:
"Where, exceptionally, development is permitted, it should … not impede flood flows or result in a net loss of flood-plain storage."
That is fairly plain.
A second contradiction is that all Government policy is against major construction on such greenfield sites. PPG 3 precludes such developments in general. A former Minister for Housing and Planning said in March 2001 that draft regional planning guidance for the east midlands recommended that
"no new greenfield sites should be promoted"
for industrial development
"until a comprehensive analysis has been carried out of the quantity and quality of the existing supply of employment land."
We shall see not only the destruction of the countryside, including historic villages, but real damage to the local environment on a scale that is hard to imagine.
An airport of that size with three runways—bigger than Heathrow—would require an enormous infrastructure with warehousing, homes for employees, car parking and so forth. Those familiar with Heathrow will know what that would look like and will also be aware of the volume of traffic. The M6, M1 and M69 in that area are already grossly congested. The proposal refers to an extra motorway lane and points out that the volume-to-capacity ratio would be 200 per cent. on the M1 down to London—twice the traffic that the road was built to accommodate. An extra lane is a charming idea. If people tried driving, as I and other hon. Members do, up and down the M1 on a Friday evening, they would realise that the congestion between London and junction 17 with the M45 is simply horrific.
The development would create a concrete urban sprawl all the way from Rugby to Wolverhampton with the Arden forest as a narrow corridor. Why would we create such an environmental disaster? To some extent it is the function of civil servants to predict and plan, though few get it right. To quote the Deputy Prime Minister, "predict and provide" is dead.
It is predicted that air transport will keep on growing at the current rate, trebling by 2030, and we should ask whether that is desirable. We hear every month or so reports of near misses in air traffic control over our skies. That is hardly surprising because our air space, like our land mass, is limited and crowded. What will be the impact on air traffic control and safety of trebling the number of flights? It is also predicted that business travel as well as leisure travel will keep growing, but new technology, particularly video conferencing, is likely to reduce that growth in the long term. A meeting in an

49WH
office via video conferencing might take only an hour and stop the need to fly to the United States and spend a couple of nights in a hotel, so that is sensible. The impact of 11 September has already had a major effect on business travel. That, coupled with technological advance, will mean that it will not continue to grow.
On leisure travel, one wonders how many foreign holidays we can all have. It is a matter of choice, but I suspect that an infinite number of people could fly an infinite number of times on holiday—but perhaps not. The front of yesterday's Daily Telegraph featured an advertisement to fly to Gerona—apparently near Barcelona—for £9.99 each way. My taxi ride in London last night cost rather more.
As for cargo, while it is convenient to have vegetables grown in Africa in our supermarkets all the year round, the environmental movement is deeply disturbed by the problem of embedded carbon, and so am I. I try never to buy green beans from Zambia, Zimbabwe or Kenya, or apples from the Antipodes, because it is ridiculous to pollute the atmosphere transporting such goods for our convenience. Again, it is a matter of choice, but we must all confront that issue.
Air travel has a disproportionate effect on climate change because carbon emissions are delivered high up in the atmosphere, damaging the ozone layer. Let me quote Friends of the Earth, of which I have been a member for many years:
"Air travel is the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases … aviation generates as much CO2 annually as that from all human activities in Africa …Nitrogen oxides ….and water vapour have a more significant effect on the climate when emitted at altitude than at ground level… An increase in supersonic aircraft flying could further damage the ozone layer as aircraft emissions of NOx deplete ozone concentrations at high altitudes, where these aircraft would typically fly."
After Rio, Kyoto and Johannesburg, it is not fanciful to think that international action may soon result in duties being imposed on air fuel to deter the growth in air travel, as predicted in the plan.
Sir Michael Spicer: An airport of that size is presumably only justified by the hope of displacing traffic congestion in the south-east. Would my hon. Friend accept my judgment as a former Minister for aviation that that is based upon erroneous conceptions? First, people in the south-east will not travel to Rugby to fly out. Secondly, because of hubbing and interchange in the south-east, an airport in Rugby is a totally unrealistic proposition.
Mr. Robathan: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is unrealistic to suggest that such an airport could supplant an airport in the south-east. Of course, the overwhelming reason why a greenfield site should be chosen is that fewer people will suffer from noise. People who buy houses next to a noisy airport know that they are doing so, but airports are getting quieter, and international agreements ensure that in future aircraft engines will be quieter still. The European Commission says:
"An aircraft entering the fleet today is typically 20 dB quieter than a comparable aircraft of 30 years ago. In practice this corresponds to a reduction in noise annoyance of around 75 per cent".
In January, an international agreement was reached in Montreal by the International Civil Aviation Organisation's committee on aviation environmental
50WH
protection, which sets a new noise standard 10 decibels lower on a cumulative basis than the current standards. We all welcome that, as it undermines the case for not using existing capacity at airports.
One reason why a new airport might he preferred is that 27 per cent. of its passengers may travel by rail. I am keen that people should travel by rail—I do so myself as much as possible. However, it takes one hour 22 minutes to get from London to Birmingham international airport by rail at the moment, which makes me greatly worried about the grandiose proposal. Everything has been set out in expensive documents costing more than £500,000, according to a written answer to a parliamentary question of mine. We are told that everyone will have the opportunity to respond. Well, not quite everyone, because my constituents—I received a message from one this morning—are finding it difficult to obtain the consultation document and questionnaire. Yesterday, one constituent received 1,000 copies, which he had asked for in August on behalf of many people. Some people who asked for documents in August or September have yet to receive them.
The situation is worse, however. Government policy is to be determined on the basis of the questionnaire. NOP has been employed—I am sure that that is costing a great deal of money, although my parliamentary question received a rather fudged answer. Whoever devised the questionnaire should be sacked, and I suggest that the Government get rid of NOP.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if there has to be any extra capacity at all, he is making a case for looking seriously at Birmingham's proposal for a short, wide-spaced second runway, which would not pose the environmental problems to which he referred?
Mr. Robathan: I have read Birmingham airport's document, but I do not wish to shift the problem to Birmingham. I shall merely say that its airport is not fully utilised at the moment.
Mr. Tim Boswell: In the interest of saving time, will my hon. Friend accept my complete association, on behalf of all my constituents, with his powerful argument? I would simply add that the behemoth wished upon us would create huge stress on the infrastructure between the midlands and the southeast, and on scarce resources of building and development land.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I entirely agree.
Mr. David Tredinnick: For good measure, may I too support my hon. Friend? We in Bosworth are appalled at the threat to the green belt.
Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend. It takes one hour 22 minutes to get from Birmingham international airport to London and just over an hour to get from Rugby station to London. I make that journey most weeks. It takes well in excess of half an hour to get from Heathrow, Luton, Gatwick or Stansted to central London.

51WH
It is therefore not surprising that there are no scheduled flights from the midlands to the south-east, contrary to the questionnaire's expectations and assumptions. Question 5b says:
"Would you like a greater number of flights from the midlands to London, or is the current number adequate?"
The current number is zero. Question 6a says:
"From which of the region's airports listed below would you like to see a greater number of flights to London?"
Question 7 includes the phrase:
"If access to the south east of England by air from local midlands airports could no longer be provided",
but there are no such air services. Can the Minister tell us how much this ludicrous questionnaire is costing the taxpayer? Frankly, he has been ditched in it by NOP.
The cost is said to be almost £7 billion—£6.9 billion, I think—before the figures are revised, and as far as I am aware, figures are always revised upwards. For all the reasons I have given, my constituents and I oppose the proposed option almost unanimously. I will present a petition before the end of the month with many thousands of signatures. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the many letters of opposition that he receives will be considered equally, as will responses to the utterly flawed consultation questionnaire. Will he also explain how it came to be so pathetically and badly flawed? I trust that the Government will see the strength of the opposition and of our arguments, and not pursue this damaging proposal any further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call one or two Members before the Minister if they wish to speak, but I hope that they will speak for no more than one minute each.
12.46 pm
Mr. John Taylor: I sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The proposal for an airport in the Rugby area is quite crazy.
Another quite crazy proposal is that Birmingham airport should be closed. I should like to make it clear to hon. Members and to the Minister that my constituents in Solihull would say of Birmingham airport, "Make the most of what you've got." We do not want a second runway at Birmingham airport; that would be a great blight on my constituents, and it is my trenchant duty to speak for them in opposition to a second runway at Birmingham.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. Discussing the important topic of the future of air services in our country now seems to be a weekly occurrence. That subject is vital to our economy, and, as we have seen here today, generates strong views. It is right to air those views in this Chamber and elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Blaby asked whether the views expressed here and by his constituents will be taken into consideration. They most certainly will. We are listening
52WH
to all those making representations to us as we progress towards the White Paper. We will be canvassing views on the wide range of issues and options published in the seven consultation documents that cover the whole United Kingdom.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the questions that underpin the consultation. The first, to which the hon. Member for Blaby alluded, is how much, if any, additional airport capacity is needed. The second is where any new capacity should or could be located. The final question is what measures will be needed to control and mitigate the environmental impact of any airport growth. The answers to those questions will help us to decide how to respond to the projected growth in air travel and how to provide a framework for sustainable development during the next 30 years.
The debate on future airport capacity should be set firmly in context, and I shall briefly give some background to the plan. In 1970, some 32 million passengers passed through United Kingdom airports. Today, that number of people passes through Gatwick alone. The national figure is now 180 million passengers per annum. People increasingly want to travel by air for leisure and holidays—we have a shrinking world and an international economy—and our forecasts show that demand for air travel will continue to grow with the UK's national prosperity, and that of other countries. Air travel for business and leisure is a fact of life. Last year, half our population flew at least once. For our parents, 40 or 50 years ago, that would have been unimaginable. Set against that, our major airports are already full or filling up rapidly. Birmingham international airport is experiencing severe pressures at certain peak periods, and our analysis suggests, under all the policy scenarios that we have examined, that it would run out of runway capacity before 2030 unless air travel throughout the United Kingdom were to be severely constrained. I shall return to that in a moment.
Airport development is a matter of national interest with wide-ranging implications for people and the environment, and it is right that a Government should look ahead and plan strategically. That is contrary to what the hon. Member for Blaby implied. Previous Governments ducked the issue. In more than 100 years of aviation in this country, we have never looked intelligently and dispassionately at the problems, consulted people on them, and tried to find a solution.
Andy King: It is important that regional airports should act as the core of the economic development of our regions, so a regional airport needs to be in the right place and to serve its region well. Birmingham airport does that for the midlands, and we are all united behind using Birmingham and East Midlands airports wisely. Some of the assessments that were undertaken in advising the Minister were fundamentally flawed. The projections for the Rugby option are out by millions of passengers, so that is no go.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes some powerful points. That is exactly why we are holding the consultation. We need to hear such views expressed—not only to raise local matters, but so that the figures can be challenged. That is what a good consultation is about. If we thought that we had everything right and

53WH
that all the information were correct, there would be no point in having consultation. I underline the fact that we have not taken any decisions on these matters. Our airports consultation document put forward various options and invited views so that we could have an informed public debate on the important issues involved.
Mr. McCabe: With all due respect to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who rightly represents his constituents' interests, the key point is that we should be addressing, in the long term, wider regional economic and environmental issues that go way beyond the interests of 40 or 50 residents in a particular area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that this is a short debate, and the Minister probably has a lot to say. Unless interventions are absolutely vital, I suggest that he be allowed to finish his speech.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will, of course, consider as many matters as I can in the seven minutes that I have left.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is right to say that there are wide economic issues, but there are also very important environmental and human issues such as damage to the environment and people being affected by noise and other side effects of aircraft. We are having the consultation to try carefully to balance the increased need to fly with the needs of the environment and of people on the ground.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister; I shall be brief. It is about balancing the economic, environmental and social needs of everybody, and the proposed airport represents an imbalance.
Mr. Jamieson: The options include additional runways at Birmingham and East Midlands airports. However, each proposal has its drawbacks. For example, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) could tell the hon. Gentleman of the increased aircraft noise and road congestion that would be created if Birmingham were the chosen option. East Midlands airport, on the other hand, is not thought to be in the best location to meet demand.
Mr. John Taylor: May I make it perfectly clear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is completely out of order in saying that just 40 or 50 people would be affected by a second runway at Birmingham airport? A whole borough would be affected, and many people are registering their views. I emphatically state that it would not be 40 or 50 people.
Mr. Jamieson: We can see the passions now being aroused, and quite right too; we are in this Chamber to discuss an issue that has aroused passion around the country. I fully appreciate the points of the hon. Member for Blaby. I know that he wants to represent his constituents robustly, as do the hon. Member for Solihull and my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) who has not spoken but who takes an interest in these matters.
54WH
I sat on the Opposition Benches for a while—
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will be there again.
Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps, but not in the lifetime of this Parliament.
In addition to making points on behalf of one's constituents, one needs a certain intellectual integrity in one's arguments. The first question that we must ask is whether we should constrain the opportunities to fly. The hon. Member for Blaby asked how many foreign holidays people have, and whether it was desirable or possible to increase opportunities to fly. In the hon. Gentleman's questionnaire to his constituents he should ask whether they want, in future, the opportunity to fly on holiday or on business.
If opportunities to fly are to increase, the question is, from where should flights fly? The hon. Member for Solihull says, "Not in Solihull, if you don't mind." The hon. Member for Blaby says, on behalf of the people of Sapcote, Sharnford, Broughton Astley, Lutterworth and the other villages in Blaby, "Not in my area." Is the solution to increase the capacity in the south-east? We have listened in this Chamber to hon. Members representing constituencies near Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow, who make precisely the same arguments as those of the hon. Member for Blaby. There is no intellectual integrity in an argument that states that on the one hand we want to allow people the opportunity to fly, and to increase that opportunity, but on the other we will not make the necessary provision.
If the Government did nothing, and had not held this consultation, the situation would grow as it has over the past 100 years. It would grow in an unsustainable manner that would affect the environment and people. We would see a constant pressure on Heathrow for new runways and stands, and pressure would grow on Birmingham, perhaps on Solihull. This debate to see how we can meet people's wishes without creating environmental damage would not have taken place. Does the hon. Member for Blaby think that the people of Blaby should be constrained in the future in their opportunities to fly?
Mr. Robathan: The question is one of balance between everybody's needs and wishes, and the economy. Building a brand new airport would create an imbalance.
Mr. Jamieson: I did not get an answer to my question, which has to be answered yes or no. If we want to increase the opportunities for people to fly, we have to find somewhere to do it. I accept that a balance must he struck, but the Government have been bold in putting these questions forward. Should we increase people's opportunities to fly on business? In the interest of economic prosperity, should we increase the quantities of freight going in and out of the country? The argument that we need to increase opportunities to fly while providing fewer airports and passing air traffic into other people's areas has no intellectual integrity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his reply. We now move on to the next debate.

Sexual Abuse
1 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The sexual abuse of children is a problem that many, including hon. Members, are unwilling or embarrassed to address. It is estimated that between 35,000 and 72,000 children are abused in England and Wales each year, and another survey suggests that one in 10 children experience some form of sexual abuse during their childhoods. Sexual abuse can destroy lives and debase people's humanity, and we must do everything we can to prevent it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 16 October in which certain aspects of sexual abuse were discussed. Today, I want to take a slightly different look at the subject by making a case for early intervention to deter potential abusers at an early age—even when they are children. There is much debate and public outrage after offences are detected, but far less debate and action on how to prevent offences from taking place in the first place.
The Government have an excellent record on tackling sexual abuse, but they have almost no record on prevention. Children are best protected by finding potential abusers as early as possible and preventing them from offending. In 1987—my first year in Parliament—I was approached by a family who wanted to get back two of their children who had been taken into care. For me, that marked the beginning of an infamous sexual abuse case, the Broxtowe case, with which people in Nottinghamshire will be familiar. It hurt many of my constituents and has scarred the police officers who had to deal with it. The horrors of those cases made me ask why a parent or relative would abuse a child. We should devise an effective intervention to prevent abuse and save such children, along with countless others.
We should intervene early and actively in families and households where there are factors that could develop into abusing behaviour. A tragic feature of all abusive relationships, especially those involving children, is that abuse becomes a familiar pattern of existence, and we need to intervene before that pattern becomes established and before the victim cannot imagine life without it. Otherwise, the abused can in turn become the abuser, which is an all too familiar, although not inevitable, pattern.
Without intervention, some of those children become the adolescents who commit one third of recorded sex attacks on children. Many of those young people respond well to treatment, the provision of which needs to be more equitable and better funded. Around 50 per cent. of children who sexually abuse others were or are being abused themselves. That is not making excuses; it is a sad fact. Schemes established through the guidelines issued by the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Home Office have produced inter-agency co-operation. Those schemes have worked in my constituency where the relevant agencies have received a positive inspection report. The creation of whistleblowing policies and training to deal with abusers has also had a positive impact.
56WH
In the long term, an impact needs to be made on the problem by serious and systematic parenting skills classes in school to allow children to discover standards and models of care, respect and love that sadly they have not experienced at home. Will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to discuss parenting skills in our education system with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills?
It is vital that abused children become aware that better relationships are possible. The biggest influences on children are television and films, and I have no wish to censor those media or suggest that they retreat into some sort of cosy model family that existed in the 1950s. None the less, will my hon. Friend the Minister encourage the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to open a debate with people who make programmes and films, especially for children, on the need to hold up good models of behaviour and relationships? Children who have been damaged in real life do not need to see that damage repeated in their entertainment. Adults should not have their abusive behaviour reinforced.
Sadly, far more sexual abuse is committed by family members, household members or someone well known to the victim than by strangers. "Stranger danger" accounts for only about 20 per cent. of sexual abuse cases. A recent National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children survey on child maltreatment found that 1 per cent. of all our young people have been sexually abused by a parent and 3 per cent. have been sexually abused by another relative.
We all know that there are abusers of all ages, from all walks of life and areas, but we should be looking out for families where abuse is likely to occur. One key factor in many, if not most, child sex abuse cases is that sexual attraction is not the prime motive. The abuser wants to wield and display power. Sexual abuse is often part of a wider pattern of violence and emotional abuse. Indeed, it completes that pattern. The sexual abuse of children is often accompanied by many other more familiar symptoms of physical and emotional distress. Those symptoms may well be attributed to a more conventional cause, particularly since children are so often unable or reluctant to talk about abuse of any kind.
It is important to have data-sharing between midwives, health visitors, police officers, teachers, social workers and probation officers. They need to talk to one another and pick up the early signals. Together, they may identify a risk that may be missed by individual agencies. The multi-agency panels that gather after abuse is revealed are needed earlier to intervene and prevent abuse. Data-sharing can give vital clues to the need for early intervention. Apart from delivering children from intolerable suffering, such intervention might head off a lifelong problem that would require vast resources to contain and manage.
Some of the things that I have talked about may sound draconian or seem to infringe civil liberties, but what rights does an abused child have? We must be prepared to take action against the potential abuser. The removal of a violent or abusive partner could be the best solution for all concerned. In Nottingham, North, the social services department encourages the removal of the perpetrator and provides support to the non-abusive parent. The solution may not always be that

57WH
simple. The supposedly non-abusive parent may have colluded in the abuse and forfeited the child's trust. For some abused children, there may be no alternative but to be taken into care.
Many agencies also still find it quite difficult to work together and that results in unco-ordinated policy and an inability to share good ideas and best practices nationwide. The Government must sponsor a multi-agency response to deal with the varied cases that come before local authorities.
In Nottingham, North, there is an early intervention and assessment panel that offers help to the abuser. It has been an incredible success and I commend it to the Minister. It was set up as a result of a local initiative in the social services department. The panel works with young sexual abusers and those showing signs of worrying sexual behaviour to assess their needs and to find the right response at the earliest possible moment. In many cases, that involves not just the criminal justice system, but training and education. The panel has made another breakthrough in working with both the abuser and their parents. It has helped families to stay together in incredibly difficult circumstances. I pay an unreserved tribute to the hard-pressed local council officers who have worked so hard on making the initiative a success.
The NSPCC is developing the work of its young abusers teams, which are excellent. Teams are sent out to help those who have not yet abused others, but who show signs of doing so in the future. They are also crucial in developing centres for young people convicted of sexual abuse crimes. Those centres give abusers the help and support that they need so that they do not reoffend. At one such centre, treatment was given to a group of 59 offenders. The usual rate of reoffending is 20 per cent. After treatment at the centre only three people reoffended.
The provision of care centres is patchy. Some offenders do not have access to the help that they need. In his reply to the debate, will my hon. Friend undertake to develop nationwide records of community nursing showing where those services are? Non-statutory bodies, such as the NSPCC and Barnardos, have taken the lead in care treatment and support with programmes such as G-MAP and the Lucy Faithful Foundation.
The lack of provision means that almost anyone can set up a centre to treat young people. The mixture of social services, non-statutory bodies and private care means that it is difficult to establish and guarantee a uniform level of care. The provision for those with sexually harmful behaviour is even more scant in young offenders' institutions. Only two out of 10 have provision for treating those young people. The programmes are often based on adult schemes, which are unsuitable and inappropriate for young people. A prison system that does nothing to stop offenders developing is not acceptable.
The NSPCC informs me that lack of national funding for specialist treatment means that the meagre funds allocated by social services departments are often wasted, resulting in a refusal by some councils to send people out of the area for treatment if there is no local specialist provision because of the cost. The Government must also now begin to consider the funding of those treatment centres. Leaving it to the
58WH
private sector is not good enough. Money spent now will prevent investigations, prosecutions and prison sentences later.
Government spending on research does not match the size of the problem. I would be grateful if the Minister would write to me and let me know current research spending throughout Departments on the sexual abuse of children. When he has discovered that figure, I will leave it to his good judgment to decide whether we should establish a national institute for research into the sexual abuse of children. I raised the matter within a year or two of coming to the House in 1989 and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to do so. Whether he is the Minister responsible is not a matter for me, but I wish him well in answering the queries that I shall raise.
The problems need to be addressed coherently. When preparing for this debate, I was shuttled between the social exclusion unit, the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills—I exonerate the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Minister's private office—before I could obtain answers to some obvious questions about the sexual abuse of children. We must develop a clear and overarching strategy in those Departments and someone must be clearly designated by the Prime Minister to take the lead and responsibility in this difficult matter.
What must the Government do to help to prevent sexual abuse of children? First, they must give as much emphasis to prevention as they rightly do to punishment. Secondly, the Government must build on the excellent work at local level in developing multi-agency teams and defining responsibility for spotting families where sexual abuse of children is likely to take place. We must be brave in our actions to remove children before irrevocable damage is done to them. Thirdly, the Government must take action to help potential young offenders not to offend and to treat and re-educate those who have offended. Fourthly, the Government can no longer pass all the responsibility to local level. They must have a national strategy to help to develop and fund the treatment that is already working so well in some parts of the country. They must also fund a coherent, serious programme of research into the causes and prevention of sexual abuse.
Finally, the Prime Minister, who heads our Government and could deal with such issues in an afternoon were he focused on them, should give a named Minister direct responsibility for a prevention programme that would join up the thinking between Departments, including the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and the Home Office. Without the actions I have outlined today and more, we will not have done all we can to fulfil our responsibilities towards children who have already suffered sexual abuse and the countless thousands who could do so unless we act promptly, clearly and soon. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his presence today and look forward to hearing his response.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North

59WH
(Mr. Allen). With characteristic acuity and perspicacity, he has identified an important issue. We should be grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken over many years on behalf of the most vulnerable and needy members of society.
Sexual abuse is a serious, profoundly damaging crime, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend has set out, particularly when it is committed against children and within families. By their nature, such crimes are not visible. They usually occur in private and without witnesses. Victims, therefore, experience—almost by definition—an appalling breach of trust and a terrible transgression of self, in a way that often leaves them damaged psychologically and, almost worse, unable to discuss the abuse with anybody. Sexual abuse thrives in an atmosphere of secrecy. That is why it is important to stress—as my hon. Friend has done—our shared responsibility to protect children from such crime. It is not easy, as he recognises. It requires concerted action at local and national levels, across government and across a range of agencies, both governmental and third sector. As a society, we should engage with the problem in a considered and strategic way in order to prevent it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for having taken exactly that approach.
Department of Health figures indicate that some 160,000 children are referred to the child protection process each year. That is a horrifying figure. Every year, 40,000 children become the subject of child protection inquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and 27,000 names were added to the child protection register in 2000–01. An increasing proportion—more than three quarters—of initial child protection conferences result in registration. However, 96 per cent. of those 160,000 children remain at home and the majority of those who are separated from their families are swiftly reunited. The number on the child protection register has recently reduced to 26,800.
Fewer children now remain on the child protection register for long periods of time. That is because, in many cases, their problems are addressed by way of more intensive early intervention to meet their overall developmental needs and by the provision of support to families.
Providing such support is a top priority for the Government, and the Prime Minister is focusing on it. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has been shuffled from Department to Department, and I hope that he will recognise that because the issue is complex, it is inevitable that a number of Departments will have an interest in it. He paid tribute to multi-agency working at local level, and we must work in the same way. The Home Office has an interest, in that criminal offences might be being perpetrated. The Department for Education and Skills—with its responsibility for the development of young people—has an interest, as, clearly, does the Department of Health. So, too, does the social exclusion unit. Problems are often most acute when they are visited on the most vulnerable members of society, because they are compounded by other issues that arise from social exclusion.
Mr. Allen: Can I first make it clear that I do not mean anything untoward by pointing out the slight
60WH
dislocation in Government policy? I certainly do not want to berate officials or Ministers, because everyone is trying extremely hard at national and local levels. I simply want to suggest that joined-up thinking at national level would produce many benefits, and my hon. Friend could play a co-ordinating role by drawing all the strands together. We did something similar with the street crime initiative, and people were going in and out of No. 10 Downing street. If the Prime Minister were to bring the same amount of energy and co-ordination to bear on tackling this awful, secret aspect of crime, I am confident that we would see even better results.
Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend. I recognise, as I am sure officials do, that he has approached the issue graciously. It is a matter not of blame, but of delivering better services, and I assure him that we are at one on that.
The Prime Minister has already taken action on the issue and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, he announced new Government structures in July 2000 to co-ordinate better policies and services for young people. A new Cabinet committee on children and young people's services was created, and, for the first time, we have a Minister for children and young people—my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) at the Home Office. The children and young people's unit at the Department for Education and Skills is also part of the new Government structures. We are trying to achieve joined-up policy-making across Departments, as my hon. Friend rightly wants. That will remove barriers and enable better and more effective co-ordination. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue's importance.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on the development of parenting skills. The family support grant scheme is intended to develop more positive parenting skills, which will go some way towards addressing people's concerns.
Clearly, however, we need to do more. In recent years, we have revised the core inter-agency child protection guidance, which is called "Working Together to Safeguard Children". It sets out the roles and responsibilities of different agencies and practitioners and how they should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse and neglect. We have also introduced the framework for assessing children in need and their families. The implementation of such guidance will ensure that vulnerable children are safer, their needs are properly assessed and their welfare is promoted.
Mr. Allen: If the Prime Minister were to make a public announcement on the issue, the Government's actions would carry his weight and could incorporate his suggestions for policy development. He would, however, make another important contribution by helping to break the taboo on discussing sexual abuse. It is difficult to raise the issue even in a sensible environment such as this, particularly when there are many competing pressures. The Prime Minister could do an immense amount for local practitioners and for those who work for the NSPCC by helping to break that taboo so that we can all talk about ways forward on this important issue.
Mr. Wills: I am sure that the Prime Minister will carefully note my hon. Friend's views, but I should

61WH
reassure him that there is no doubt that everyone in the Government, including my right hon. Friend, is determined to tackle the issue effectively. My hon. Friend has done everyone a valuable service by highlighting sexual abuse and he is right that people often shy away from discussing it because it is so sensitive and raises many difficult issues. That is precisely why we must approach it in the way that we have—by co-ordinating action across government and across different agencies and by bringing in organisations such as the NSPCC and other third-sector bodies, with their skills and experience, to tackle the problems. There are no magic-bullet solutions, and everything that my hon. Friend has said recognises that.
My hon. Friend rightly drew our attention to the fact that, as we are all aware, too many offenders and potential offenders do not come to the attention of the authorities. That is why we launched the inter-agency "Stop it Now" campaign in September. It will use public health education to prevent child abuse and increase the general public's awareness of sexual abuse in a way that encourages responsible action. I think that that is precisely the sort of approach that my hon. Friend wants, and we need to build on it. The campaign aims to prevent abuse by encouraging abusers and potential abusers to seek help and by giving all adults the information that they need effectively to protect children. We cannot be overly prescriptive about it, but we have to lay the ground in that way.
It is not possible to predict whether a child who has been abused will go on to abuse others. Many of those who sexually offend against children do not have a history of sexual abuse. Similarly, because only a minority of those who are sexually abused go on to offend, a history of sexual victimisation is not, in itself, sufficient to create a sexual offender. That is important. Nevertheless, histories of childhood sexual abuse in sex offenders are often associated with other childhood risk factors, including neglect, family instability and problematic parenting, and we need to offer them support.
As I said, the family support grant scheme is one way to support such children. Many children who have been abused will receive therapeutic help from child and adolescent mental health services and other children's agencies—and, again, I pay tribute to the NSPCC. Those services are invaluable, and we need to build on them and to provide them with the support that they need.
My hon. Friend knows that we recently announced the publication of a Green Paper to identify radical options for improving services for children and young people. I hope that it will act as a platform to take forward some of the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Green Paper will focus on identifying the referral and tracking of children at risk, and the provision of mainstream and specialist services. It will deal with overhauling existing arrangements, and consider the services that work with young people and children, including social services and youth justice, as well as the more conventional roles of schools, families and local communities.
The Green Paper will build on work that we have already done. From next year, we shall ask the chief executives of all the top-tier authorities in England to take a lead in co-ordinating the development of a
62WH
strategy for preventive services for children and young people at risk. The aim of the strategy, which should be agreed by all the local agencies in the sort of partnership way that my hon. Friend envisages and would support, will be to increase the focus on preventive services—precisely what my hon. Friend has advocated—such as family support, early years development, behavioural support, including preventive child and adolescent mental health services, and youth services.
We know that we have to do better. We have to improve the life chances of children, and to give strong support to families. For far too long, it has been a hidden subject, and we must do better.
Mr. Allen: May I press my hon. Friend—I do not expect him to reply immediately, but perhaps to write to me—on the funding for such services? Will it be ring-fenced? For various reasons, the money in many social service budgets is often spent under other heads. That is a serious and long-term issue, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it.
Before he brings his remarks to a conclusion, will he say something about the need for having a research capacity, so that we can examine why sexual abusers offend and what we can do to prevent them offending in the first place?
Mr. Wills: I shall conclude by picking up on what my hon. Friend said. I reassure him that I understand absolutely why he is so concerned about those matters, and he is right to draw attention to them. If I may, I shall write to him about some of them.
I understand the importance of ring fencing. It sends an important signal. My hon. Friend will be aware of the important issues of principle and practice of ring-fencing such money, but such things are not necessarily as simple as they should be. My hon. Friend's interest is well known, and I understand why he is so concerned. We recognise that ring fencing is a complex matter. It crosses many Departments and agencies, and raises difficult issues.
We know that more needs to be done. We need to encourage every member of society to recognise the importance, the nature and the scale of the problem. We must ensure that agencies such as the police and social services, when responding to public concerns, are equipped to act swiftly and decisively. Funding, of course, is important in that respect. Equally, my hon. Friend will realise that there are no easy answers. We must accept that great difficulties face those who have to police and investigate allegations of that nature. It can be traumatising for those people, too, as my hon. Friend suggested from his experience in his constituency.
Having said all that, we must not use any of it as a reason for inactivity or complacency, or as an excuse not to set ourselves the highest targets to prevent such crime through the earliest possible identification of potential offenders and children who may be at risk. We must think creatively about how we use and share information, and how we spread understanding and awareness of the realities of the crime.

63WH
We are determined to make progress, and I hope to write to my hon. Friend to respond in detail to his questions.
Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fear that there can be no point of order, as it is 1.30 pm and we must move on.
Mr. Allen: Would it be in order to bring to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact that I intend to seek another Adjournment debate this time next year to see how well the Government have done on the subject?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point very effectively, with or without my permission.

Decision-making in the NHS
1.30 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: The debate is a tremendous opportunity to speak on behalf of the public on this important subject, and I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), for coming to respond to the debate.
The national health service belongs to the people. For far too long, decisions have been made by professionals, managers and politicians without much public involvement. I want to make three points. First, I shall dwell briefly on history. The Government do not like it when I do so, but I want to show the lessons that we have learned on how not to consult. Secondly, I shall discuss the weakness of the current arrangements for public involvement, and welcome the Government's additions to them. Thirdly, I want to mention some of the major decisions that will face the NHS in the near future, in which public involvement will be crucial.
In my county, we have learned bitterly how not to consult. The first lesson is to treat citizens as intelligent people, and to not talk down to them. I do not blame the Government for that; I blame the Government's servants in the area. When there is a problem, it must be faced openly and discussed with the people. Worcestershire has certainly had problems. They could have been faced much more openly, but the health authority made decisions before consultation, and consultation was then carried out to force measures through.
The authority had a closed mind to any alternative. It used spin and half-truths to force measures through. It said that a comprehensive hospital would remain in Kidderminster, but normal people would not consider a hospital to which they could not go for any in-patient emergency treatment comprehensive. Statistics were used in the most amazing way to justify measures. The 3.5 million contacts between Worcestershire patients and the NHS each year—contacts with general practitioners, outpatients and community nurses— were compared to the 12,000 patients who had to travel further for their hospital services. The authority was saying, "What are you worrying about? Less than 1 per cent. of people will have to travel further for their treatment." But that 1 per cent. was 100 per cent. of patients from my area who had to travel for in-patient treatment, and a few other patients from elsewhere.
The other tool is to misquote or selectively quote documents. Recently I have had consultations with the president of the Royal College of Physicians, which is my own college. The royal colleges are angry about how often they are blamed for reconfigurations when, in fact, they only issue guidelines, which can be misquoted. The health authority spokesman said that a particular college document had identified that hospitals
"serving populations of under 150,000 could not expect to be sustained in the future."

65WH
What the document actually said was that such hospitals
"should not continue as independent clinical units."
That is a completely different statement, because with partnerships the hospitals could be sustained.
The worst example of all was the previous chairman of the NHS Executive, who wrote to campaigners, trying to defuse the situation. He said:
"I also do not accept that Kidderminster hospital is 'downgraded'…Neither the Regional Office nor the Health Authority see what is proposed for Kidderminster as somehow being second class."
That is exactly how to rub salt into a wound. It shows a devastating lack of understanding. It is almost as bad as Marie Antoinette telling the people to eat cake during the French revolution.
The faults are there—the use of spin, half-truths, the misuse of statistics and the failure to grasp other people's points of view. The final lesson is too obvious: it relates to the inability to take into account the response to public consultation. Those responses should not just be swept under the carpet when they go against the wishes of the authorities. A stock answer given by health authority officials at heated public meetings was, "I cannot help it if you don't like my answer. It is the only one I can give." That response shows that officials had closed minds before the consultation.
I move on to the weaknesses of the current arrangements, and my hopes that the Government's plans will improve things. Community health councils have been variable and patchy in their distribution, although some have been superb. Whole counties and big cities have only one community health council. In Worcestershire, there are three community health councils for three different conurbations. I welcome the alternative, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he has a better name for them than primary care trust patients forums. They will be consistent nationwide and will link with overview and scrutiny committees of local councils, so they have tremendous potential for allowing the citizen a voice. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the process of appointments to patients forums. I am a little alarmed about the cost because, whereas community health councils were relatively few in number, there will be many primary care trust patients forums.
I have had a helpful communication from the National Consumer Council about patients forums. I quote:
"It is essential that locally Patient Forums are equipped with the skills to gather quality information to enable them to work with decision-makers as partners…The CCPIH—
the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—
"is to empower consumers to have a real say in decisions about service provision …so taking account of consumers' views becomes the norm."
Now that PCTs have so much power, after the crucial devolution, the post of non-executive director has become even more important than before. I hope that the new appointments system and the NHS
66WH
appointments commission will remove the fear that so many directors have political allegiances. Hopefully, we will get strong, knowledgeable local people who can challenge the executives and represent local people in a way in which they have never been allowed to in the past, and who will not be tied by consensus management, pressurised from above, or even, in some cases, intimidated.
I shall briefly mention some of the issues that will arise in the future where meaningful public involvement is vital. The issue that is closest to my heart is obviously hospital reconfigurations. I welcome with tremendous enthusiasm last week's Health Service Journal, as it refers to a draft Department of Health framework on hospital reconfigurations that it somehow got hold of. The document, which has not yet been published, states that hospital reconfigurations must be based on "socially sustainable decision-making" and on services designed
"with local populations, not for them."
That accords well with a local lady who, referring to politicians in general, said "I do not elect a politician to tell me what I want." That is a very important comment. The framework document, we are told, continues:
"The priorities of communities will not always coincide with those of NHS managers and clinicians. Their views about the relative importance of risks, costs and benefits may differ."
That approach is vital, because as far as hospital reconfigurations are concerned, the terrible challenge of the European working time directive will threaten large and small hospitals alike. The report from the Royal College of Physicians on isolated acute medical services states that 46 hospitals in England alone probably cannot sustain acute medical services.
Health care rationing demands open debate with the public. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is the first brave attempt at that, and I am more than interested to hear about the progress of its attempts to involve patients and citizens. I would love to believe that citizens could be involved in the debate about the nurses' pay review. I do not know if that is living in cloud-cuckoo land, but the cost of agency nurses is ridiculous. I would love citizens to be involved in discussions on foundation hospitals. This morning, I received a communication from the Terrence Higgins Trust, stating:
"Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that the views of stigmatised and socially excluded groups can be heard."
Those are just some of the points, but there are many others to which involvement of the citizen is crucial.
To conclude, ordinary people are intelligent and have been disregarded for far too long. Problems in the NHS should be admitted. The Government must take people with them by being fully open, frank and honest, and by being able to respond to people's views even if they force the Government to change their mind. At this very moment, the British Medical Association is holding a consultative seminar with representatives of patient groups and professionals working in accident and emergency departments to identify and address areas of concern about access to

67WH
emergency care. The Government are very good with words, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that actions are being moulded to the words.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I hope that it will not come as too much of a surprise to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) that I agree with much of what he said—I hope that that does not disappoint him. I probably start from probably the same position as him. He criticised existing arrangements and said that public involvement in the national heath service is not as good as it should be. The Government and I agree, which is why we proposed and implemented changes. The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, and I hope that I can answer them.
There is no better place to start than the hon. Gentleman's first remark—the national health service, of course, belongs to the public. They pay for it through general taxation and have the right to be fully involved with, and consulted on, the planning and delivery of local NHS services, as well as decisions on the best ways in which to improve them. I do not want to go into the long and painful history of developments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but there is room for improvement in the way in which we ensure that change is effective in future.
A further problem is that when the NHS was set up—if one consults the history books—ownership was taken away from local communities. That was the basis on which many hospitals were put together. Ownership was instead invested in the state, which brought huge benefits, but there was a cost because a gulf grew between local communities and the way in which NHS services were run. Our challenge is to find a way to bridge that gap. Professor Kennedy, in his report on events at Bristol Royal infirmary, argued that patients should be inside the NHS rather than on the outside, as they often appear to be. Our proposals in the NHS plan and our response to the Kennedy report are designed to achieve that.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about community health councils. CHCs have been the principal mechanism for reflecting the public's interest in the NHS for nearly 30 years, and have done that job very well in many cases. However, CHCs have never empowered the public to speak for themselves or provided opportunities to that effect that is not a criticism because it was never part of their remit. Modernisation of the NHS, centred on the needs and views of patients, which both the hon. Gentleman and I would like, requires mechanisms that enable systematic public involvement. Such a system should be proactive and not merely reactive, as present arrangements largely are. The system must work in partnership with the NHS, and should not always be pitched against the NHS. Patients forums, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, and overview and scrutiny committees will replace community health councils. I hope that those new arrangements will ensure that the system to involve the public in the NHS will be more inclusive, proactive and democratic.
68WH
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Mrs. Sharon Grant has been appointed as chair designate of the new commission. I am very confident that she will make a hugely important contribution to its work, given her record of achievement and commitment. Mrs. Grant and her interim team are considering such issues as the core values under which the commission will operate, the different ways in which it could be structured, and staffing. The commission will start its formal work in January. The hon. Gentleman asked about the title of patients forums. I understand that Mrs. Grant wants to examine that—I am sure that she will have something to say about it.
One of the commission's first jobs will be to begin setting up patients forums throughout the country, and ensuring that patient and public involvement is consistent throughout the country. Patients forums will be made up of local volunteers who will monitor and review health services from a lay perspective. They will submit reports and recommendations to NHS managers, and a member of each forum will sit on the local trust board. The commission will organise the recruitment of volunteer members to forums and the recruitment of staff to forums to support their activities. I hope that the recruitment campaign for volunteers will target all corners of local communities. Some staff recruited to support forums will promote community involvement. Everywhere in the country there will be people with the capacity, inclination and skills to be effective members of patients forums. Many others will have something to say about the future of their local NHS, but will not know the best way to go about saying it. Some may not have the confidence or the opportunity to attend meetings.
It will be the job of community involvement staff to use existing community networks and visit different parts of the community to seek the views of the wider community. Where possible, they will take meetings to the people, and will work in innovative ways to ensure that as many people as possible can influence decisions. We will have to leave behind traditional ways of doing things as they have not always worked. In particular, we must look critically at the meetings culture. However, getting involved in decision-making processes is meaningless if the mechanisms for implementing decisions do not have teeth. It is one thing for a patients forum to make a series of recommendations to NHS manager, but that is futile if the NHS ignores what is said. In other words, the NHS must be more than just a good listener.
Not everyone will agree on the right way forward—I think that the hon. Gentleman cited a document on that issue, to which I shall refer in a moment. Trusts will not always be able to react positively to recommendations, but the flip side is that forums have the right to expect a proper response and explanation from trusts. Fundamentally, the NHS will need to treat the new forums as equal partners. Both sets of partners will have to work hard to ensure that they are viewed in that way—as a resource, not an obstacle.
We are not only empowering people directly, but providing new powers so that democratically elected members of local authorities can have real influence

69WH
over the NHS. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 gave new powers to the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities to review and scrutinise the planning, operation and development of local health services. I hope that that will tackle directly the lack of local accountability by ensuring that democratically elected representatives with responsibility, as a matter of law, for the well-being of local people have influence over the NHS.
To facilitate health scrutiny by local councillors, the Act places three key obligations on the NHS: to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees; to consult on the substantial variation and development of services; and for senior NHS officials to attend meetings to explain decisions. On top of the new scrutiny powers there is a specific right of referral to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health where an overview and scrutiny committee contests either the adequacy of public involvement and consultation or the merits of proposals for change.
Public interest is highest when proposals are made to reconfigure local services. The hon. Gentleman drew on his own experiences in making that point. The NHS plan committed the Government to establishing an independent reconfiguration panel to consider contested proposals. Where a referral is made, the Secretary of State may seek the advice of the panel, which will be made up of key stakeholders, a third of whom will be patient representatives. We expect to confirm the panel's membership shortly, but its work must be seen in the context of our undertaking to develop a framework to address service reconfigurations—the hon. Gentleman also spoke on that subject.
The forces that historically have underlined the need for reconfiguration of NHS services are well known, not least to the hon. Gentleman, who has had a distinguished career in the NHS. Patient safety, technological change and affordability have tended to act as centralising forces in the past, and we must carefully reconsider all those issues from the patient's perspective and experience, remembering people's strong wish to retain the best possible local access to the highest quality services as close to home as possible. The best solutions have a number of common factors, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We should design services with local people, not for them. In west Cornwall, for example, the NHS, the local authority and local people have united around an idea for developing services to meet local people's needs and maintain access to locally based services. They are working in partnership to put the new model of care in place, and we are providing them with financial support to do so.
We should take a whole-system view. Hospitals are more effective and stronger if they work in partnership than in isolation—I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. Merged clinical teams permit far more flexibility in the way in which services are provided. There should be an emphasis on redesign, not relocation. The experience with service and work force redesign shows that alternative models of care can be developed to deliver safe, effective care for patients, and we should explore all those avenues. Patient safety must,
70WH
however, come first. Innovations such as the local medical emergency unit in Cornwall, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, need thorough testing before they can be implemented more widely. Smaller-scale innovations such as extended roles and clinical networks are already working well in many places.
The aim of our work on those issues is to help the NHS to get it right first time. The framework to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention will assist, or seek to assist, the process of decision making at local level by offering signposts for the future and by helping local communities to develop innovative and sustainable service models that are supported by local populations. We expect to publish that framework in the very near future, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to write to me about it.
Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act places a new duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public on decisions to be taken about changes to local services. It will come into effect in the new year and underpins new arrangements for patient and public involvement across the country. It will enable members of trusts to whom involvement is second nature to capitalise on their good experience, and will bring up to speed those trusts for which it has not been such a high priority. It will give more people the chance to get involved.
Promoting a "Trust me, I'm a patient" culture is a real challenge. For many in the NHS, involving patients and the public in decision-making processes will mean changing the way in which they work. I believe that that is the right thing to do. To ignore the views and experiences of patients and the public would be to ignore the biggest pool of expertise available to the NHS. I accept that involving patients and the public in the decision-making processes of the NHS is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity that we should seize with both hands.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the big challenge posed by compliance with the European working time directive. It is an opportunity rather than a threat—we should look at it in that context. We have worked closely with the royal medical colleges, the British Medical Association and others to find the right combination of measures to ensure that we do not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, face an unacceptable range of solutions that would take people further away from local services. I do not believe that anyone would want that, as there are solutions at hand.
We will have to examine critically arrangements for cross cover and new arrangements for staffing on-call rotas. Skill mix in the NHS—the classic question of who does what, and why it must be done in a particular way—is a significant challenge. There are opportunities for us to re-examine the way in which we provide services. Compliance with the European working time directive will not provide a fig leaf, as it were, or an excuse for wholesale service reclassification. Neither I nor my constituents want that. If there is one baseline test that we as right hon. and hon. Members should always set ourselves when examining NHS issues, it is

71WH
whether a policy will work for our constituencies, and whether it is the right thing to do for the people whom we represent. That is my approach to such issues.
I believe—I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman agree—that the NHS is a public service. It does not belong to me, or to any of us in the
72WH
House, but to the public, who support it strongly and pay for it through their wallets. The public have an absolute entitlement to expect that the service delivered to them meets their local needs. That is our objective.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A very constructive and interesting debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will ensure that a reference number and, where appropriate, the name and address of the constituent concerned is given in correspondence with hon. Members from Government Departments. [79040]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office document "Handling Correspondence from Members of Parliament: Guidance to Departments" sets out the principles Departments should follow when replying to correspondence from MPs. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The format of individual replies is a matter for the Minister concerned.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether commissions for focus group research by Government Departments are subject to competitive tender. [78415]

  Mr. Alexander
  Overall procurement policy is a matter for the Office of Government Commerce. I can answer for the practice only in the Cabinet Office, the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) and the Central Office of Information (COI).

  The rules for procuring focus group research are the same as for procuring other types of service. In the Cabinet Office, commissions estimated to cost £10,000 or more are normally subject to formal competitive tendering. Commissions estimated to cost less than £10,000 are normally awarded following receipt of competitive quotations.

  The GCDA does not commission focus group research. However the COI does, not on its own behalf but on behalf of its government clients. In such cases COI asks three of its roster of suppliers (appointed competitively under EC procurement rules) to submit proposals and costs: the supplier providing the best value for money proposal is appointed. On occasion, the client requires urgent research and COI appoints the roster supplier that it considers to be the appropriate agency for the work.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to receive representations from non-governmental organisations as part of the interdepartmental discussions on 156W
  Criterion 8 of the Consolidated Criteria relating to sustainable development being facilitated by his Office. [71536]

  Ms. Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in replying. The interdepartmental discussions on improving procedures for assessing relevant export licence applications against criterion 8 of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria have already been completed. The results were published on 31 July 2002,Official Report, columns 309 12W.

TRANSPORT

  A21
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the local public exhibition of the revised proposals for improvements to the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury stretch is due to be held. [79413]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Archie Norman, dated 5 November 2002:
  David Jamieson has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the exhibition of revised proposals for the improvement of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury.
  The exhibitions are scheduled to be held on Friday 22 and Saturday 23 November at the Weald of Kent Grammar School for Girls in Tonbridge. We shall be publishing a newsletter in the next few days which will give further details of the proposed on-line improvement and exhibition opening times. I will ensure that a copy is sent to you as soon as it is available.
  We are also arranging for a preview of the exhibition for yourself and local councillors which will be at a separate venue to the main exhibition. We will write to you soon with an invitation when arrangements for that venue have been finalised.
  Should you need any further details about the proposals, Peter Minshull, the Project Sponsor at the Agency's office at Dorking will be happy to discuss these with you. He can be contacted on 01306 878134.

  Air Travel Trust Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 208W, what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide powers to impose a levy to recoup the costs of the Air Travel Trust Fund; what action he plans to take to defray their debts; and what contingency plans he has made to deal with the situation following the collapse of a travel company; and if he will make a statement. [78797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said previously, we will introduce a draft Bill to secure the necessary powers to impose a levy when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. The debts of the Air Travel Trust Fund (ATTF) are currently covered by a commercial loan backed by Government guarantee.

  In the event of a collapse of a travel organiser which offers holidays including air travel, the Civil Aviation Authority would, under the terms of the Air Travel

  157W
  Organisers Licence (ATOL) scheme, refund or repatriate those customers affected. The Government would ensure that any subsequent calls on the ATTF would be met.

  Bus Passengers
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is collated by his Department on bus passengers and bus passenger miles travelled in Greater London in each year since 1997; what estimate his Department has made for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [79634]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department collects information on the number of bus passenger journeys made each year in Greater London, details are set out as follows:

  In addition, the National Travel Survey collects information on the characteristics of bus passengers in Greater London (but excludes foreign tourists) and details of journey purpose and frequency.

  Although not collected by the Department, details of the bus passenger satisfaction survey sponsored by Transport for London (TfL) are published by the Department each quarter in "Transport Statistics Bulletin: Bus Quality Indicators: England", which is held in the Libraries of the House.

  The Department does not collect or collate information on bus passenger miles travelled in Greater London, although details can be found in the TfL publication, "Transport Statistics for London 2001" (also in the Library).

  Bus passenger journeys in Greater London

  Year

  Passenger journeys million

  1997–98

  1,294

  1998–99

  1,279

  1999–2000

  1,307

  2000–01

  1,359

  2001–02

  1,434

  Source:

  Department for Transport annual survey of public service vehicle operators and Transport for London.

  The Department has not made an estimate of passenger journeys or passenger miles in Greater London for 2003–04, although Transport for London has produced some estimates in its Business Plan available on the TfL web site at:
  www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/tfl/reports librarybusiness.shtml

  Car Number Plates
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to tackle illegal car number plate duplication. [79754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are taking active and immediate steps to tackle this difficult problem. The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 contains measures to require all number plates suppliers in England and Wales to register with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This requirement will come into force on 1 January 2003 and will ensure that in future number plates are only sold by registered suppliers to a purchaser who can show proof of entitlement to that 158W
  registration mark and proof of their own identity. Records will be kept of all sales for inspection by police or local authority trading standards officers.

  Since September 2001 all number plates issued have had to display the name and postcode of the supplying outlet.

  Car Sharing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage car sharing. [79335]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In August my Department published and disseminated to all local authorities and other major employers in England a guide on "Making travel plans work: lessons from UK case studies" which highlighted successful car-sharing schemes set up by employers as part of their travel plans. A copy of the guide is in the Library of the House. The Government will shortly be responding to the report commissioned by the Motorists' Forum on car sharing and car clubs in which we will set out our plans for further work to encourage car sharing.

  Disused Railway Track Beds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent in each of the past five years in(a) feasibility studies into the possible reopening of disused railway lines and (b) re-opening closed lines. [79087]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although the Strategic Rail Authority undertakes, from time to time, project development work including feasibility studies, it is not possible to identify readily those elements that relate specifically to the re-opening of railway lines. Feasibility studies are also undertaken by other stakeholders, including local authorities.

  Inverness-Gatwick Link
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on the proposed public service obligation on the Inverness to Gatwick route. [79090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Officials in the Department for Transport are working closely with colleagues in the Scottish Executive on proposals for public service obligations and other options for safeguarding vital regional air services. The Government will publish their conclusion in due course.

  Inverness/London Air Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources he will allocate to a public service obligation for a regional air service between Inverness and London. [78776]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current air services between Inverness and London operate without subsidy.

  London Buses
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment in London Buses there was in each of the last ten years for which figures are available. [77895]
  159W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on investment in London bus services by bus operators is not available centrally, although between July 2000 and June 2002, bus companies operating in London introduced some 2,600 new buses.

  Other investment in London Buses is set out in London Transport's Annual Report documents, which incorporate their audited accounts—copies of the accounts are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what route mileage was served, and how many passengers were carried, on London Buses in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [77896]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of bus passenger journeys and vehicle kilometres in London over the last ten years have been compiled from the Department's annual survey of bus and coach operators and information received from Transport for London (TfL). The figures include journeys on a small number of routes not contracted to TfL.

  Year

  Passenger journeys million

  Vehicle kilometres million

  1991 to 1992

  1,149

  316

  1992 to 1993

  1,129

  330

  1993 to 1994

  1,117

  343

  1994 to 1995

  1,167

  356

  1995 to 1996

  1,205

  353

  1996 to 1997

  1,242

  342

  1997 to 1998

  1,294

  362

  1998 to 1999

  1,279

  358

  1999 to 2000

  1,307

  366

  2000 to 2001

  1,359

  373

  2001 to 2002P

  1,434

  380

  P provisional figures.

  Source: DfT and TfL

  London Underground
  Mr Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much investment there was in the London Underground, and how many passengers were carried, in each of the last ten years for which figures are available; [77894]

  (2) what proportion of total investment in London Underground has gone into building the Jubilee line in each of the last ten years. [77899]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested on overall investment and passenger numbers is set out in London Transport's annual report documents, which incorporate their audited annual accounts.

  The following table shows the proportion of overall investment that went into building the Jubilee Line Extension each year:

  Year

  Percentage Proportion of investment

  1992 to 1993

  9.2

  1993 to 1994

  33.2

  1994 to 1995

  42.6

  1995 to 1996

  48.8

  1996 to 1997

  56.4

  1997 to 1998

  49.5

  160W

  Year

  Percentage Proportion of investment

  1998 to 1999

  37.7

  1999 to 2000

  60.31

  2000 to 2001

  0

  2001 to 2002

  0

  1 London Transport's accounts for 1999–2000 included an estimated accrual for all Jubilee Line. Extension works to be paid in future years.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the state of faults on the UK NATS website; and when the faults will be rectified;[R] [79443]

  (2) what representations he has received from UK pilots who have to log onto the Swedish air traffic service in order to obtain UK NOTAM for safety and time critical information owing to faults on the UK NATS website.[R] [79442]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd. introduced a new on-line information system in late August, replacing the former manual system. The change was made after extensive consultation with users. The new system is intended to provide much wider access to pre-flight information, thereby enhancing safety, but some general aviation users who are accustomed to the manual system have not found it easy to adapt.

  The system is provided with back-up facilities and, while—as with most other similar websites—it may be necessary to suspend operation for very short periods, I am assured that the continuity of service will not be significantly compromised.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what trials have taken place under the auspices of(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) his Department relating to rail freight since June; what assessment is being made of these trials; when the outcomes of these trials are expected to be published; and if he will place related documentation in the Library; [78815]

  (2) what the (a) agreed outputs, (b) type of scheme and (c) timetable for introduction are of the winning scheme under the Strategic Rail Authority's Logistics Competition by (i) Blue Circles Industries, (ii) Excel and (iii) Minimodal; what progress has been made; and what the timetable is for further implementation of the schemes as originally outlined; [78818]

  (3) what the involvement of his Department was in the Strategic Rail Authority's Logistics Competition; and when trials of these schemes (a) were due to begin when the winners were announced and (b) will now begin; [78819]

  (4) what representations have been received and what assessment has been made by his Department of the Strategic Rail Authority's cargo-sprinter train trials; what representations it has received; and what discussions the Department has held on the subject. [78816]
  161W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's press release, issued on 13 June 2000, provides a description of each scheme. The agreed outputs of the SRA's Logistics Competition are part of the contracts between the applicants and the SRA signed in January 2001 and are commercially confidential.

  The wagons and inter-modal units for the Blue Circle Industries project were delivered this summer, with trials commencing in September. A prototype container was produced in spring 2002 for the Minimodal scheme, with trials taking place during the summer. The first trials of the Excel scheme were completed in July-August 2001 with the second trials completed in spring this year. This project has now been completed and Excel are due to provide a final report for publication by the end of the year. Once published this and the reports of the other two schemes will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  My Department has received a number of representations about the competition and is kept informed on its progress by the SRA, but it has not been involved in the assessment of any of the entries or subsequent trials. The SRA is not assessing the trials, as the aim of the competition was to fund companies to take forward their projects and undertake commercial trials in order to demonstrate the concept to the market.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment there was in the London rail commuter services in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many passengers were carried; and how many accidents there were in each of those years. [77897]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since many rail investment projects benefit more than one part of the country, it is not possible to provide an accurate regional breakdown of total rail investment. The table shows, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, the amount of public service obligation grant paid to British Rail in respect of its Network SouthEast (NSE) sector; and, for each of the six years from 1996–97 to 2001–02, Government support paid to London & South East (L&SE) train operating companies (TOCs):

  £ million cash prices

  1992 to 1993

  525

  1993 to 1994

  372

  1996 to 1997

  5731

  1997 to 1998

  464

  1999 to 2000

  271

  2000 to 2001

  175

  2001 to 2002

  90

  Figures for Government support to L&SE TOCs in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not readily available.

  1Support for Passenger Rail Services paid by the Franchising Director to British Rail, and from the point of franchise to private sector franchisees, in respect of L&SE TOCs.

  Details of passenger numbers on British Rail's NSE sector in 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not readily available. For details of passenger numbers on L&SE TOCs from 1994–95 onwards, I refer the hon. Member to the latest (September 2002) edition of the Strategic Rail Authority statistics bulletin "National Rail Trends," copies of which are available in the House Library. Table Lib on
  162W
  page 4 shows passenger kilometres, and Table 1.2b on page 7 shows passenger journeys. travelled on those TOCs.

  The Health and Safety Executive, the rail safety regulator, produces accident data covering the national network and does not produce data on a regional level. Accident statistics for the national network covering the last ten years are in the annual reports of HSE's railways inspectorate, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been on(a) the London Underground and (b) the London rail commuter services in each of the last ten years for which figures are available. [77898]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics on accidents on the London Underground and the national rail networks are given in the annual report of HM Chief Inspector of Railways, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of new recruits to his Department in the past two years were aged 50 and over. [79305]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage figures for each year for new recruits aged 50 and over in the period requested is as follows for DETR(C) April 2000 to March 2001 and DTLR(C) April 2001 to March 2002.

  Period

  Percentage

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  7.2

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  6.5

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals have been seconded to senior civil servant positions in his Department, in each case listing(a) from which organisation, (b) duration to date and planned duration of the second month and (c) source of current salary in the second month post. [79160]

  Mr Jamieson
  None.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many senior civil servants are seconded from his Department, in each case listing the(a) location, (b) duration to date and planned duration of the second month and (c) source of the salary in the second month post. [79161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  One member of my Department's senior civil servants has just taken up a six month second month to the South East England Development Agency.

  The Department normally expects the host organisation to cover the salary costs of staff on second month.

  Train Services (Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the reliability and punctuality of train services between Worcester and Birmingham via Droitwich Spa and Hartlebury. [79489]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics for all train operating companies in their quarterly "National Rail Trends" publication. The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level, but reflect the performance of their services in aggregate. The most recent edition was published on 12 September. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Trains (Bicycle Carriage)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1)how many bicycles were carried by train by each train operating company in each year since 1996. [79672]

  (2) how many bicycle spaces were provided on the railways (a) at the latest available date and (b) in 1996; and how many bicycles were carried by train by each train operating company in each year since 1996. [79671]

  (3) which train operating companies have increased the number of bicycle spaces on board their rolling stock since 1996. [79673]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on the number of bicycles carried each year is not held. There is no method by which this can be monitored, as passengers with bicycles do not necessarily need a reservation, or in most cases even a ticket because the majority of train operators do not make a charge for the carriage of bicycles.

  Transport Plan
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for his Department's forthcoming report on the Ten Year Transport Plan to include(a) a definition of congestion with benchmark figures and interim targets for its reduction, (b)commitment for the multi-modal studies to be completed by March 2003 with a plan of action to be agreed within six months of completion, (c) interim targets for delivery of (i) new trunk and (ii) local road improvements to 2006 and (d) a commitment to publish annual progress reports on the implementation of the measures set out in the Plan; and if he will make a statement. [78896]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The report will include a full up-date on progress towards achieving the objectives set out in the 10 Year Plan.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Members' Access
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the arrangements made to ensure hon. Members have access to the House at all times. [78754]
  164W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Hon. Members have access to the House at all times. In recent months additional security measures have been adopted on the advice of the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police. These are designed to enhance protection for all those who use the building, commensurate with current threat assessments. The Serjeant at Arms is available at all times to discuss issues of access and security with hon. Members.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 871W, if he will make a statement on the printing of answers to questions during the summer recess in a special edition of the Official Report; and what plans he has to repeat the exercise. [79555]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The hon. Lady will recall that I welcomed her suggestion that answers normally given by letter during a recess should be printed in a special edition of the Official Report.

  I am pleased to report that during the period of the summer recess, the Government answered a total of 1,418 questions, all of which were printed in Hansard for the convenience of all Members of the House.

  I propose that, even with September sittings, we should continue this new system. [79555]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ADSL
  Mr. Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to require the regulator to ensure that BT reduces the trigger thresholds for converting telephone exchanges to ADSL. [78760]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 November 20021: The rollout of BTs ADSL services., including deciding on trigger levels for enabling its exchanges to provide these services, forms a commercial decision to be taken by BT, As ADSL is not a service that BT is required by its Licence to provide, Oftel has no power to set the conditions under which BT should enable exchanges.

  Both Liberty Broadband (at http:/Mrww.briiigingbroadband2youco.uk/) and the East of England Development Agency (atttp://www.broadbandbrokerage.com/bbb/) are also running demand registration schemes.

  British Printing Industries Federation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance has been given, broken down by financial year, to the British Printing Industries Federation; what future support they will enjoy; and if she will make a statement. [78309]
  165W
  Mr. Timms
  DTI does not provide direct financial assistance to the British Printing Industries Federation but has worked with this organisation in partnership with other industry members to support initiatives aimed at raising this sectors competitiveness and productivity.

  In particular, my Department is currently working closely with the British Printing Industries Federation to take forward actions from "Print 21: coming of age?" the competitiveness study for the print industry, published in summer 2001.

  Business Sector (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the business organisations in the West Midlands with which she makes it her policy to consult on matters of relevance to the business sector. [79490]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry meets with the chairmen of regional development agencies regularly and consults them on matters of interest to them and businesses in their regions. RDAs (which are business led and have 50 per cent. of members with a business background) have widespread links with businesses in each region and are well placed to reflect the business view.

  In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry consults widely on specific issues, most recently on the review of its structure and currently on the Review of Business Support. Organisations consulted—and invited to progress meetings (the West Midlands as in other regions) include the CBI, engineering, Employers Federation, RDA, Business Links, Cambers of Commerce, Learning and Skills Councils, local authorities, universities, local enterprise agencies, trade associations, research and technology organisations and other business support bodies.

  Capita
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial tribunals involving Capita have taken place in the last five years. [78807]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: In the five-year period up to 30 September 2002 16 cases involving Capita came to a hearing at an Employment Tribunal in Great Britain

  Source: Employment Tribunals Service

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts for government work held by Capita. [78808]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Central records indicate that the department currently has one live contract with Capita Business Services, for the administration of the Construction Quality Mark Scheme.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent in recruiting staff to her Department in(a) London and (b) the south east in each year since 1997. [78558]
  166W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Information about the cost of centrally managed recruitment is as follows. It is not possible to distinguish between recruitment in London and in the south east.

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  136

  1999–2000

  490

  2000–01

  397

  2001–02

  117

  Discrimination
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many legal claims of discrimination are estimated to have been made as a result of anti-discrimination regulations introduced since 1997. [78992]

  Alan Johnson
  Anti-discrimination regulations introduced since 1997 have amended existing legislation on race, sex and disability. Detailed information on which to base estimates of legal claims resulting specifically from such amendments is not available.

  Energy Review
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received a submission from the Scottish Executive with respect to the Government's review of future energy policy. [76912]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Scottish Ministers have submitted a response to the consultation for the Performance and Innovation Unit's "Energy Review". We understand that they see no need for a further formal response to the Government's current review of energy policy, but Scottish officials are working closely with my officials on Scottish aspects of the review.

  International Energy Agency
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the IEA has met to discuss the possible scenarios arising from a conflict in Iraq; who the members of the IEA are; and if she will make a statement. [78289]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The International Energy Agency regularly discusses oil market issues in the Governing Board and in two committees, the Standing Group on the Oil Market and the Standing Group on Emergency Questions. Scenarios relating to a wide range of global issues, including the Middle East, are a normal part of assessment of oil market developments.

  The International Energy Agency has 26 member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Norway (Norway participates under a special Agreement). The European Commission also participates in the work of the IEA.

  OPCW
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial facilities the OPCW has inspected since its inception; and if she will make a statement. [78111]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The OPCW has produced figures for the total number of sites it has inspected which fall under the three Schedules in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), or which are characterised as sites producing discrete organic chemicals (DOC). The figures available on the OPCW website are as follows:

  Total number of sites inspected

  Schedule 1

  34

  Schedule 2

  181

  Schedule 3

  91

  Discrete organic

  —

  Chemicals (DOC)

  85

  Note:

  Figures as of 28 October 2002

  All Schedule 2 and 3 and DOC sites are industrial, while Schedule 1 sites are mainly defence-related. All the Schedule 1 sites and some of the Schedule 2 sites have been inspected by the OPCW on a number of occasions. The inspections are a routine activity whose purpose is to check that the information which the sites have declared to the OPCW is accurate, and to confirm that the activities carried out at the sites are consistent with the CWC. All OPCW inspections carried out on sites in the United Kingdom have found them to be in compliance with the CWC.

  Pharmacy Dispensing Contracts
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to receive the report of the Office of Fair Trading investigation into pharmacy contract limitations. [77261]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to receive the report by the end of the year.

  Porton Down and Shivenham
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the OPCW last carried out an inspection at(a) CBD Port on Down and (b) the Royal Military College of Science at Shivenham; if she will place the results in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [78110]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The OPCW last inspected(a) CBD Port on Down on 28–30 January 2002 and (b) the Royal Military College of Science at Shivenham on 23–25 July 2001. These were routine inspections under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The OPCW inspectors confirmed that there were no uncertainties regarding the United Kingdom's compliance with the CWC. My officials will consult the OPCW on whether a summary of their inspectors' findings can be placed in the Library. I will write to the hon. Member to confirm the outcome of these consultations.

  Raising Finance Booklets
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the booklets on best practice on raising finance, "Money and Machines" and "Informed Investment in Modern Production Machinery" were reprinted. [78303]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since publication in 1995 "Money and Machines" has been reprinted on a number of occasions the last comprising a full revision in 1998. "Informed Investment in Modern Manufacturing Equipment" was published in 1998 and has neither been reprinted nor revised.

  Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the costs to business of the regulations introduced by the Government since May 1997. [79079]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Estimates of the costs and benefits to business of the regulations introduced since May 1997 are shown in the published regulatory impact assessments, which are in the Libraries of the House,

  Telemarketing
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to propose legislation to regulate the use of aggressive telemarketing techniques. [76613]

  Mr. Timms
  Unsolicited direct marketing by telephone has been subject to regulation in the UK since 1999, and there are also consumer protections if individuals enter into contracts during this kind of call.

  The current regulations are the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 19995 which provide that individual subscribers who do not wish to receive this type of call can register with a central list—the Telephone Preference Service (TPS). Direct marketers are obliged to check that they do not call numbers on the TPS list when making unsolicited calls. Direct marketers are also obliged to take account of any requests not to call again that they receive direct from individual subscribers. Further details are available on the DTI website at the following URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/regulatory/telecomms/telecommsergulations/ec telecomms data protection.shtml.

  There will be an opportunity to review the way these regulations are working when we consult next year on implementation of the new version of the directive on which these regulations are based.

  Organisations that market by telephone to individuals must also comply with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 that came into force in October 2000. These regulations require those making unsolicited direct marketing calls to identify clearly the company they represent and the commercial purpose of the call at the beginning of the conversation. They also stipulate that the consumer has the right to receive clear information in advance of any decision to purchase, subsequent written acknowledgement of this information., and a seven-day cooling off period for most contracts agreed at a

  169W
  distance. Further information is available on the DTI website at the following URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/ecomm.htm.

  Young Enterprise
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department gives to Young Enterprise. [78481]

  Nigel Griffiths
  For the current academic year (August-July), the DTI is providing Young Enterprise with approximately £250k of support for their MasterClasses and Grauduate programmes and their Innovation Awards.

  Your Guide
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on the Your Guide project; and if she will make a statement. [77755]

  Mr. Timms
  The Your Guide pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland cost £30 million. Government provided £25 million and I understand that Post Office Ltd. provided in the region of £5 million.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS (Africa)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to countries in Africa to help combat AIDS. [78926]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is one of the most important development challenges facing Africa. My Department committed over £180 million in HIV and sexual health programmes in Africa in 2001–02. DFID's overall programme in Africa is set to increase from £640 million to £1 billion by 2006, and HIV/AIDS will remain one of our highest priorities for the region.

  Internationally, a further US $200 million has been pledged towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, £16 million to support the Microbicides for HIV Prevention Initiative, and £14 million to the IAVI (the international AIDS Vaccine Initiative). Considerable additional resources have also been committed to the United Nations and to civil society organisations to combat this disease and support those already living with it.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her French counterparts regarding the impact of agricultural subsidies on development in poor countries; and what these discussions have achieved. [78669]

  Clare Short
  In June of this year, I wrote to all my EU counterparts on the subject of reform of the common agricultural policy, emphasising the need for this reform as well as for coherence between the objectives of our development co-operation and our other policies which affect developing countries.
  170W
  The French Government responded positively, saying that they were in full agreement concerning poverty elimination and sustainable development. However, they indicated that agricultural questions were very complex in France, and that a coherent policy was vital.

  In my Department, we are following these matters closely. In July, we took an initiative to invite representatives from all EU Governments to discuss "The Impact of CAP Reform on Developing Countries". These discussions will continue. There was a similar meeting in Bonn last month, which will be followed up with a further meeting in The Hague in January.

  Burma
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) the treatment of the Karen in Burma and (b) landmines in the Karen region. [78702]

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

  Ethnic minorities, including the Karen, suffer disproportionately from the human rights abuses carried out by the Burmese regime. Continued fighting between the Burmese army and armed Karen groups, which includes the use of mines by both sides, is the cause of on-going suffering among the ordinary people in Karen State.

  HMG provides humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees and those internally displaced, including the Karen.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the Government of Burma. [78703]

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

  The European Union ban on high-level contact with Burma and our poor bilateral relationship with the Burmese military regime restrict discussions with the Burmese regime. Contact on important issues does continue. The most recent example of bilateral contact was discussions between embassy officials and Burmese officials regarding the International Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UN about human rights violations in Burma. [78704]

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

  We have on-going dialogue with the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma and the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Burma about human rights abuses in Burma. Together with our European Union partners we annually co-sponsor resolutions on the human rights situation in Burma at both the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's response is to the recent UN report into the exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo by(a) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (b) Rwanda, (c) Uganda and (d) Zimbabwe. [78674]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the UN Panel report and are studying its allegations closely both within DFID and with other Departments in Whitehall. We are also considering a substantive response to the report's recommendations.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian situation in East Timor; what financial support her Department provides to East Timor; and which organisations her Department supports that work in East Timor. [78705]

  Clare Short
  An assessment of the Humanitarian situation in East Timor is included in East Timor's National Development Plan, which was described in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question. Full details of my Department's financial commitments to East Timor between 1999 and 2005 are given in the following table:

  £

  Activity

  Commitment 1999–2005

  Disbursed

  United Nations: 1999 ballot

  800,000

  800,000

  Humanitarian and Emergency Relief

  6,500,000

  6,500,000

  United Nations Transitional Administration

  4,500,000

  4,500,000

  United Nations: Support for 2001 Elections

  500,000

  500,000

  World Bank Trust Fund (infrastructure)

  8,000,000

  8,000,000

  Support for Developing the National Development Plan (NDP)

  300,000

  (

  NDP Implementation 2002–05

  12,000,000

  4,000,000

  OXFAM: Human Resource Development

  1,890,000

  590,000

  Civil Society and International NGOs

  67,831

  25,809

  Local Civil Society Organisations

  450,000

  94,579

  UK share of European Commission Expenditure, 1999–20051

  19,728,000

  14,200,000

  Total

  54,735,831

  39,210,388

  1 Estimated UK attribution at 19 per cent. of EC expenditure in East Timor

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on East Timor since its establishment as an independent sovereign state. [78714]

  Clare Short
  Newly independent East Timor faces a number of challenges. The Government have prepared an excellent National Development Plan (NDP), which describes how these challenges will be addressed. The new nation, however, lacks the financial and technical resources to implement the Plan. Until revenues from offshore oil and gas exploitation come on stream, expected to be in 2006–07, it will he reliant upon financial and technical support from the international community.
  172W
  Donors have responded well and the NDP is fully financed for the next three years. It is only five months since independence and too early to judge the impact of the NDP. Initial activities have, however, started and Government, together with donors, will be reviewing progress later this month.

  The UK contribution to the international effort on East Timor's development is described in my replies to the hon. Member's other questions on East Timor.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department is giving to East Timor in 2002–03. [78716]

  Clare Short
  This year my Department will provide grants worth £6.5 million to East Timor. The bulk of these funds, £4 million, is to help the Government of East Timor implement its National Development Plan. The balance comprises residual commitments to UN and World Bank Trust Funds established before Independence, plus £500,000 to support the activities of international and local Non-Governmental Organisations, including OXFAM.

  In addition a proportion of the costs of the European Union assistance programme will be attributed to DFID, but it is too early to determine how much this will be in 2002–03.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) the health situation, (b) the education situation, (c) the employment situation and (d) poverty alleviation in East Timor. [78717]

  Clare Short
  My Department, alongside the World bank and the United Nations, has provided technical advice to the Government of East Timor to help them develop their National Development Plan (NDP). The plan includes a full analysis of the social and economic challenges facing the new nation, including health, education, employment and poverty, and contains the Government's proposals for addressing these. Donors and the international community have commended East Timor on the quality of the plan.

  Donors have pledged sufficient funds to fully implement scheduled NDP activities for the next three years. DFID has contributed £4 million to the NDP this year and expects to contribute a similar amount in each of the next two years.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to meet the Government of East Timor. [78720]

  Clare Short
  I met the Prime Minister of East Timor, Dr. Alkatiri, on 26 March this year, and Dr. Horta, the Foreign Minister, on 12 June. I have no further plans to meet members of the Government of East Timor in the current year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with Christian Solidarity Worldwide concerning East Timor. [78971]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no discussions with Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), nor have we received any proposals from them. The British embassy in Dili has had informal contacts with CSW.

  East Timorese Refugees
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what she is doing about the East Timorese in refugee camps in West Timor. [78718]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not provided direct support to East Timorese refugees in West Timor. We have, however, provided £4.2 million to the United Nations Conflict Reduction and Prevention Unit, which is available for their programmes with refugees in West Timor.

  Election Observers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support her Department provides to election observers; in which countries; and what guidance her Department issues to election observers. [78664]

  Clare Short
  DFID supports the electoral process in a number of ways in a number of developing and transition countries. In June 1998, DFID and the FCO published "Elections and the electoral process: a guide to assistance", which is available in the House of Commons Library and on our website.

  Our support for election observers is usually provided in partnership with an international organisation such as the European Union or the Commonwealth who have developed their own guidance and training for observers.

  Human Rights Projects
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects by which her Department promotes(a) the freedom of the press and (b) religious freedom in developing countries. [78671]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a)DFID supports the development of the media in a number of developing and transition countries, and published guidance on developing free and effective media to serve the interests of the poor in July 2001. Copies of "The Media in Governance" are available in the House of Commons Library and on our website. Our support aims to balance strengthening the capacity of the press and media to hold government to account with encouraging the press to meet their responsibilities of objective, constructive reporting.

  (b)The objective of my Department is the elimination of poverty. Our central focus is therefore respect for the human rights of the poor. Frequently the poorest are ethnic and religious minorities that face discrimination and social exclusion. Our strategy on human rights is set out in "Realising human rights for poor people" published in October 2000.

  Ivory Coast
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the recent ethnic strife in the Ivory Coast against the civilians from northern Daloa; and what discussions her Department has had with the overnment of the Ivory Coast on the subject. [78678]
  174W
  Clare Short
  We are working closely with others in the international community to help bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the conflict in Cote d'lvoire. We are aware of the reported attacks on civilians in Daloa. Together with our EU partners, we have called on the Ivorian Government to ensure respect for human rights, in particular with regard to civilian populations, and to bring to justice those responsible for any violations of those rights.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance her Department has provided to her Department's employees working in the Ivory Coast. [78706]

  Clare Short
  DFID has one employee in Cote d'lvoire. He is working on second month at the African Development bank and is, therefore, covered by their security and emergency evacuation procedures. Current bank advice is that non- essential staff and all families be evacuated.

  DFID is following the situation closely and we are in daily contact with him. He is also in receipt of the latest Foreign Office travel advice.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which organisations her Department supports that work in the Ivory Coast. [78707]

  Clare Short
  DFID support to Cote d'lvoire is channelled primarily through UK contributions to the EC and other multilateral organisations such as the World bank and UN agencies. Direct assistance to Cote d'lvoire is limited to financial contributions that we make to the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) in Bouake and a Small Grants Scheme, administered by the British ambassador in Abidjan. Beneficiaries of the scheme are mainly Ivorian NGO's.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of internally displaced people in the Ivory Coast; and what assistance her Department is providing to these people. [78708]

  Clare Short
  Although DFID has not undertaken its own independent assessment we are in contact with those UN agencies in the field that are monitoring the situation closely. The UK was represented at the UN Emergency Regional Contingency Planning meeting in Accra on 17 and 18 October which was called to discuss the humanitarian position. Their assessment of the likely humanitarian needs is awaited before we consider how the UK will respond.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to promote multiparty democracy in Uganda. [78663]

  Clare Short
  We are engaged in frequent dialogue with the Government and Civil Society on a range of initiatives to promote the democratic checks and balances, and the rules-based political competition, that are the key to democratic systems worldwide.
  175W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the recent massacres in Uganda by the Lord's Resistance Army; and what discussions her Department has had with the government of Uganda concerning these massacres. [78677]

  Clare Short
  We have over many years raised our concerns over the security and humanitarian situation in northern Uganda with President Museveni, both bilaterally and with other EU Missions. We condemn LRA atrocities and recognise the Ugandan Government's need to respond militarily. But we have also encouraged the Ugandan Government to pursue all possible avenues for dialogue.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to encourage the establishment of multi-party democracy in Uganda following the passing of the Political Parties and Organisations Act of 2 July. [78986]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have for some time been engaged in a regular dialogue with the Government of Uganda on the future shape of the Ugandan political landscape. Since the Political Parties and Organisations Act came into force on 2 June, we have continued to urge President Museveni and senior Ugandan Ministers to allow political parties to develop and organise, so that they are able to participate fully in the 2006 elections.

  We are working on a range of initiatives to promote democracy. These form an important element of our development programme in Uganda.

  United Nations Environment Programme Report
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department has received a copy of UNEP's Report, Global Environment Outlook 3; and if she will make a statement. [79081]

  Clare Short
  My Department has received a copy of UNEP's Global Environment Outlook 3. It is a very useful reference document which we will take into account in our own monitoring of global environmental trends and their impact on developing countries. In this context we were pleased by the successful conclusion of the negotiations of the third replenishment of the Global Environment Facility last August. The UK has increased its share in the GEF, and will provide £118 million over the next four years, including a voluntary contribution of £15 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the first Director of the Assets Recovery Agency, established under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [79537]
  176W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I am pleased to announce the appointment of Jane Earl as Director-designate of the Assets Recovery Agency. I expect that she will take up her appointment as Director in the new year, in time for the Agency to start operations next February.

  Asylum Applications (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid to the PSNI and RUC, during each of the last three years, in respect of costs incurred in processing asylum applications made in Northern Ireland. [78727]

  Beverley Hughes
  No payments have been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in respect of costs incurred in processing asylum applications made in Northern Ireland during the past three years.

  Asylum Costs (Dumfries and Galloway)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary in respect of costs incurred in processing asylum applications in each of the last three years. [78499]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service has paid Dumfries and Galloway constabulary the following:

  £

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2000

  1,950.971

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2001

  2,889.50

  1 April 2002 to 31 October 2002

  32,437.26

  The figures for asylum applications are not available. These figures relate to costs related to dealing with immigration offenders.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 17 June and 9 September to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells regarding Yuriy Urchenko, a constituent. [76664]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office wrote an interim reply to the hon. Member on 4 October in response to his earlier correspondence. In light of the circumstances of this case, I have asked officials for a full report and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Drugs Trafficking
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a new crime fighting fund to target the illegal drugs trade; and if he will make a statement. [77497]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The financial provision for the law enforcement authorities includes in 2002–03 £376 million for reducing availability of drugs. There are no plans to establish a separate new fun specifically for the purpose.
  177W
  In addition to that provision, in 2002–03 £70 million has been made available under the Communities Against Drugs scheme for fighting drugs and drugs related crime and for strengthening communities and a significant proportion of the Recovered Assets Fund of £11.7 million will go towards anti-drugs projects.

  Recovered Assets Fund
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bids were submitted for funding in the second round of the Recovered Assets Fund; how many of these were recommended for funding; how the selection of bids was made; and if he will make a statement on when the next round of bidding will begin. [79536]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A total of 330 bids were received in round two (compared to 130 in round one) of which 27 (21 in round one) with a total cost of £ 11.5 million (£3 million in round one) were recommended for funding.

  The bids selected for an award of grant were those which were assessed as best able to meet the objectives of the Fund and as far as possible ensured coverage of a wide geographical area.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are currently reviewing the future use and operation of the Fund. Future bidding rounds will be dependent on the outcome of the review on which I hope to make an announcement before the end of the year.

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidences of retail crime there were in each of the metropolitan boroughs in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [78138]

  (2) how many incidents of (a) shoplifting, (b) armed robbery and (c) assaults in high street shops there were in the past 12 months; [77981]

  (3) how many incidents of recorded crime in the last three years have been classed as retail crime, broken down by police force; [77980]

  (4) how many cases of violent assault there were against (a) rail workers, (b) benefits agency staff and (c) retail staff in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [77978]

  (5) how many instances of violence to retail staff were recorded in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [78134]

  (6) what percentage of violent crime was against shop staff in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [78130]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime statistics do not normally identify the location of offences, or the occupation of victims. The one recorded crime which can be identified as retail crime is theft from a shop, and figures for each police force area for the last three years are given in the table. The figures may have been affected in comparison to the previous year as a result of changes to recording practices. Some police forces implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording 178W
  Standard (NCRS) in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002. This had the estimated effect of uplifting total recorded crime figures by 5 per cent. this year.

  Figures on the location of firearms robberies indicate that there were 1,323 robberies in shops in the 2000–01 financial year. This includes offences where air weapons, imitation weapons and unidentified firearms were used.

  The Home Office, together with the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), will shortly be undertaking a major cross-Government survey of crime that affects retail and manufacturing premises across England and Wales. More than 3,000 premises will be surveyed in each of these sectors. The survey will collect detailed information on the circumstances of crime against business, levels of concern about crime, the overall social and economic impact of crime on businesses and levels of satisfaction with police response and advice on crime.

  Recorded crime: 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in England and Wales

  Theft from shops (number of offences)

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Avon and Somerset

  7,958

  8,741

  9,106

  Bedfordshire

  3,007

  3,105

  3,663

  Cambridgeshire

  3,630

  3,743

  4,024

  Cheshire

  4,883

  4,906

  4,599

  Cleveland

  6,365

  6,228

  6,916

  Cumbria

  2,584

  2,339

  2,798

  Derbyshire

  4,316

  4,537

  5,022

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,346

  6,414

  5,853

  Dorset

  3,088

  3,011

  3,180

  Durham

  2,944

  3,042

  3,522

  Essex2

  7,116

  6,788

  7,149

  Gloucestershire

  3,471

  3,697

  3,670

  Greater Manchester

  16,308

  16,196

  16,648

  Hampshire

  10,234

  9,674

  9,311

  Hertfordshire2

  3,328

  4,060

  4,424

  Humberside

  7,188

  7,487

  8,075

  Kent

  8,059

  8,191

  7,943

  Lancashire

  6,680

  7,123

  8,050

  Leicestershire

  4,398

  4,184

  4,593

  Lincolnshire

  2,709

  2,948

  3,504

  London City of

  619

  650

  755

  Merseyside

  8,777

  9,584

  9,777

  Metropolitan Police2

  48,015

  41,713

  42,522

  Norfolk

  3,480

  3,801

  3,443

  Northamptonshire

  3,348

  3,107

  3,451

  Northumbria

  9,719

  10,757

  10,566

  North Yorkshire

  4,053

  3,949

  4,304

  Nottinghamshire

  8,533

  9,226

  10,113

  South Yorkshire

  7,202

  7,525

  7,638

  Staffordshire

  5,981

  6,287

  6,425

  Suffolk

  3,118

  3,404

  3,072

  Surrey2

  2,957

  3,602

  3,687

  Sussex

  8,115

  7,788

  8,157

  Thames Valley

  9,628

  10,796

  11,191

  Warwickshire

  1,976

  2,100

  2,463

  West Mercia

  5,732

  5,792

  6,443

  West Midlands

  17,891

  18,877

  20,053

  West Yorkshire

  11,864

  11,317

  12,735

  Wiltshire

  2,623

  2,509

  2,544

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,656

  1,503

  1,427

  Gwent

  3,213

  2,909

  3,085

  179W

  Recorded crime: 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in England and Wales

  Theft from shops (number of offences)

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  North Wales

  2,708

  2,890

  3,681

  South Wales

  6,674

  6,580

  6,726

  Total

  292,494

  293,080

  306,308

  1 Numbers of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in reporting and recording (NCRS).

  2 There was a boundary change on 1 April 2000 in which some parts of the Metropolitan police area were transferred to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, so that the police force areas followed county boundaries thereafter. The figures for these forces before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the events leading up to the outbreak of fire at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre on 14 February, with particular reference to the reasons why sprinklers had not been fitted at the centre, formed part of the inquiry of Stephen Moore into the incident; and if he will make a statement; [79254]

  (2) if he will list witnesses interviewed by Stephen Moore in respect of his inquiry into the Yarl's Wood fire of 14 February. [79255]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Information about witnesses interviewed by Stephen Moore will be made available when his report is published.

  Stephen Moore's terms of reference require him to inquire into the events at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre on the night of 14–15 February 2002 and their causes and to make recommendations. His terms of reference also require him to take full account of inquiries being undertaken by the Bedfordshire police and the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, neither of whom has yet concluded their investigations.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strategy is of coalition forces in Afghanistan; if they will take part in the provision of security beyond Kabul to achieve the ISAF effect; and what involvement in humanitarian activities they will have. [79686]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our objectives for the campaign against international terrorism, and for our forces in Afghanistan, were set out in the paper entitled "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives", a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 16 October 2001. We continue to work towards achieving all these aims. As part of this, we are considering with our coalition partners who we might aid the Islamic Transitional Authority of Afghanistan to stabilize further Afghanistan's regions. No decisions on what that might involve have been taken.
  180W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the International Security Assistance Force effect outside of Kabul; and if he will make a statement on how it will be created. [798685]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Security Assistance Force has helped the Afghan authorities to restore and maintain stability within Kabul. We are considering with our coalition partners how we might help the Islamic Transitional Authority of Afghanistan to stabilize further other areas of Afghanistan, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Fire Service Cover
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many green goddess fire engines will be deployed in the Portsmouth South constituency if the fire brigades union takes action; how many servicemen will man each appliance; from what duties they are to be withdrawn from to provide fire service cover; and if he will make a statement. [78968]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three green goddess fire engines will be based in Portsmouth. The command structure is designed to ensure flexibility when deploying emergency fire cover, and where necessary resources may be deployed from adjacent areas.

  Each green goddess has a crew of six per shift, with two shifts, each of 12 hours, providing 24-hour cover. The personnel involved may be withdrawn from a variety of other duties, depending on changing circumstances.

  Gunwharf Site
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Ministry of Defence, in setting a figure for the disposal of the Gunwharf and HMS Vernon site in Portsmouth to Barclays Homes, took into account the Portsmouth City Council plan for the development of the site; and if he will make a statement; [78516]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the potential value of the redeveloped Gunwharf and HMS Vernon site in Portsmouth against the disposal value; and if he will make a statement; [78514]

  (3) whether the Ministry of Defence has reserved the right to claw back money on the Gunwharf and HMS Vernon site in Portsmouth if the development brief is altered to bring about a substantial increase in the value of the site; and if he will make a statement; [78515]

  (4) who advised the Ministry of Defence on the potential value of the Gunwharf and HMS Vernon site in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [78512]

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

  HMS Caroline
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he has spent on HMS Caroline in each of the past five years. [78357]
  181W
  Mr. Ingram
  The operating and running costs of HMS Caroline for the last five years are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Operating costs (e.g. pay, travel and subsistence)

  Maintenance costs

  2002–03 (to date)

  0.684

  0.062

  2001–02

  1.355

  0.080

  2000–01

  1.230

  0.004

  1999–2000

  1.116

  0.034

  1998–99

  1.013

  0.029

  Total

  5.398

  0.209

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the dossier containing the history of HMS Caroline. [78358]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have placed a brief history of HMS Caroline in the Library of the House.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Department's use of HMS Caroline. [78359]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Caroline served as the Headquarters of the Ulster Division of the Royal Naval Reserve since 1924 and latterly has been designated as the Reserve Training Centre. She is expected to continue in her present role for the foreseeable future.

  Inflatable Tanks
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many inflatable tanks have been(a) stolen and (b) lost in each year since 1991; what the replacement value is of each lost tank; and what steps he has taken to improve protection measures for inflatable tanks. [78653]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no records of this type before 1997. Only one tank has been lost since then, on 28 October 2002 due to very high winds, which exceeded tolerances recommended by the manufacturers. These tolerances will be re-emphasised to personnel but protection measures are otherwise considered adequate.

  The replacement cost of a single inflatable tank depends upon the model and its accessories and can vary from £8,000 to £14,000.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) his Department and (b) the relevant military authorities at the British embassy in Washington DC had with the US Congressional Budget Office in preparation of the report of 30 September for the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on the Budget, with specific reference to the Report's estimate of UK force involvement. [78799]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no such discussions with the Congressional Budget Office.

  Military Airspace
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of UK airspace is reserved for use by exclusively military aircraft. [78724]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  182W
  There is no part of UK airspace reserved for the exclusive use of military aircraft. There are some danger areas, primarily firing ranges, where entry is prohibited to all aircraft, civil and military. The airspace affected amounts to approximately 0.015 per cent. of UK airspace. There are other danger areas where access is permitted under certain conditions, amounting to a further 0.83 per cent. of UK airspace.

  Missing Weaponry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many issued(a) rifles, (b) handguns and (c) bullets were unaccounted for at each barracks in each month in Northern Ireland in the last year; what quantity of each was subsequently recovered outside the barracks from which they were taken; and what disciplinary and criminal actions were taken as a result. [78793]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Installations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to paragraph 27, page 11 of the Government Response to the Defence Select Committee report on Defence and Security in the UK, HC 1230, with which authorities outside his Department he has had discussions in respect of the major programme of activities to reduce the vulnerabilities and strengthen the arrangements for consequence management at nuclear installations. [78654]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is responsible for security at nuclear sites. Discussions have taken place with several other Government Departments, including the DTI, Home Office, Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, Office for Civil Nuclear Security, and the Health and Safety Executive, together with local authorities, the police and other emergency services, to review the protection of nuclear installations and arrangements for responding to an incident at any such site.

  Operation Amber Fox
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the EU taking over operation Amber Fox without signing a prior accord with NATO. [79551]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's policy remains, as was agreed by EU nations at the European Council at Seville, that the EU is willing to undertake an operation in Macedonia in succession to operation Amber Fox, at the request of the Macedonian Government, once the EU-NATO permanent arrangements are in place.

  Renegade Aircraft
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is in respect of the interception of aircraft assumed to be hijacked entering UK airspace in the London area. [78598]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The Ministry of Defence has an established and well-practised air defence capability. This mechanism is

  183W
  ready to detect, deter and as a last resort if necessary destroy any aircraft intending to attack any target within the United Kingdom.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated saving that his Department will make as a result of the early withdrawal of the Sea Harriers in 2006, from the time of their withdrawal up to the introduction of the F35. [77934]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 16 April 2002,Official Report, columns 821–22W, and 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 529W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Savings in years subsequent to these answers are outside the Ministry of Defence's short-term planning (STP) period, and are, therefore, not definitive. However, they will be commensurate in value with those in the answers previously provided.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "Education at a Glance"
  Mr. Nick Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the conclusion in the OECD Report, Education at a Glance: Indicators 2002, relating to(a) the impact on school lessons of noise and disorder and (b) boredom among 15 year olds with lessons. [79433]

  Mr. Miliband
  The OECD report gives a positive overall picture of UK pupils' engagement with school, with above-average scores against a series of measures. Noise and disorder were perceived as problems by 3 percentage points fewer pupils in the UK than the average across other OECD countries, boredom with school by 6 percentage points more.

  These figures relate to the year 2000. We believe good teaching and a good curriculum are the best ways to engage and motivate pupils. We have introduced a wide range of strategies to improve teaching and learning, including our widely-acclaimed Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Since September 2001 we have been implementing our new strategy to improve the attainment of 14 year olds (the Key Stage 3 Strategy). There have already been major improvements: OFSTED now rate nearly 70 per cent. of lessons as good compared with 40 per cent. five years ago. We are also making it a top priority to tackle problems of bad behaviour, including a 50 million.

  Behaviour Improvement Programme from September this year to provide intensive support for schools facing the most challenging behaviour.

  A-Level Students
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students left the A-level system one year into the course in each academic year since that ending in 1997. [79071]
  184W
  Mr. Miliband
  Currently the only source of individual level data that allows the tracking of young people following the A level route is the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). The latest estimates from the YCS show that 9 per cent. of young people studying A levels in year 12 in spring 2000, were no longer studying them in winter 2000–01 (year 13). Comparable data on A level students in the years 1997–99 are not available.

  The Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) was introduced in 2002 for maintained schools in England. PLASC will be able to provide information on the number of students in school sixth forms who leave the A level system after a single year of study from 2003 onwards.

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the planned development of the beacon school programme over the next five years. [79250]

  Mr. Miliband
  The new advanced school programme that will be introduced in April 2003 will replace the beacon model in the secondary sector. There are no plans at present to make changes to the programme in the primary, special or nursery sectors, but we are undertaking a review of the programme to ensure that it continues to offer the most effective means of delivering our objectives.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places have been created through the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative; how many of these offer subsidised child care; and at what level of subsidy these places are being offered over what period. [78592]

  Maria Eagle
  By June 2002, 1,000 Neighbourhood nursery places had been created and an additional 38,000 places are currently under development. Providers can receive funding of up to £5,400 per place over three years to make places affordable to parents in disadvantaged areas, as providers move towards sustainability in the long term.

  Parents who receive working families tax credit can also receive help towards child care through the child care tax credit.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of lone parents exclusively(a) use registered child care services and (b) rely on informal child care in Portsmouth, South; and if he will make a statement. [78966]

  Maria Eagle
  The latest survey carried out by the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of DfES shows that in England, 29 per cent. of all lone parents had used formal child care in the past year and 73 per cent. of all lone parents had used informal child care in the past year. There is no information on exclusive usage or use of registered child care services. The study "Repeat Study of Parents Demand for Childcare" was published by the DfES in May 2002. This data is unavailable at constituency level.

  Children's Centres, Battersea
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he will introduce children's centres to the most disadvantaged areas in England; and what plans he has to open children's centres for disadvantaged families in Battersea; [76610]

  (2) what investment is being made to enable disadvantaged families in Battersea to benefit from Sure Start style services available to those in the existing Sure Start catchment area in Battersea. [76609]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government's recent spending review resulted in a significant increase in the combined budget for child care, early years and Sure Start, rising to £1.5 billion in 2005–06. The extra investment will support the integration of good quality child care with early years education, family support and health services through the creation of children's centres in disadvantaged areas, building on the good practice that exists in Sure Start and Early Excellence Centres. By March 2006, an additional 300,000 children and their parents will have access to health, education and other services through children's centres. Announcements about the location of children's centres will be made in due course.

  City Academies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many City Academies have(a) been set up and (b) been committed to be set up; and who the sponsors of each Academy are. [78767]

  Mr. Miliband
  Three Academies opened in September 2002. These are The Business Academy, Bexley sponsored by David Garrard, Greig City Academy in Haringey sponsored by the Greig Trust and the Church of England and Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough sponsored by Amey plc. 20 Academy partnerships are working to establish Academies. Five of these have funding agreements which are legal contracts to establish an Academy.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether existing schools may apply to become City Academies if suitable sponsors can be found. [78768]

  Mr. Miliband
  Existing schools may express an interest in becoming Academies. We expect Academies to be set up with the active support of the relevant LEA. For community schools, the LEA would need to publish statutory closure notices in order for an Academy to be established in place of the existing school.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers exist for the creation of city academies on a federated basis, by grouping schools under a common governing body. [78771]

  Mr. Miliband
  Under section 482 of the Education Act 1996 the Secretary of State has powers to enter funding agreements with any person to establish an academy. This power is wide enough to allow funding of a group of academies with a single governing body which could be known as an academy federation. This is not connected with the powers under section 24 of the 186W
  Education Act 2002, which allow maintained schools to form federations. Section 24 applies only to maintained schools not to academies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether initial discussions about the setting up of a city academy have begun between his Department, the City of Newcastle upon Tyne LEA and potential sponsors. [78809]

  Mr. Miliband
  Discussions take place regularly between officials and local education authorities about the scope for academies to play a part in their strategic plans for education. Officials have held such discussions with Newcastle upon Tyne LEA. There has been no formal approach from a partnership, of a sponsor and the local education authority, for an academy in the City of Newcastle area.

  Cognitive Ability Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list the secondary schools in West Sussex which conduct cognitive ability tests in year 7; [79434]

  (2) how many secondary schools in England and Wales conduct cognitive ability tests in year. [79438]

  Mr. Miliband
  Cognitive ability tests for year 7 are commercial tests produced by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) Nelson which schools can purchase if they wish. As such the department has no records of their usage on an individual school, local education authority or national basis.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by his Department to(a) primary schools, (b) city technology colleges, (c) other secondary schools and (d) special schools between (i) 1 September and 30 September and (ii) 1 September 2001 and 31 August 2002. [76779]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) positions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each Civil Service grade. [76565]
  187W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Information on vacancies in London and the south east region between 9 June 2001 (when this Department was established) and 31 March 2002, and numbers of DfES staff in London and the south east region at 1 April 2002, is set out in the table:

  Responsibility level

  London region vacancies1

  London region total staff2

  SE region vacancies1

  SE region total staff2

  Grade 6 and above

  10

  127

  0

  3

  Grade 7

  10

  286

  3

  12

  Senior Executive Officer

  15

  217

  2

  8

  Higher Executive Officer

  43

  570

  2

  31

  Executive Officer

  147

  500

  2

  19

  Administrative Officer

  64

  322

  0

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  0

  76

  0

  0

  Total non industrial staff

  289

  2,098

  9

  77

  1 9 June 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  2 1 April 2002.

  Education Funding
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will calculate(a) the amount spent per pupil on primary and secondary education by Cheshire county council and (b) average amount spent per pupil on primary and secondary education by local authorities in England in the last financial year for which figures are available; what assessment he has made of the effect of the comparison of the resultant figures on educational provision in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement. [79275]

  Mr. Miliband
  The requested information is as follows:

  (a) Net current expenditure per pupil in Cheshire

  £

  Primary

  2,310

  Secondary

  2,920

  Both

  2,580

  (a) Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C or GNVQ equivalent in maintained schools in England, 1995–2001

  Region

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North East

  36.1

  36.3

  36.8

  37.1

  39.4

  41.7

  42.5

  North West

  38.9

  41.0

  41.5

  42.2

  44.2

  45.7

  46.1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  36.3

  37.1

  37.9

  38.7

  40.5

  42.1

  43.0

  East Midlands

  39.6

  40.7

  41.5

  43.0

  45.3

  46.0

  47.5

  West Midlands

  37.7

  39.3

  40.2

  41.3

  43.5

  44.8

  45.8

  East of England

  44.4

  45.0

  45.8

  48.4

  49.9

  50.7

  51.8

  London

  36.8

  39.0

  40.4

  42.1

  43.6

  45.0

  46.1

  South East

  45.4

  47.0

  47.7

  49.2

  51.2

  52.1

  52.8

  South West

  45.7

  46.6

  47.1

  48.6

  50.2

  51.3

  52.2

  England (all schools including independent schools)

  43.5

  44.5

  45.1

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  50.0

  Participation estimates are produced using the academic age of the student (age as at 31 August). Therefore, the estimates for both 16-year-olds (the first post-compulsory year) and 17-years-olds are included.
  188W

  (b) Net current expenditure per pupil in England

  £

  Primary

  2,440

  Secondary

  3,060

  Both

  2,710

  All figures in cash terms and rounded to the nearest 10.

  The data have been taken from Cheshire education authority's section 52 Outturn statement for the 2000–01 financial year. Variations in spending per pupil between authorities reflect higher area costs and greater incidence of deprivation in some areas. The Government will be announcing later this year the outcome of its review of formula funding for local authorities.

  English as an Additional Language
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued to schools on teaching English as an additional language. [77802]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: The general consensus among practitioners in England is that the teaching of English as an additional language (EAL) is most effective where it is firmly embedded in classroom practice across all national curriculum subject areas. This ensures that pupils have the opportunity to learn English in a meaningful subject specific context. That approach is reflected in the guidance issued by the Department on teaching EAL as part of the national strategies on literacy, numeracy and Key Stage 3. Many schools use the resources provided through the Department's £154 million Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) programme to provide additional tailored support for bilingual learners.

  Full-time Students
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) pupils achieved five GCSEs or more grades A*-C and (b) 17 year olds were in full-time education in each region in each year since 1995. [78555]

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

  The figures are taken from the latest Statistical Bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England".
  189W

  (b.i) Participation in full-time education by 16-year-olds in each GO region, 1995 to 1999

  Region

  end 1995

  end 1996

  end 1997

  end 1998

  end 1999

  North East

  62

  62

  60

  61

  64

  North West

  66

  65

  65

  65

  67

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  65

  64

  65

  64

  66

  East Midlands

  67

  67

  67

  67

  69

  West Midlands

  67

  67

  66

  68

  69

  East of England

  75

  75

  73

  74

  75

  London

  75

  74

  75

  74

  75

  South East

  76

  75

  75

  74

  75

  South West

  74

  75

  73

  73

  74

  England

  70

  70

  70

  70

  71

  Note:

  Includes 16-year-olds participating in full-time education in schools, sixth-form colleges and other FE.Source:DfES

  (b.ii) Participation in full-time education by 17-year-olds in each GO region, 1995 to 1999

  Region

  end 1995

  end 1996

  end 1997

  end 1998

  end 1999

  North East

  49

  50

  49

  49

  50

  North West

  54

  54

  53

  53

  54

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  52

  53

  51

  51

  52

  East Midlands

  55

  55

  55

  55

  56

  West Midlands

  56

  55

  55

  55

  56

  East of England

  61

  61

  60

  60

  62

  London

  61

  61

  61

  61

  62

  South East

  62

  62

  60

  62

  62

  South West

  61

  61

  61

  60

  61

  England

  58

  57

  57

  57

  58

  Note:

  Includes 17-year-olds participating in full-time education in schools, sixth-form colleges and other FE.Source:DfES

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will make a statement on the successor scheme to individual learning accounts. [79452]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In June 2003 following the completion of our review of adult learning and as an integral part of our groundbreaking National Skills Strategy and delivery plan.

  LEA Directors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he gives to directors of local education authorities about the use of their powers to call informal meetings of school governing bodies. [78770]

  Mr. Miliband
  Directors of local education authorities have no powers to call meetings of school governing bodies, but may invite governors, either individually or collectively, to meet them. Paragraphs 24 to 32 of the Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations (issued in February 2001) give authorities guidance on their role in monitoring and supporting schools causing concern.

  Newcastle Local Education Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Standards and Effectiveness Unit were satisfied by 1 October that the City of Newcastle Local Education Authority had a strategy for closing the gap between its GCSE target and the aggregated schools GCSE target; and if he will place the plans for targeting challenge and support for schools in the Library. [78766]
  190W
  Mr. Miliband
  Newcastle local education authority (LEA) has submitted information about their strategy for meeting the LEA's targets for pupil attainment in GCSE/GNVQ. Education advisers from the Department's Standards and Effectiveness Unit are meeting all local education authorities during the course of November and December to take stock of progress towards their 2004 targets. The authority's strategy for meeting its GCSE targets will be one of the issues discussed at the meeting with Newcastle.

  School Governors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place the guidance on(a) the conduct of school governor elections and (b) handling complaints about such elections in the Library. [78764]

  Mr. Miliband
  School governor election procedures and associated complaints are determined locally by the appropriate authority, as set out in the Education (School Government) (England) Regulations 1999, Schedule 4, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  In relation to a community, community special or voluntary controlled school, the local education authority is the appropriate authority. In relation to a voluntary aided, foundation or foundation special school, the governing body is the appropriate authority.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) number and (b) percentage of school governor vacancies in each category of governor there were in each local education authority in Tyne and Wear in the last three years. [78769]
  191W
  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the number and percentage of governor vacancies in LEAs is not routinely collected by the Department. Individual LEAs may collect their own information.

  Schools (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in Newcastle upon Tyne that benefited from a special DfES grant in January 2002 for extra(a) classroom assistants and (b) headteacher support. [78765]

  Mr. Miliband
  On 4 January 2002 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the Transforming the School Workforce Pathfinder Project—which is working with 32 schools to explore new ways of working to free teachers to teach and raise standards in the classroom. The project includes funding for additional support staff and training for headteachers.

  No school from Newcastle upon Tyne is participating in the project, although Forest Hall Primary School in neighbouring North Tyneside is one of the pathfinder schools.

  The project runs until July 2003 and the lessons learnt will be shared nationally.

  Schools (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds were made available for(a) new school building and (b) schools refurbishment in Stoke-on-Trent in each year since 1992. [79091]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information on the amount of capital investment for new school buildings. The following table provides information on capital allocations for new pupil places, and New Deal for Schools (NDS) funding to address the needs of school buildings in Stoke-on-Trent, since 1997–98, the earliest year for which data is readily available.

  Capital allocations Stoke-on-Trent

  £000

  Of which

  All capital

  New pupil places1

  New deal for schools (NDS)2

  1997–98

  1,631

  196

  900

  1998–99

  4,629

  335

  2,799

  1999–2000

  397,773

  552

  1,753

  2000–01

  9,054

  1,806

  4,908

  2001–02

  10,323

  1,751

  3,418

  2002–03

  11,433

  1,552

  6,470

  1 Funding to Stoke-on Trent LEA for Basic Need

  2 NDS windfall tax funding (1997–98 to 2000–01), NDS Condition (2001–02 and 2002–03), Modernisation (2002–03) and Devolved formula capital grant (2000–01 to 2002–03) allocated to LEA and Voluntary Aided schools

  3 Includes £93million PFI contract involving all schools in Stoke-on-Trent, work to be completed in 2005.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Civil Service Secondments
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many individuals have been seconded to senior civil servant positions in her Department, in each case listing(a) from which organisation, (b) the duration to date and planned duration of conference and (c) source of current salary in secondment post. [78980]

  Dr. Howells
  There are currently no individuals seconded to senior civil servant positions in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many senior civil servants are seconded from her Department, broken down by(a) location, (b) duration to date and planned duration of secondment and (c) source of current salary in secondment post. [78983]

  Dr. Howells
  There are current two senior civil servants seconded from the Department and their details are in the following table:

  Location

  Duration to date months

  Planned duration months

  Source of current salary

  London Arts

  10

  15

  London Arts

  Broadcasting

  Standards

  Commission

  16

  18

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will recognise the Cornish language under the European Charter for Minority and Regional Languages. [77398]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions today (UIN 79871).

  European City of Culture
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the decision will be made on the choice of European City of Culture; and if she will make a statement on the method by which it will be chosen. [78360]

  Dr. Howells
  The UK's nomination of European Capital of Culture 2008 will be announced in Spring 2003.

  Twelve UK cities submitted bids and on 30 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a shortlist of six to go forward for further consideration. This shortlist was recommended to me by the independent Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir Jeremy Isaacs, which my right hon. Friend appointed earlier this to assess the bids against the criteria laid down by the EU and the Government.
  193W
  The Advisory Panel will undertake a further and more intensive programme of assessment of the remaining bids over the coming months, to identify an overall recommendation for the UK's nomination.

  Interdepartmental Group on Sport
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the membership is of the Interdepartmental Group on Sport; what actions have arisen out of the meetings of the group; and if she will place a copy of the minutes in the Library. [79222]

  Dr. Howells
  The Interdepartmental Group on Sport brings together the Minister for Sport and Ministers and officials from other Departments and related bodies with an interest in sporting issues. The last meeting included representatives from:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Department for Education and Skills

  Department of Health

  Department for Transport

  Sport England

  New Opportunities Fund

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Policy and Innovation Unit

  Home Office

  BBC.

  As I said in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) of 18 June 2002, Official Report, column 275W, the group was set up with the intention that those attending could discuss issues and ideas in an informal way, and in the knowledge that any contributions would remain confidential. It would not therefore be appropriate to reveal details of the discussions or to publish the minutes.

  Lottery (Scottish ex-servicemen)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many awards have been made by the National Lottery to ex-servicemen's organisations in Scotland, in each of the last five years; and what the total amount awarded was in each of those years. [78739]

  Dr. Howells
  The Community Fund awarded 17 grants totalling £41,150 to ex-servicemen's organisations in Scotland over the past five years. The following2 table lists the number of grants and amount awarded for each of the five years.

  Year

  Number of grants made

  Amount awarded £

  1998

  2

  3,513

  1999

  5

  6,143

  2000

  6

  14,164

  2001

  2

  9,110

  Total

  17

  41,150

  Parliamentary Channel
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on when free to air digital services should include video provision for the Parliamentary Channel. [77466]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the launch of digital terrestrial television it has been possible to offer only an audio service for BBC Parliament. In its bid to the Independent Television Commission for the former ITV digital multiplex B, and in its subsequent application for a digital programme service licence, the BBC proposed to enhance this service by offering BBC Parliament in video on quarter screen. This arrangement allows the BBC to offer explanatory text simultaneously on screen in addition to the video service and to provide more services on the digital terrestrial platform. With the launch of Freeview this service will now be widely available.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of severe disablement allowance aged under 20 years on 16 April 2001 have been automatically transferred to incapacity benefit; and how many of these are estimated to have previously claimed(a) free prescriptions, (b) free dental treatment, (c) free eye tests, (d) other healthcare benefits and (e) other passported benefits. [78330]

  Maria Eagle
  We reformed Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) in order to provide more support to young people disabled early in life who have never had the opportunity to work. 20,8001 SDA recipients aged under 20 years on 6 April 2001 were automatically transferred to long-term Incapacity Benefit (IB) in April 2002, making them up to £28.10 per week better off.

  Depending on their circumstances, young disabled people receiving IB will still be able to qualify for help with NHS charges (for example. prescriptions, dental treatment, sight tests, money-off vouchers for glasses, wigs, fabric supports and help with the cost of travel to hospital for NHS treatment) on the grounds of low income. We recognise that some will no longer have automatic entitlement to this help but many in this group will already be considerably better off as a result of the changes we have introduced and it would be unfair to treat these people differently to other IB recipients.

  1 This figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases. This figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Truancy
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Government has made of the consequences of withholding child benefit if parents do not co-operate in preventing truancy. [78692]
  195W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are continuing to assess a number of measures related to anti-social behaviour, including actions to deter truancy. Once that assessment has been completed, the Government will come forward with proposals in the usual way.

  Mr. Paul Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to publish the proposed Green Paper on pensions. [76092]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government will publish a Green Paper on pensions policy later in the year.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) couple families with children and (b) one-parent families will be passported to the Sure Start Maternity Grant under the new tax credit scheme. [77270]

  Maria Eagle
  It is estimated that there will be around 250,000 awards of the Sure Start Maternity Grant in 2003–04 under the new rules. This compares with 201,000 in 2001–02. Around 25,000 of the additional successful claims will be due to the link to the new tax credits.

  Information on eligibility by family type is not available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit fraud investigators were employed(a) directly by his Department, and (b) by agencies responsible to his Department in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [63682]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment. The implementation of this strategy means than an antifraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  The information currently available suggests that, throughout the period, around 5,000 staff have been employed by the Department and its agencies in work to investigate suspicions of fraud. However, taking account of changes in data collection measures over time and the integration of investigators more fully with front-line staff, it is clear to me we need to improve the validity and reliability of year-on-year comparisons, and I have asked the Department to undertake further work on this. I have concluded that it is not possible to make valid comparisons between figures year-on-year.

  I have therefore asked the Department to undertake a review to improve the consistency of centrally collected information for the future.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2002,Official Report, c. 874W, on incentive payments for postmasters who report suspected benefit fraud, how many payments of (a) £10 and (b) £25 were made in each of the last three years. [79556]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table. The number of rewards has reduced as a result of the introduction of the Order Book Control System (OBCS). This is an electronic system that uses barcode 196W
  scanning to alert a Post Office clerk that the order book presented to them has been reported lost, stolen or recalled. The order book is then impounded by the Post Office clerk. A reward would not normally be payable for order books impounded through the use of the OBCS. National rollout of the OBCS began in March 2000 and more than 99 per cent. of Post Offices were using the system by December 2001.

  Number of £10 rewards

  Number of £25 rewards

  1999–2000

  46,314

  16

  2000–01

  27,669

  13

  2001–02

  17,982

  59

  Benefit Payments
  Mr.Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps are being taken to help pensioners in rural areas without banks adjust to the move to benefits being paid to banks and building societies; [76949]

  (2) how pensioners in rural areas without bank or building society accounts will be able to access pensions in January 2003. [77091]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Around 90 per cent of pensioners already have access to a suitable bank account.

  The Post Office currently have arrangements with a number of banks to allow customers to access their accounts at Post Office branches. This has already enabled banking to return to those rural areas, which have not had bank branches for some years.

  These arrangements will be complemented with the introduction of universal banking services. This will help ensure that benefit and pension customers, who wish to do so, can continue to access their benefits in cash at the Post Office. Universal banking services will consist of two elements: access to basic bank accounts and the Post Office card account. This means that those people who want to open an account should be able to do so, including those in rural areas who might not previously have had access to banking facilities.

  Our information campaign will take customers through the changes, including getting their money from their account at the Post Office. Customers will be supplied with information, which clearly sets out their "account options" and enables them to decide which account is right for them. The changes in how benefits are paid will be phased in over a two-year period. Customers do not need to take any action until they receive a letter about the change. Until then they can keep their order book or giro.

  Although we will start to contact some pensioners in January to prepare for the change, no-one will need to change their method of payment until April at the earliest.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families will lose entitlement to(a) income support and (b) income-based jobseeker's allowance as a result of the introduction of child tax credit; and what estimate he has made of the average income of those families affected. [77273]
  197W
  Malcolm Wicks
  All families who move from Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance to Child Tax Credit only will be entitled to the maximum amount of Child Tax Credit up to an annual household income of £13,230. These families can therefore gain considerably from the introduction of the Child Tax Credit.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, c. 634–35W, on benefit payments, how the figures quoted relate to his Department's PSA target on the proportion of parents with care on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance who receive maintenance for their children; and if he will make a statement. [78075]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures are consistent with one another. The figures given in the answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, c. 635W, on Child Support maintenance, are based on aggregates of:

  (a)for 1997, figures, for both total number of parents with care in receipt of the relevant benefit and the number of such parents with care receiving maintenance, for Income Support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance, Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance;

  (b)for 2002, figures, for both total number of parents with care in receipt of the relevant benefit and the number of such parents with care receiving maintenance, for Income Support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance and Working Families Tax Credit.

  The Department's Public Services Agreement target refers only to clients who are receipt of Income Support.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if benefit and tax credit recipients who opt to receive payment via a Universal Bank basic account will be able to access their money over the counter at any post office branch. [78553]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Universal banking services will consist of two elements: access to basic bank accounts at Post Office branches and the Post Office card account. Benefit and tax credit recipients who choose to use universal banking services to access their money will be able to do so at all Post Office branches.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed in the Benefits Agency in the last year for which figures are available; how many staff are expected to be employed in(a) Jobcentre Plus, (b) the Pension Service and (c) each of the other bodies that are replacing the Benefits Agency, once they are fully introduced; and if he will make a statement on how the overall reduction in staff will be managed. [78332]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the numbers of staff in the Benefits Agency at the latest available point, 31 March 2002 is in the following table. Also included are figures for the Employment Service.

  Position as at 31 March 2002

  Number

  Benefits Agency

  66,726

  The Employment Service

  32,881

  Note:

  The figures are whole time equivalents
  198W
  Jobcentre plus and the pension service expect their roll out to be complete by 2005–06 but individual businesses are still developing their staffing plans for the next three years.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as at 1st October how many people received benefits and pensions, from his Department paid in cash at Post Offices; and how many of these, at date of commencement or other point prior to 1 October, have been offered the opportunity to have their benefits or pension paid directly into a bank account. [77881]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Approximately 58 per cent. of claimants currently receive their benefit and pensions in cash at the Post Office and 42 per cent are paid direct into their bank or building society account.

  As Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) became available for individual benefits at different times, it is not possible to say how many customers were offered the opportunity to have their benefits or pension paid directly into a bank or building society account at the time of making the claim.

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will(a) review the operation of Community Care Grants; and (b) introduce a system of grants for particular life events and needs, available to anyone on a low income. [79216]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Social Fund targets the available help on the neediest people in our society.

  The Social Fund provides non-repayable Community Care Grants for vulnerable people in a variety of circumstances and we have already introduced improvements to the scheme. For example, the qualifying conditions have been extended to help people setting up home in the community who have been without a settled way of life, and we have increased the annual budget for grants from £97 million in 1997 to £108 million today.

  The Fund already provides grants for easily identifiable life events through maternity and funeral payments. The discretionary nature of the Community Care Grants scheme enables it to meet a wide range of needs which a wholly regulated scheme could not.

  Contacts (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason there was a decrease in the number of contacts with premises by Health and Safety Executive inspectors between 1996–97 and 2000–01. [78447]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of regulatory contacts made by Health and Safety Executive staff for each year between 1996–97 and 2001–02 is given in the table. Overall there has been a 3 per cent. fall in numbers over the period. The reduction is a reflection of the increase in both the quantity and complexity of HSE's reactive work in carrying out investigations. The numbers of investigations has increased from 27,889 in 1996–97 to 37,855 in 2001–02, a rise of 35 per cent.
  199W
  A balanced programme of inspections and investigations is necessary to secure improvements in workplace health and safety.

  The majority of regulatory contacts were made by inspectors; a small proportion, approximately 10,000 in 2001–02, were made by workplace contact officers (WCOs). The WCOs are a small team dedicated to providing advice and information specifically to small and medium sized enterprises.

  Regulatory contacts

  1996–97

  205,000

  1997–98

  186,000

  1998–99

  183,000

  1999–2000

  185,496

  2000–01

  192,693

  2001–02

  195,695

  Note:

  A regulatory contact includes preventive inspections, investigators, advisory visits, and enforcement visits.

  Deferred Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have opted to defer receiving their basic state pension in each year since 1988; and what the average length of time is for which people have chosen to defer their pension. [78334]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested that around three per cent of people who reached state pension age five years ago deferred claiming their basic state pension. On average, these individuals deferred their basic state pension for almost two years.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the latest March 2002 RP admin data and the Government Actuary's Department mid-year population estimates.

  2. Figures are for Great Britain

  Employment Action Teams
  Mr. Cousins
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria were used to decide the electoral wards of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne that have the service of employment action teams; how those wards scored on those criteria; how (a) Wingrove, (b) Fenham, (c) Blakelaw, (d) Moorside and (e) Sandyford wards scored on those criteria; and when the criteria will next be reviewed. [78762]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The wards being targeted by the Newcastle upon Tyne Action Team for Jobs were selected because their working age employment rate was 58.5 per cent. or below, at 10 April 2001 when selection took place. All other wards in the City of Newcastle local authority area, including Wingrove, Fenham, Blakelaw, Moorside and Sandyford, had employment rates above this figure at the time of selection. The wards targeted by the Action Team will be reviewed if there is a significant depopulation of the client groups in any of them.

  Girocheques
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the annual administrative cost is of sending girocheques to Mrs Kathleen Lonsdale of Westerlands Residential Home Kingsbridge. [78323]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information about individuals is confidential and not disclosed under part 2 paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  However, the current administrative cost of sending on girocheque is £1.47

  Injuries
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the record of the Health and Safety Executive in investigating(a) reported major injuries to trainees and (b) major injuries to people on work experience in the last year for which figures are available. [78446]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive does not highlight or target any particular group of workers when selecting incidents for investigation, all workers are treated the same. Enforcement of health and safety is conducted according to the HSC's published Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS). Major injuries to trainees and to people on work experience are likely to satisfy criteria published in the EPS and if they do, would be selected for investigation.

  New Deal
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) young people, (b) over 50s and (c) people with a disability have signed up for the New Deal in Tamworth. [78841]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Programme

  Cumulative number of participants in the Tamworth constituency

  New Deal for young people (NDYP)

  1,150

  New Deal 50 plus

  130

  Notes:

  1.Figures are from start of the programme to June 2002 for NDYP, and to August 2002 for New Deal 50 plus.

  2.Constituency level information is not available for the New Deal for disabled people.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension schemes have started the winding-up process in each year since 1997; and how many pension scheme members have been affected in each year as a result, broken down into(a) pensioners and (b) people who had not retired when the winding-up began. [78333]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  201W

  Year

  Number of schemes started to wind up

  Number of members in schemes started to wind up

  1997

  84

  10,271

  1998

  113

  2,309

  1999

  4,287

  101.236

  2000

  1,903

  74,403

  2001

  2,206

  73,038

  20021

  1,405

  40,158

  1 To date

  Notes:

  1. The information is based on data held by the Pension Schemes Registry (PSR). It includes all types of pension schemes. The figures are for calendar years.

  2. The figures are the sum of those live schemes that have reported they are winding up and those schemes accepted by the PSR as winding up. The latter are schemes where the principal employer has gone into liquidation and they were the sole trustees. The figures do not include schemes that may not have reported to the PSR.

  3. The PSR system holds information on the most recent change in scheme status, so schemes which were frozen or closed in earlier years may figure in the wind up figures for a later year. Trustees are required to report changes within 12 months so there is likely to be a lag before the data reflects what is happening currently.

  4. Before 1997 figures for starting the wind up of schemes were not categorised:they were subsumed within figures for live scheme. The category of schemes in the process of wind up was introduced gradually. The category for schemes notifying that they were winding up was introduced before the category for schemes accepted by the PSR as winding up. Where an actual date was unavailable the current date was used.

  5. The information related to schemes, not employers. Some employers operate several schemes.

  6. The numbers of members shown include active, deferred and pensioner members. PSR does not hold data broken down by type of member, as this is not required for their purposes.

  Post Office (Benefits Access)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what safeguards will be put in place to protect the interests of post office customers who open bank accounts in order to access their benefits, pensions and child benefits. [78584]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We understand that some customers will be concerned about the forthcoming changes. We have designed the new system with their needs in mind. For example, pensioners have told us that two of the most important things for them were to still be able to collect their money from the post office and also to be able to continue to collect it weekly. Both of these options will be available.

  Our information campaign will take customers through the changes, including getting their money from their account at the post office. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options and enables them to decide which account best meets their needs and circumstances. Customers do not need to take any action until they receive a letter about the change.

  Social Fund Loans
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what measures are being taken to require social fund staff to ensure that applicants are properly advised on the type of payment most helpful to them; [79177]
  202W
  (2) if he will implement the recommendation of the social fund commissioner for his Department to put in place a system to manage the quality of advice given to people and the appropriateness of application forms issued by office staff; [79209]

  (3) if he will review the guidance and training for social fund staff administering funeral payments; [79210]

  (4) if he will ensure that those in contact with the recently bereaved are able to give those people accurate information about the social fund funeral payments. [79212]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We share the social fund commissioner's view that people should receive good quality advice. Although existing procedures are already designed to provide high standards of service delivery, the Department is currently examining what improvements are possible in this area.

  The Department continues to work to improve the training and guidance it gives its staff, including non social fund staff who have contact with customers. Any instance where an office gives wrong information will be investigated and the Independent Review Service has now agreed to provide the Department with details of any such cases that it becomes aware of.

  We recognise that bereavement is very distressing and training and guidance for staff reinforces the message of sensitivity when dealing with claims for funeral payments and the need to provide accurate advice and information to customers.

  Workplace Inspections
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the number of inspections of workplaces by the Health and Safety Executive reduced in the last five years. [78448]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The reduction in numbers of preventive inspections from 116,652 in 1996–97 to 75,237 in 2001–02 is a reflection of the increase in both the quantity and complexity of HSE's reactive work in carrying out investigations. The numbers of investigations has increased from 27,889 in 1996–97 to 37,855 in 2001–02, a rise of 35 per cent.

  A balanced programme of inspections and investigations is necessary to secure improvements in workplace health and safety.

  Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will undertake simulation modelling of the distributional impact of his policies taking account of predicted levels and patterns of non take-up of entitlement to benefits; and if he will make a statement. [74840]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The distributional impact of policies is assessed by the Department, when it is appropriate and robust to do so, by using simulation modelling based on the Family Resources Survey. The process of making these estimates involves making assumptions regarding the level of take-up of entitlement to income-related benefits. The precise nature of these estimates
  203W
  and assumptions depends upon the context being modelled; we do not explicitly predict patterns of take-up.

  Communications Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many officers in his Department and officers authorised by him he estimates will be permitted to seek access to communications data as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; how many times his Department or such officials sought access to such data from communications providers including Internet service providers under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74478]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is currently making use of powers under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 which allow authorised officers to require information, including communications data, from the financial, utility and educational sectors to find evidence of fraud. Powers like these will help us continue our crackdown on fraud and make sure that the right benefits go to the right people.

  These powers were commenced on 30 April 2002 and 114 officers have so far been authorised by my right hon. Friend. This is in line with our commitment made during passage of the legislation that there would be no more than 300 authorised officers in the department at any one time. In addition, 66 local authority officers have been authorised by their chief executives or chief finance officers.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of requests made for data under the Data Protection Act 1998, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he plans to adopt the recommendation in his Department's Research Report 172, Social Fund use amongst older people, to establish a separate Social Fund for minimum income guarantee claimants as part of the new Pension Service. [74731]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are committed to improving the service currently provided to today's and future pensioners. The Pension Service has replaced the Benefits Agency services for pensioners from 1 April 2002, and is working to introduce an improved service tailored to the needs of pensioners. The Pension Service has been developed as a customer-focused organisation after researching what customers need and expect from the Government in relation to pensions business.

  The Pension Service will play a crucial role in both tackling pensioner poverty and encouraging saving by providing a dedicated service for today's pensioners, using modern technology whether they deal with us by telephone or through the internet, by post or face-to-face. It will also improve the service to future pensioners, by providing accurate information to help them make decisions about saving for their retirement. The Pension Service is committed to making access to benefits and services for pensioners, including the Social Fund, as simple and straightforward as possible.
  204W
  DWP Research Report No. 172 'Social Fund use amongst older people' raised some interesting and important issues. We are giving careful consideration to these issues and how best to address them.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding has been given to the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997. [74417]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The running costs for the Child Support Agency are as follows:

  Year to 31 March

  £ million

  1996–97

  213.4

  1997–98

  213.7

  1998–99

  208.4

  1999–2000

  227.1

  2000–01

  209.3

  2001–02

  226.2

  2002–03

  211.9

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Activity-led Funding Sub-group for Education
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the report of the Activity-led Funding Sub-group for Education. [79333]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have been asked to reply.

  A paper on the work of the Activity Led Funding sub group was discussed by the Education Funding Strategy Group on 9 September 2002. It is available on the DIES website at www.dfes.gov.uk/efsg/papers.cfm.

  Arson
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many incidents of arson there were, broken down by(a) fire brigade area and (b) local authority in England and Wales in each year since January 1997. [79674]

  Mr. Leslie
  The table shows the number of malicious fires attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales between 1997 and 2000. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Malicious fires by local authority fire brigades 1997–2000

  Number1

  Brigade

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  England and Wales

  72,932

  75,541

  91,072

  98,005

  England

  67,682

  69,735

  84,146

  91,171

  England (non met counties)

  34,292

  36,018

  43,290

  47,735

  Avon

  1,514

  1,657

  2,218

  2,666

  Bedfordshire

  824

  780

  997

  1,273

  Berkshire

  800

  767

  1,017

  1,152

  Buckinghamshire

  926

  984

  1,138

  1,263

  Cambridgeshire

  890

  953

  1,188

  1,294

  Cheshire

  1,129

  1,149

  1,229

  1,332

  Cleveland

  1,353

  1,338

  1,843

  2,045

  Cornwall

  347

  393

  332

  426

  Cumbria

  557

  537

  663

  654

  Derbyshire

  949

  1,002

  1,244

  1,225

  Devon

  959

  948

  992

  947

  205W

  Malicious fires by local authority fire brigades 1997–2000

  Number1

  Brigade

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Dorset

  643

  521

  684

  799

  Durham

  1,151

  1,237

  1,322

  1,306

  East Sussex

  857

  874

  1,116

  1,346

  Essex

  1,128

  1,198

  1,657

  2,284

  Gloucestershire

  527

  544

  553

  639

  Hampshire

  1,205

  1,377

  1,427

  1,365

  Hereford and Worcester

  610

  549

  692

  706

  Hertfordshire

  848

  784

  1,091

  1,275

  Humberside

  1,528

  1,798

  2,031

  1,886

  Isle of Wight

  87

  68

  78

  84

  Kent

  1,865

  2,148

  2,664

  3,070

  Lancashire

  1,968

  2,117

  2,532

  2,534

  Leicestershire

  1,345

  1,469

  1,671

  1,664

  Lincolnshire

  551

  692

  771

  742

  Norfolk

  850

  859

  858

  1,106

  North Yorkshire

  552

  568

  655

  739

  Northamptonshire

  929

  991

  1,195

  1,366

  Northumberland

  528

  471

  584

  570

  Nottinghamshire

  1,661

  1,786

  2,463

  2,624

  Oxfordshire

  645

  772

  787

  960

  Shropshire

  518

  579

  564

  694

  Somerset

  448

  471

  579

  646

  Staffordshire

  1,169

  1,287

  1,450

  1,542

  Suffolk

  386

  381

  461

  600

  Surrey

  570

  609

  724

  881

  Warwickshire

  535

  506

  664

  721

  West Sussex

  582

  588

  734

  794

  Wiltshire

  358

  266

  422

  515

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England (met counties)

  33,390

  33,717

  40,856

  43,436

  Greater Manchester

  7,271

  7,231

  8,467

  8,887

  Merseyside3

  3,562

  3,691

  4,755

  5,348

  South Yorkshire

  2,415

  2,660

  3,081

  3,014

  Tyne and Wear

  3,152

  3,173

  3,466

  3,326

  West Midlands

  5,900

  5,480

  6,762

  6,970

  West Yorkshire

  4,702

  5,120

  5,802

  6,472

  Greater London

  6,388

  6,362

  8,523

  9,419

  Wales

  5,250

  5,806

  6,926

  6,834

  North Wales

  635

  758

  930

  1,058

  Mid and West Wales

  1,523

  1,721

  2,123

  1,959

  South Wales

  3,092

  3,327

  3,873

  3,817

  1 Includes "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Includes estimates for a small number of incidents not recorded during industrial action (Merseyside July 2001).

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for the selection of Audit Commission representatives. [78748]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 1 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 determines that the Audit Commission shall consist of between 15 and 20 members appointed by the Secretary of State. Appointments are made jointly by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries of State for Health and Wales, having regard to the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Code of Practice.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the name of the new Chair of the Audit Commission. [79872]
  206W
  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Health and Wales have today appointed for a three year term James Strachan as the new Chair of the Audit Commission.

  I have great confidence in his ability to lead the Audit Commission, to which he will bring substantial and diverse experience.

  We are driving forward our agenda to reform public services. This appointment comes at a challenging time for the commission, especially with the implementation of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of local authorities, its new housing inspection duties and the development of a proportionate and co-ordinated audit and inspection regime.

  More than 40 applicants were considered for the post and James Strachan was shortlisted by a panel comprising an independent assessor and senior officials from this Office and the Department of Health.

  Cornish Language
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce whether the Cornish language will be specified within the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [76011]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am announcing today that, after careful consideration and with the help of the results of an independent academic study on the language commissioned by the Government, we have decided to recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages. The Government will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.

  The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote the historical regional or minority languages of Europe. It recognises that some of these languages are in danger of eventual extinction and that protection and encouragement of them contributes to Europe's cultural diversity and historical traditions.

  This is a positive step in acknowledging the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.

  Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages.

  Officials will be initiating discussion with Cornwall county council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what decision the Government have reached following its consideration of the case for recognising the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [79871]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am announcing today that, after careful consideration and with the help of the results of an independent academic study on the language commissioned by the Government, we have decided to recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the
  207W
  European Charter for Regional or Minority languages. The Government will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.

  The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote the historical regional or minority languages of Europe. It recognises that some of these languages are in danger of extinction and that protection and encouragement of them contributes to Europe's cultural diversity and historical traditions.

  This is a positive step in acknowledging the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.

  Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages.

  Officials will be initiating discussion with Cornwall county council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to give local authorities greater power to acquire empty homes compulsorily. [78437]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to strengthen existing powers of local authorities to acquire empty homes compulsorily. However, we are currently evaluating the recommendation to allow local authorities to compulsorily lease empty homes put forward in the report by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee on Empty Homes earlier this year. We will make a statement in due course.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to introduce compulsory letting of empty residential properties. [79039]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently evaluating the recommendation to allow local authorities to compulsorily lease empty homes put forward in the report by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee on Empty Homes earlier this year. We will make a statement in due course.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to alter the number and scope of executive agencies affiliated to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [79587]

  Mr. Leslie
  The work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's executive agencies is subject to regular review. There are no plans at present to alter significantly their number or remit.

  Fire Dispute (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Green Goddess fire appliances he plans to 208W
  station in Buckinghamshire in the event of a firefighters' strike; where they will be stationed; and if he will make a statement. [77985]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Emergency cover in Buckinghamshire is planned to consist of a number of elements, including six Green Goddesses, three breathing apparatus teams, a rescue team equipped with specialist equipment, and the police. These will be based in Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Marlow.

  The provision of MOD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the chief fire officer to maximise the effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities.

  The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties. The deployment of firefighters will be based on the assessment of how best to respond to an emergency in the quickest time possible. The deployment will be kept under review.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the cost of the(a) 'Get Out, Stay Out and Call 999' campaign and (b) 'Fire Kills' campaign. [79599]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our total budget for fire safety publicity taken forward under the 'Fire Kills' brand is £4.8 million in this fiscal year. Of this, up to £1.8 million has been set aside for the 'Get Out, Stay Out and Call 999' campaign.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) ombudsmen and (b) other bodies are able to investigate complaints against the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. [78467]

  Mr. McNulty
  Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are independent quasi-judicial bodies which are funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Parties who are dissatisfied with a decision of a tribunal have a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can investigate complaints by someone claiming to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in the way in which a tribunal administers a case but he cannot intervene in the tribunal's decision.

  Local Authority Performance
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the grading of local authorities under comprehensive performance assessment; and if he will make a statement. [79591]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission carried out corporate assessments in all English county and unitary authorities this summer, and published the assessment framework on 21 October. They are on schedule to meet the White Paper commitment to announce the final results by the end of this year.
  209W
  Discussions are now under way between the Audit Commission, Inspectorates, and pathfinder local authorities, to establish the way in which improvement planning can best be undertaken.

  The Audit Commission is also currently consulting on the methodology to be employed in assessing district councils' performance as from January 2003.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responses relating to the local government finance consultation (1) have been received from(a) Taunton Deane and (b) Somerset County Council; [79478]

  (2) what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services delivered by (a) Taunton Deane Borough Council and (b) Somerset County Council; [79476]

  (3) what response relating to the local government finance consultation has been received from Somerset County Council relating to education funding; and when it was received. [79477]

  Mr Raynsford
  Both Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane District Council submitted responses to the Formula Grant Review consultation (including the education options in the case of the county) before it closed on the 30 of September.

  However, in addition the Government have received around 55,000 letters as the result of various campaigns relating to the Formula Grant Review. None of these campaigns was solely based around Somerset, but since the county is a member of the F40 group of authorities who campaign on education funding a number of those letters do relate to that council. We do not record the details of the senders of campaign letters as a matter of course. For this reason, and since very many of them are multiple copies of the same letter sent by the same people to different Ministers, a more detailed answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We are currently taking decisions on the new system to replace SSAs. As we do so we are carefully considering the full range of evidence, pressures and points that have been put to us. We will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be around the start of December. Once the Government have allocated their grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that we will use grant "floors" to ensure that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many written representations he received in response to the Local Government Finance White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [79595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As a White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" was not a consultation document, and a detailed record has not been kept of all the written correspondence received 210W
  following its publication. However, the number is about 50. The White Paper was preceded by a consultation document, "Modernising Local Government Finance: A Green Paper", to which we received over 1,100 responses.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give a commitment that no local authority will receive less grant money in real terms under any proposals contained in the Local Government Finance White Paper adopted by the Government; and if he will make a statement. [79606]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce its proposals for the new revenue grant distribution system to replace Standard Spending Assessments, including minimum "floors" on grant changes, at the point of the provisional local government finance settlement around the beginning of December. We hope at that point to improve considerably on the interim guarantee already given that no authority will receive less grant next year on a like for like basis.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what research was done by his Department into the impact of dispersal and settlement patterns on the cost of providing rural services in rural areas as part of the local government formula grant review; [79707] %

  (2) what assessment he has made of rural deprivation in the local government formula grant review: [79708]

  (3) what account he has taken of the cost of providing services in rural areas in the local government formula grant review. [79703]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, Mr. Cawsey, on 4 November 2002,Official Report, c. 49W.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many representations he has received relating to the consultation on local government finance as it affects Stockport Metropolitan Borough. [79332]

  (2) what proportion of the local government finance consultation responses relating to the Stockport Metropolitan Borough have supported (a) each of the four published options for education funding and (b) a fifth option. [79331]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have two responses received from Stockport MBC and four letters from MPs. However, in addition Government has received around 55,000 letters as the result of various campaigns relating to the Formula Grant Review, including campaigns connected with the F40 group of authorities who campaign on education funding. A number of these letters do relate to Stockport.

  We do not record the details of the senders of campaign letters as a matter of course. For this reason, and since very many of them are multiple copies of the same letter sent by the same people to different Ministers, it is not possible to provide a more detailed analysis except at disproportionate cost.
  211W
  We are currently taking decisions on the new system to replace SSAs. As we do so we are carefully considering the full range of evidence, pressures and points that have been put to us.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the provisions in the Local Government Finance White Paper will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [79600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An implementation plan for the White Paper was published last April setting out the planned dates for delivering the major proposals in the White Paper. It is updated monthly. and is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. There has been substantial progress, including consulting on a draft Local Government Bill that takes forward many of the proposals included in the White Paper.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact he estimates changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in the Ribble Valley. [79709]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which we expect to be early in December. Once the Government has allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Cherry report on probable health effects associated with mobile phone base stations. [78032]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The report by Dr. Neil Cherry on "Together Against Masts" is concerned with an assessment of possible health effects that might arise from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation from mobile phone base stations (masts). It was to address such concerns that in 1999 the Government asked the chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to set up an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP). The group was chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE and reported to Government in May 2000.

  A particular issue for the group was the exposures that might be received by members of the public from local base stations and the potential for effects on health. This is the issue addressed by Dr. Cherry. The conclusions in the IEGMP report were that:
  The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines
  Measurements undertaken by the NRPB and the Radiocommunications Agency have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines. Network operators have
  212W
  undertaken to ensure that all base stations will be designed and sited, so that members of the public will not be exposed in excess of the recommended basic restriction.

  The group were aware, however, that if people are unduly concerned about potential exposures then that in itself may affect their well-being. A number of recommendations of the group were, therefore, designed to provide more information to people about local base stations.

  The group also made recommendations for further research work. These proposals for research were principally directed as providing more information on exposures from mobile phones but also have relevance to exposures from base stations. It additionally recommended that there should be a further review of relevant research in three years time, or earlier if circumstances demand it.

  The Government welcome the report as an authoritative review of the scientific information available. It also accepted the recommendations and these have been taken forward by Government and by other bodies. A research programme funded by Government and industry on a 50:50 basis is taking forward the research recommendations.

  In coming to its conclusions, the IEGMP undertook an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature and heard evidence from 28 witnesses during the course of its work. It also organised five open meetings to hear the views of the public. Many of the references cited by Dr. Cherry were reviewed by the expert group. Professor G. J. Hyland, then of the University of Warwick, whose work is referred to by Dr. Cherry gave evidence to the group. The IEGMP also drew upon evidence provided by the NRPB and other organisations on exposures to RF from base stations.

  The further review of research findings is being carried out by NRPB's independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation. It is expected that this will be completed in 2003.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many equivalent full-time employees are employed in(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) executive agencies affiliated to his Department. [79666]

  Mr. Leslie
  The latest available figures for the numbers of full-time equivalent employees employed in(a) non-departmental public bodies are:

  Number

  Audit Commission

  2,436

  English Partnerships

  376

  Housing Action Trusts

  Castle Vale

  99

  Liverpool

  79.80

  Stonebridge

  67

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  Housing Corporation

  605.86

  Standards Board for England

  75

  Rent Assessment Panels

  70.95

  Valuation Tribunals—

  155

  213W
  The latest available figures for the numbers of full-time equivalent employees employed in (b) executive agencies are:

  Number

  Fire Service College

  2501

  The Planning Inspectorate

  7102

  The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  50

  The Rent Service

  790

  1 Including 46 lecturers seconded from Fire Brigades.

  2 Excluding 126 fee paid inspectors which are not calculated as full-time equivalents.

  In addition, Ordnance Survey, a separate non-ministerial Government Department and executive agency, which is the responsibility of ODPM Ministers, has 1,840 full-time equivalent employees.

  Park Home Reform
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plan for Park Home Reform. [79034]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are considering what changes in the law would be required to implement such recommendations in the Park Homes Working Party report as the Government have endorsed. The prospects for new legislation on Park Homes will naturally reflect the pressures on the Government's legislative programme. However, as, recommended by the Park Homes Working Party, a study of the economics of park homes was carried out and published on 29 October. We are also working with bodies representing home owners and park owners on such matters as creating a model constitution for residents' associations and model procedures for sales and assignments of homes.

  Regional Assemblies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2002,Official Report, columns 389–90W, if stakeholders within the regional assembly can be individuals. [79348]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper is not prescriptive as far as the definition of stakeholders is concerned. Organisations or individuals with an interest in the work of an elected assembly can potentially be considered as stakeholders.

  Revenue Grant Distribution
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received from residents of(a) Cheshire and (b) Macclesfield constituency registering their response to his Department's review of revenue grant distribution; when he expects to announce his decision following his Department's consultation; and if he will make a statement. [79273]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have received around 55,000 letters from the public relating to the Formula Grant Review, the great majority being as the result of various campaigns that have been organised. One of these campaigns was based in Cheshire, and we estimate that around 200 responses were received as part of that. Cheshire is also one of the constituent 214W
  authorities of the F40 education funding campaign, and a proportion of the approximately 53,000 responses received as part of that originated from within the country.

  We do not record the details of the senders of campaign letters as a matter of course. For this reason, and since very many from the F40 campaign are multiple copies of the same letter sent by the same people to different Ministers, it is not possible to provide a more precise answer, or one for the constituency of Macclesfield, except at disproportionate cost.

  We are currently taking decisions on the new system to replace SSAs. As we do so we are carefully considering the full range of evidence, pressures and points that have been put to us. We will announce our proposals for the new system to Parliament at the time of the next provisional local government finance settlement, which we expect to be around the beginning of December.

  Rough Sleepers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 61W, when a street count for under 16s living rough last took place in (a) London and (b) West Sussex; what criteria is used to count under 16s in the street count; and when the Social Exclusion Unit will publish its report into young runaways. [78194]

  Mrs. Roche
  Street counts were last carried out in London and West Sussex during March 2002. These found no one sleeping rough aged under 16. Anyone who is bedded down in the open air, people in buildings or other places not designed for habitation, including those under 16, is included in the figures.

  The Social Exclusion Unit hopes to publish its report on young runaways shortly.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions his Department has had with the Home Office regarding police involvement in dealing with the issue of under 16s living rough. [78195]

  Mrs. Roche
  The police and the Home Office have been key members of the Young Runaways Advisory Group, advising on issues for runaways when they are away from home. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also a member of the Missing Persons Cross-Departmental Group led by the Home Office. In addition, the police work with outreach teams across the country. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not had discussions with the Home Office regarding police involvement with under 16s living rough.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many 16 to 18-year-olds are living rough in(a) London and (b) West Sussex following the last street count. [78196]

  Mrs. Roche
  The street count carried out in London in March 2002 identified one person aged 18 sleeping rough. A full analysis of count information showing breakdown by age is not currently held centrally for West Sussex. When informed of results of street counts we would expect to be notified if a person under 16 is found sleeping rough.

  Social Housing
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) increase new social housing provision by 2005–06 and (b) set interim targets to reduce the number of non-decent social sector homes by 2006; and if he will make a statement. [78893]

  Mr. McNulty
  In his statement to the House about sustainable communities on 18 July. my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister promised to return to the House with a comprehensive long-term programme of action to tackle a number of housing and planning issues. That statement, which will be made around the turn of the year, will set out how the additional funding announced in the spending review will be used, and what it will buy over the three years up to 2005–06. It will cover the points raised by the hon. Member.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what were the(a) total allocated funds and (b) allocated funds used for administering costs for each scheme manager of (i) round one and (ii) round two of the Starter Home Initiative. [78631]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 484–88W, and the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 30 October 2002.

  The total amount allocated for scheme managers' administration costs was £11.5 million for round one of the Starter Home Initiative and £0.8 million for round two.

  Vehicle Fires
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many non-accidental vehicle fires there were, broken down by(a) fire brigade area and (b) local authority in England and Wales, in each year since January 1997. [79683]

  Mr. Leslie
  The table shows the number of malicious road vehicle fires attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales between 1997 and 2000. 2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Malicious road vehicle fires, by local authority fire brigade 1997–2000

  Number1

  Brigade

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  England and Wales

  38,218

  43,383

  56,836

  63,780

  England

  35,163

  40,090

  51,888

  58,941

  England (non met counties)

  17,519

  20,505

  26,564

  30,671

  Avon

  887

  1,158

  1,669

  2,049

  Bedfordshire

  512

  533

  727

  962

  Berkshire

  509

  561

  720

  862

  Buckinghamshire

  562

  653

  808

  893

  Cambridgeshire

  504

  537

  827

  881

  Cheshire

  432

  567

  619

  667

  Cleveland

  571

  755

  1,125

  1,208

  216W

  Malicious road vehicle fires, by local authority fire brigade 1997–2000

  Number1

  Brigade

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Cornwall

  178

  162

  169

  239

  Cumbria

  301

  344

  372

  430

  Derbyshire

  507

  567

  85

  802

  Devon

  442

  462

  499

  556

  Dorset

  285

  317

  401

  476

  Durham

  508

  657

  732

  749

  East Sussex

  455

  520

  716

  885

  Essex

  649

  724

  961

  1,565

  Gloucestershire

  265

  256

  290

  354

  Hampshire

  526

  710

  802

  838

  Hereford & Worcester

  299

  311

  415

  458

  Hertfordshire

  431

  466

  677

  845

  Humberside

  722

  902

  1,186

  1,092

  Isle of Wight

  22

  10

  21

  19

  Kent

  1,086

  1,397

  1,864

  2,368

  Lancashire

  821

  918

  1,229

  1,170

  Leicestershire

  752

  819

  1,075

  1,057

  Lincolnshire

  263

  364

  373

  423

  Norfolk

  411

  436

  489

  696

  North Yorkshire

  255

  252

  384

  452

  Northamptonshire

  550

  632

  763

  942

  Northumberland

  271

  236

  327

  309

  Nottinghamshire

  818

  1,062

  1,562

  1,776

  Oxfordshire

  373

  478

  544

  686

  Shropshire

  309

  309

  315

  409

  Somerset

  226

  248

  374

  411

  Staffordshire

  653

  809

  955

  971

  Suffolk

  164

  148

  222

  326

  Surrey

  329

  381

  508

  629

  Warwickshire

  343

  397

  461

  506

  West Sussex

  238

  291

  389

  435

  Wiltshire

  89

  159

  192

  274

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England (met counties)

  17,644

  19,585

  25,324

  28,269

  Greater Manchester

  4,042

  4,130

  5,166

  5,723

  Merseyside3

  1,569

  1,838

  2,568

  3,124

  South Yorkshire

  1,562

  1,901

  2,254

  2,130

  Tyne and Wear

  1,581

  1,738

  2,068

  1,953

  West Midlands

  3,044

  3,110

  4,154

  4,424

  West Yorkshire

  2,875

  3,491

  4,169

  4,818

  Greater London

  2,972

  3,378

  4,945

  6,098

  Wales

  3,056

  3,793

  4,948

  4,840

  North Wales

  274

  314

  488

  632

  Mid and West Wales

  991

  1,221

  1,631

  1,520

  South Wales

  1,791

  2,258

  2,829

  2,688

  1Includes "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents.

  2 Provisional

  3 Includes estimates for a small number of incidents not recorded during industrial action (Merseyside July 2001).

  Flooding
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the planning legislation, regulations and guidance for(a) the building of new homes on land located within flood plains and (b) for existing buildings in areas prone to flooding; and if he will make a statement. [74609]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no plans to amend planning legislation in respect of building new homes in flood plains or for existing buildings in areas prone to flooding.
  217W
  The Government issued comprehensive strengthened guidance on the operation of the planning system in regard to flood risk in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk" in July 2001. We said then that we would review this guidance in the light of experience of its implementation and effectiveness and the developing scientific knowledge on climate change three years after publication. In the meantime we are continuing to monitor how it is being applied through the Environment Agency's high-level target 12. The report for 2001–02 was recently published on the DEFRA website. It indicates that PPG 25 is already beginning to have an effect and that less than 0.5 per cent. of all new homes were subject to sustained objections on flood risk grounds. In the remaining cases, local planning authorities had considered the matter carefully before allowing development to proceed.

  To complement the new, stronger planning guidance, DTLR published "Preparing for floods" in February 2002. This contains interim guidance for improving the flood resistance of domestic and small business properties. It provides practical advice for existing property owners whose properties are at risk of flooding and for all those involved with construction of new properties or renovation of existing buildings in areas of flood risk. The Environment Agency, together with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, has also produced guidance on temporary measures to protect against flooding (such as flood boards) and on what to do after a flood.

  In addition, we are working with the Environment Agency, local government, the water industry and others to produce an agreed guidance framework for the development of sustainable drainage systems. Such systems, which are encouraged in PPG 25, aim to control water as near its source as possible and thus reduce the downstream risk of flooding. They will help to reduce the potential impact on existing properties of flooding due to uncontrolled run-off from newly developed areas.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  EU Green Paper
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what representations she has received from ADRs concerning the new EU Green Paper. [78868]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law was issued by the European Commission, and responses to the consultation were to be made directly to the Commission. We did, however, draw the attention of interested parties to the Green Paper and asked them to copy their responses to the Lord Chancellor's Department, in order that the UK Government response would be fully informed. Copies of responses were received from: Advice Services Alliance; Alliance for Electronic Business; Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution; Commercial Bar Association; Finance and Leasing Association; National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux; UK College of Family Mediators; Morley and Scott (chartered accountants); Arthur 218W
  Marriot and Henry Brown (solicitors with experience of ADR in both an international and domestic context). There may be other responses that have not been copied to us.

  Fines (Prompt Payment)
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, whether it is her policy for a discount to be offered to defendants for prompt payment of fines. [78683]

  Yvette Cooper
  At present there is no provision enabling a discount to be offered to offenders who pay their fines promptly.

  The White Paper, "Justice for All", published in July, announced new proposals aimed at improving enforcement rates. These include offering a discount for prompt payment of fines. The measures would be piloted and evaluated prior to any decision to roll them out nationally.

TREASURY

  Accesses to Communications Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 918W, on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, how many of the accesses to communications data in relation to Customs and Excise led to (a) the recovery of VAT and (b) the prosecution of individuals; how many of the accesses to communications data in relation to the Inland Revenue led to (i) the recovery of tax and (ii) the prosecution of individuals; how much tax was recovered; and how many individuals were prosecuted. [78436]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information systems of neither department record the total tax recovered nor the number of prosecutions stemming directly from access to communications data. Consequently, this information could be obtained only at wholly disproportionate cost.

  Ageism
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the processes the Government follows to appraise companies on its tender list for their record with respect to the code of practice on age discrimination. [79377]

  Mr. Boateng
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, taking account of the EC procurement rules and the Government's procurement policy of seeking value for money for the benefit of the taxpayer.

  In terms of the criteria for the rejection and selection of candidates for a tender list, these are defined in the EC public procurement directives, which are implemented in the UK by the following regulations:

  (a)SI 1191 No. 2680—The Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991: Regulations 14 to 19;

  (b)SI 1993 No. 3228—The Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993: Regulations 14 to 20; and

  219W

  (c)SI 1995 No. 201—The Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995: Regulations 14 to 20

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of New Opportunity Fund expenditure in Scotland on the operation of the Barnett Formula. [78736]

  Mr. Boateng
  The New Opportunities Fund is a Lottery Fund. Lottery funds are distributed by the relevant lottery distributor. They are not part of the Scottish Executive's Departmental Expenditure Limit and do not therefore fall within the Barnett formula arrangements for determining changes to the devolved administrations' budgets.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 5 February and 19 September,Official Report, columns 845W and 207W, when he plans to publish the September 2000 to September 2001 Inland Revenue benchmarking exercise into the level of fraud in working families tax credit. [78891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 207W, to the hon. Member.

  Borrowing
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on his borrowing plans for the remainder of the financial year; [78990]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the state of the public finances; and if he will make a statement. [78991]

  Mr. Boateng
  Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, an interim update of projections for the public finances will be published in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Cigarette Smuggling
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number and value of cigarettes smuggled into Northern Ireland and the loss of revenue to the Exchequer due to such smuggling in the last 12 months. [79192]

  John Healey
  Customs do not keep separate records of the number and value of cigarettes smuggled into Northern Ireland. The vast majority of smuggled cigarettes enter the UK through the major ports and are then distributed across the UK.

  The Government will be publishing figures, for the UK, of the number of cigarettes seized and the latest estimate of the revenue loss from the illicit tobacco market as part of the pre-Budget report.

  The most recently published information for the scale of revenue loss in the illicit tobacco market is for the year 2000–01, and is contained in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" published in November 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer [pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2002],Official Report, column 441W, if he will list schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department which are not the subject of national roll-out. [78293]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have nothing to add to my earlier answer.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what barriers exist to prevent domestic fuel being zero-rated for VAT; and if he will make a statement. [79497]

  John Healey
  Under long-standing formal agreements with our European partners, no member state is permitted to introduce new zero rates or restore a zero rate once it has been withdrawn.

  Fuel Smuggling
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) volume and (b) value of petrol and diesel smuggled into Northern Ireland and (c) the loss of revenue to the Exchequer due to such smuggling in the last 12 months. [79191]

  John Healey
  The Government will be publishing their latest estimates of the revenue loss in the Northern Ireland road fuel sector as part of the pre-Budget report.

  The most recently published estimates for the scale of revenue loss in the Northern Ireland road fuel sector, which are for the calendar year 2000 and include both revenue loss from fraud (smuggling, misuse and laundering) and from legitimate cross-border shopping, are contained in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" published in November 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 218W, if he will list (a) the series of activities to enable the Inland Revenue to manage its records better and (b) the activities to enable the Inland Revenue to manage its records better which existed before the introduction of CR74; when the CR74 series of activities commenced; and if he will make a statement. [78576]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue reviews its record management regularly to seek improvements. The latest exercise, internally called CR74, ran for around six months from the start of this financial year. It involved a check of national insurance numbers (NINOs) held on the existing records. Checking NINOs is part of the Inland Revenue's day-to-day work, but this was a systematic updating exercise conducted over a relatively short period of time. The Department has kept the updated records separate. It has also introduced better processes to trace and match the existing and updated records.

  IT Contract
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new contractor will be required to provide(a) an employer contributed final salary pension scheme for all employees and (b) a pay and conditions system that guarantees equal pay for equal value, including for sub-contracted staff, when the contract for providing IT services to the Inland Revenue is awarded. [79453]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The invitation to tender for the procurement will apply Government policy on pensions as set out in "Staff Transfers from Central Government: A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions". An incoming supplier will be required to adhere to this policy and apply it to all staff transferring to them. The incoming supplier will also be obliged to comply with all UK laws and regulations relating to employment and nondiscrimination.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether employees will be entitled to join a trade union recognised to negotiate on pay, conditions, pensions, career development and related issues when the contract for providing IT services to the Inland Revenue is awarded. [79458]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue regards human resource and personnel issues as an important element in the evaluation of any bid for the IT contract. The Department will therefore ask bidders to provide information on their intended human resources policies, including their approach to trade union recognition, as part of their response to the invitation to tender. The right to trade union recognition—along with any collective agreements—is one of the transferable rights of any employee affected by a TUPE transfer. Therefore any incoming supplier will be required to provide trade union recognition, where this exists already, for employees working on the Inland Revenue's current IT contracts. The Inland Revenue will oblige the incoming supplier to comply with all UK laws and regulations relating to employment and non-discrimination. The Inland Revenue is actively engaging both PCs and USRO in the procurement process.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new contractor will be subject to periodic independent reviews of performance when the contract for providing IT services to the Inland Revenue is awarded. [79459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft contract requires the supplier to engage in a rolling programme of benchmarking to be undertaken by an independent agency to monitor performance. In addition, the Department has also specified rights for both National Audit Office and the Department's own internal audit office to be involved in reviews of systems and processes, in their respective roles, over the lifetime of the contract.

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield of the landfill levy was in the last 12 months; and what proportion of it was contributed by local authority levy payments. [78655]
  222W
  John Healey
  For the 12 months to end of September 2002, total Landfill Tax receipts were 505m. All revenue receipts are published monthly in Table 2.1 D of the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics". The proportion of Landfill Tax receipts attributable to local authority activity is not available, as revenue information on Landfill Tax is obtained via the return declarations made by registered bodies, and Landfill Tax is therefore declared by local authorities under their own registration and by private contractors who collect waste on behalf of local authorities and declare the landfill tax on their own returns.

  London Stock Exchange
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to visit the London Stock Exchange. [79108]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no immediate plans for the Chancellor to visit the London Stock Exchange. However, Ministers have met senior representatives of the London Stock Exchange in the past six months, and also have regular contact with management from companies listed on the exchange and companies who are members of the exchange.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 218W, on national insurance, how many letters have been sent to people that have been using incorrect national insurance numbers in the last (a) month, (b) six months and (c) year. [78575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not keep detailed records of the contents of a substantial number of letters received and sent every day. Most letters sent by our staff cover a range of issues relating to a customer's financial affairs that may include or relate to the use of the national insurance number (NINO). It would incur disproportionate cost to identify letters sent to people who have been using incorrect NINOs.

  Saving
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to increase the level of saving in the UK economy. [79095]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government recognise the importance of saving and asset ownership in providing individuals with security, comfort in retirement and long-term independence and opportunity. The Government is implementing a saving strategy focusing on three central strands:creating the right environment for saving by maintaining macroeconomic stability ad establishing a well regulated and efficient market in financial services;
  creating the right incentives for saving by ensuring that the tax and benefit system does not unfairly penalise savers and by assisting those on lower incomes; and
  ensuring that people have the information and financial literacy they need to make the right saving choices.
  Statements on the progress of specific policies will be provided in the pre-Budget report.

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the future of the Stability and Growth Pact; [79136]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the European Council of Finance Ministers regarding a review of the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact. [79103]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government support a prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. We continue to discuss this with our EU colleagues.

  Tax Processing
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the data on(a) outputs and (b) resources underlying the outcome target for tax processing work as reported in the Inland Revenue Annual Report (Cm5428) in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [78413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Productivity on tax processing work in 2001–02 showed an increase of almost 1 per cent. over the previous year. The Inland Revenue's Public Service Agreement for 2001–04 set out targets for improvements in productivity, over three years. The aim is to achieve, by 31 March 2004, an increase of 7.7 per cent. (cumulative) equivalent to 2.5 per cent. year on year. Initiatives are in place to achieve the step changes in productivity necessary to meet this target. The productivity index for tax processing is calculated by comparing a basket of outputs representative of this work with the staff time spent carrying out the tasks. These include Self Assessment and Corporation Tax returns captured, PAYE end of year returns reconciled and closed and repayment claims processed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fuel Poverty
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will give an undertaking to eradicate fuel poverty by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [77416]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, published in November 2001, sets out the approach of the Government and the Devolved Administrations to tackling fuel poverty. It explains that the goal of the Government and the Devolved Administrations is to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty. In particular they will seek an end to the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. We are currently consulting on a clarification to the strategy which will set a target for the eradication of fuel poverty in respect of households other than those in the vulnerable categories. The consultation period ends 29 November 2002. We intend to produce an annual report on our progress in implementing the Strategy in the new year.
  224W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase public awareness of energy efficient products and services. [77442]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department remains committed to expanding the highly visible mandatory EU energy labelling for appliances and equipment. This also requires the provision of similar consumer information in catalogues and in other product literature which all serve to increase consumer awareness.

  We are also encouraging EU-wide voluntary agreements with manufacturers and service providers which aim to set targets for improved products and services and raise awareness of energy efficiency issues. One aspect of this is to provide reliable, public domain consumer environmental information about their products and services via point-of-sale information and searchable product information data-bases.

  The Energy Saving Trust, which is funded by my Department, encourages the sustainable use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. Work includes an Energy Efficiency campaign to encourage domestic consumers to take up energy efficiency measures. The Trust also runs a product endorsement scheme which signposts customers to products that are the most—or among the most—energy efficient available and aims to increase sales of these products. Products that are accredited under the scheme carry the Energy Efficiency Recommended logo. Decisions about future plans for raising public awareness of energy efficient products and services will be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to allow local authorities to set targets for the improvement of energy efficiency in stock transferred to registered social landlords. [77460]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local Authorities are already able to set such targets. The Housing Transfer Guidance 2002 Programme, issued by DTLR in September 2001, expects a local authority to ensure that each transfer proposal agreed with a new landlord delivers the energy efficiency targets that are implicit in the Government's decent homes target (to ensure all social housing is brought up to a decent standard by 2010).

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with HM Treasury on the ways in which economic policies and instruments might be used to assist home energy efficiency. [77470]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra and HM Treasury have carried out a joint consultation on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency. The results of thisconsultation will be jointly considered, in the context of the wider process of preparing the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year. Any decisions on possible tax changes would be a matter for the Chancellor to consider as part of the Budget process.
  225W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to develop energy efficiency indicators, targets and monitoring mechanisms for each sector of the economy. [77471]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government will respond to the PIU's recommendations in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the United Kingdom spent on assistance to agriculture in the last year for which figures are available; and what assistance was provided from EU sources. [79260]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002 ]: Public expenditure on agriculture in the United Kingdom in the 2000–01 financial year was £3,042million. The UK received £2,720million from the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy in its 2000–01 budget year. These figures include payments of market support, which may not have gone directly to farmers, as traders are also eligible.

  Biofuels Directive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department plans to take on the EU Biofuels Directive; what discussions she has had with those in the agriculture industry on the potential for production and use of non-food crops; and if she will make a statement. [77939]

  Mr. Meacher
  Negotiations on the EU biofuels targets Directive are still taking place and are being led by the Department for Transport. It is anticipated that the outcome of the discussions will be a requirement for member states to set indicative targets for the use of biofuels as a transport fuel by July 2005. The Government recognise that liquid biofuels and nonfood crops in general have potential for UK agriculture and regular discussions are held with farmers and industry representatives on a wide range of non-food crops issues. The Government-Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops, which includes representatives from the farming sector, was set up in 2001 to review market opportunities for non-food crops and make recommendations to Government on policy affecting their use. The Forum is looking at several non-food crop applications, including biodiesel and bioethanol.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the spread of bovine TB to farming areas restocked with cattle following the lifting of movement restrictions imposed after the foot and mouth outbreak last year. [77390]

  Mr. Morley
  All new incidents of bovine TB in cattle are recorded and subject to epidemiological investigation. The information obtained is added to the epidemiological database of information relating to the incidence of bovine TB in Great Britain.
  226W
  Defra has commissioned extensive research into the transmission of bovine TB in restocked herds, this will cover a period of two years following restocking.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets her Department set for the testing of cattle for bovine TB during this year's summer months. [77392]

  Mr. Morley
  TB testing is an important element in the control of bovine TB. Reducing the number of overdue TB tests to an acceptable level following the testing backlog built up during the foot and mouth disease outbreak is one of the Department's priorities and an additional £3 million has been made available to the State Veterinary Service in England and Wales this year to help with this.

  The uptake of testing is traditionally slower in summer months as cattle are out to pasture. While no specific targets were set for the testing of cattle for bovine TB over the summer Defra issued a press notice encouraging farmers to organise their tests. At the end of September the number of outstanding herd tests stood at just over 14,900 tests (down from 27,000 at the end of last year).

  On 9 October Defra announced a package of measures for the control of bovine TB in cattle in England. Part of the package is the imposition of movement restrictions on herds with overdue tests. Movement restrictions are being introduced in stages to reflect the risk of disease attached to overdue tests and taking account of the resources available to test herds.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many new cases have been reported of TB on farms in Gloucestershire in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [79315]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: In the 12-month period 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002, 216 new TB incidents were reported on cattle premises in Gloucestershire.

  The number of TB incidents reported depends on the number of tests carried out and the nature of the testing regime as well as the underlying prevalence of the disease. Testing resources over the 12 month period October 2001 to September 2002 were concentrated on herds with overdue tests following the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. These would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Those currently tested also contain a higher than usual proportion of high risk herds than were being tested prior to the FMD outbreak. As a consequence it is very difficult to assess whether there has been a greater increase in bovine TB than anticipated and it will remain difficult to interpret the numbers of incidents reported until the backlog of tests following the FMD outbreak has been cleared.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the interim assessment she has made of the cause of TB in cattle. [79316]
  227W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Bovine TB in cattle is caused by the organism Mycobacterium bovis. Defra is funding a wide-ranging programme of research into how bovine TB is spread. It includes research into the nature of the disease in cattle; what factors in the environment increase the risk to cattle; the spread of the disease between cattle, and between cattle and wildlife; and the role of the badger and other wildlife in disease transmission. Research is still ongoing. It is too early to draw conclusions at this stage.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is per unit of X-ray equipment capable of the detection of bushmeat in aircraft passenger luggage. [75928]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of X-ray machines varies with size and specification. Trained operators and associated personnel are also required, all of which add to the costs. Defra is investigating the potential for using X-ray machines to detect illegal imports of meat, meat products and bushmeat in passenger baggage and commercial freight entering the UK. Until these investigations are complete, we cannot calculate costings.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with EU entrant countries on CAP reform. [77305]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Whitty met Ministers from Poland, Estonia, Romania and Turkey in July. CAP reform was among the topics discussed. In addition my noble Friend Lord Whitty visited Hungary, the Czech Republic and Estonia in September and CAP reform featured in his discussions with agriculture Ministers there.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts over reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [77941]

  Mr. Morley
  Apart from regular contacts in the Agricultural Council my colleagues and I meet frequently to discuss this on a bilateral basis. Most recently I met with my German opposite number on 24 October and plan to meet my Spanish counterpart on 7 November.

  Civil Service Secondments
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many individuals have been seconded to senior civil servant positions in her Department, in each case listing(a) from which organisation, (b) the duration to date and planned duration of secondment and (c) the source of current salary in secondment post. [78981]
  228W
  Alun Michael
  There has been one individual seconded to a senior civil servant position in this Department since its creation in June 2001. The details are as follows:

  From

  Duration

  Source of current salary

  Warwick University

  March 2002 to March 2007

  Warwick University

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many senior civil servants are seconded from her Department, in each case listing(a) location, (b) duration to date and planned duration of secondment and (c) source of current salary in secondment post. [78982]

  Alun Michael
  There are three senior civil servants seconded from this Department. Details are given in the table.

  Organisation and Location

  Duration

  Source of current salary

  The Carbon Trust—(London

  January 2001 to April 2007

  Defra

  Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR)—London

  February 2001 to February 2003

  OSPAR

  United Nations Environmental Protection (UNEP)—Nairobi, Kenya

  August 2000 to July 2003

  UNEP

  Collection Bins
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce amnesty collection bins for food products at UK air and seaports. [77540]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: We are currently consulting the Home Office, the Department for Transport, HM Customs and Excise, and the relevant ports and airports, on the issues surrounding the provision of amnesty bins or equivalent measures to encourage the surrender of unintended illegal personal imports.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under the Common Agricultural Policy dairy regime, what overall annual level of payments has been made to dairy processing and exporting companies in the UK over the last 10 years, broken down by type of(a) subsidy, (b) company and (c) product. [76614]

  Mr. Morley
  The table details expenditure on a calendar year for each of the dairy processing schemes and the dairy product based export refund schemes administered by the Rural Payments Agency (and previously the Intervention Board) from 1993 to 2002 inclusive. These schemes are prescribed by European Community regulation, but participation in them by the
  229W
  industry is entirely discretionary. Beneficiaries under these schemes include:
  Creameries and traders (suppliers to the industry).
  Manufacturers of pastries, cakes, biscuits, ice-cream, casein/caseinates and concentrated butter for direct consumption.

  Rural payments agency annual payments made to dairy processing and exporting companies in the UK over the last 10 years

  Scheme

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Butter for direct consumption

  160

  2,932

  1,594

  1,191

  1,748

  1,819

  1,046

  1,109

  1,026

  740

  13,365

  butter for manufacture

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23,100

  36,271

  31,700

  29,520

  20,851

  141,442

  Butter for non-profit making organisations

  5,613

  4,471

  4,349

  2,303

  2,893

  2,405

  1,586

  1,008

  1,115

  746

  26,489

  Butter for manufacture

  51,808

  48,897

  57,234

  36,307

  49,009

  20,539

  86

  0

  0

  0

  263,880

  Intervention Butter purchases

  0

  0

  0

  6,987

  36,612

  18,586

  16,677

  15,467

  4,646

  18,986

  117,961

  Control of casein in cheese

  0

  0

  0

  -1

  18

  0

  -13

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Liquid skimmed milk for stockfeed

  677

  365

  341

  87

  167

  146

  53

  15

  0

  0

  1,851

  PSB-Private storage of butter

  989

  1,595

  668

  353

  441

  590

  626

  1,027

  837

  571

  7,697

  Casein and Caseinates

  78

  0

  30

  0

  0

  0

  3,777

  7,420

  420

  0

  11,725

  Skimmed milk powder for animal feed

  6,789

  5,613

  5,603

  2,865

  3,530

  2,431

  2,584

  2,043

  941

  853

  33,252

  Intervention Purchases

  313

  10,355

  0

  40,003

  34,736

  40,424

  25,429

  994

  0

  18,755

  171,009

  Skimmed milk Powder

  Skimmed milk for Russia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  859

  0

  0

  859

  Skimmed milk powder-Export Refund

  8,946

  7,403

  8,741

  3,812

  15,440

  6,322

  8,528

  10,161

  462

  1,871

  71,686

  Whole Milk powder-Export Refunds

  39,776

  51,935

  48,789

  49,315

  70,343

  57,177

  50,595

  48,352

  725

  4,322

  421,329

  Condensed Milk-Export Refunds

  47

  20

  18

  14

  11

  9

  7

  7

  3,551

  476

  4,160

  Butter and butter Oil-Export Refunds

  9,366

  11,247

  7,873

  1,544

  5,800

  1,114

  1,428

  1,531

  1,429

  465

  41,797

  Cheese-Export Refunds

  33,549

  26,565

  15,104

  15,286

  3,430

  4,336

  5,558

  3,986

  22,631

  2

  130,447

  Other Dairy products-Export Refunds

  20,244

  20,055

  18,932

  12,478

  7,778

  5,281

  2,805

  1,134

  6

  28,228

  116,941

  Total

  178,355

  191,453

  169,276

  172,544

  231,956

  184,279

  157,043

  126,813

  67,309

  96,866

  1,575,894

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she will reply to the correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 24 January referring to correspondence dated 23 October 2001 which was referred to her by the Paymaster General relating to constituents who let holiday cottages in an area subject to foot and mouth restrictions. [52099]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General responded to the right hon. Member on 12 June. His original correspondence was sent to this Department inadvertently and was consequently transferred to HM Treasury.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will send a full response to the letter dated 18 April from the hon. Member for Leominster on behalf of Mr. A. T. F. Brodie, a constituent. [77025]

  Mr. Morley
  A response was sent to the hon. Member on 1 November.

  Egg Packers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has, in line with the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food's recommendations, to undertake a formal review of the Supermarkets' Code of Practice in order to increase the certainty and security for egg producers by altering the Code in relation to contractual arrangements between egg packers and supermarkets. [77776]

  Mr. Morley
  We are in discussion with the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for policy on competition issues, over the Policy Commission's recommendations
  230W
  Suppliers of butter to non-profit making organisations.
  Manufacturers of certain animal feedstuffs.
  Manufacturers, suppliers (wholesale and retail) and victuallers who export dairy products to non-member countries.
  The figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  with regard to the code. Our response to these recommendations will be published in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy later this year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to expand existing domestic energy efficiency programmes; [77443]

  (2) when she plans to develop a new strategy for home energy efficiency. [77444]

  Mr. Morley
  Decisions about current and future programmes for tackling domestic energy efficiency, including any future strategy, will be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what improvement in energy efficiency in domestic properties by 2010 she expects to result from local authorities' activities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; what the predictions were in the UK Climate Change Strategy; and if she will make a statement on how the discrepancies will be addressed. [77439]

  Mr. Morley
  Circular 2/96 indicated that the Secretary of State expected energy conservation authorities' reports to show a strategy for making at least substantial progress towards a 30 per cent. improvement over a 10-year period. Improvement in the first six years is just over 8 per cent.. It is therefore clear that authorities are not going to make the improvements they originally hoped for. Decisions about the future role of local authorities in local energy efficiency are expected to be covered in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the(a) number, (b) location, (c) socio-economic

  231W
  characteristics, and (d) amount received of those households who have qualified for grants under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (i) since it began operating and (ii) allocated for future periods; [77588]

  (2) if she will list the (a) number, (b) location, (c) socio-economic characteristics and (d) amount applied for of those households who have applied unsuccessfully for grants under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme since it began operating. [77587]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as The Warm Front Team, and is the Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England. The Scheme was launched in June 2000 and by June 2002 over 400,000 households had received assistance and some £200 million had been spent on installing measures. Warm Front provides insulation and heating measures depending upon the needs of the householder and the property type.

  The Scheme Managers provide, on an annual basis, information on the number, location and measures installed under the scheme to local authorities. However, socio-economic information is not colleted. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 275W. Updated information is not available and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Clients not eligible for assistance are not recorded. The numbers are likely to be significant and additional costs would be incurred in keying and maintaining the two Scheme Managers' databases. As an indication of scale, it is estimated that the two call centres handle in the region of 20,000 calls per week in the winter.

  The level of funding available for future years of Warm Front will be decided by the Department in the new year as part of the spending review process.

  EU Agriculture Spending
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the procedures adopted by the EU if spending on agriculture in any year appears to be likely to exceed the budgetary estimates. [79257]

  Mr. Morley
  Heading 1 of the annual EC budget sets out expenditure appropriations for spending on the Common Agricultural Policy by budget line. In cases where expenditure for any line looked likely to exceed the appropriation the European Commission would be able to propose an in year transfer from another line within the heading. In the event of unavoidable, exceptional or unforeseen circumstances, the Commission may propose during the year that the budget be amended and submit a preliminary draft amending budget to the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission, Council and European Parliament would remain bound by the expenditure ceilings set down in the Financial Perspective and inter-institutional agreement on budget discipline.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the disposal of fallen stock after April 2003; and if she will make available a free service of collection and disposal. [79264]

  Mr. Morley
  Since April 2002, the Government have been holding discussions with livestock and disposal industry stakeholders with the aim of developing a national fallen stock disposal scheme. At a stakeholder meeting on 18 September the collection and disposal industries submitted a joint proposal for a National Fallen Stock collection and disposal scheme. I intend to meet the industry to discuss their proposal. However, it is for the livestock industry, like other industries, to pay for the disposal of its waste.

  Farm Employment
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many persons were employed in the farming industry in each of the past 10 years. [79262]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The answer is as follows:

  Total labour force in England

  Thousand

  1991

  445.0

  1992

  440.2

  1993

  437.7

  1994

  430.9

  1995

  425.2

  1996

  420.5

  1997

  417.0

  1998

  415.0

  1999

  397.7

  2000

  373.9

  2001

  1386.8

  2002 (provisional)

  386.9

  1The figures for June 2000 and 2001 are not directly comparable. Between 2000 and 2001 a review of temporary holdings took place, which resulted in the addition of holdings not previously included in the census. If these holdings had not been included in June 2001 the total agricultural labour force would have been recorded as 368.3 (thousands).

  Notes:

  1. Includes estimates for minor holdings.

  2. The total labour force is that employed on registered agricultural holdings.

  3. The estimates include employees, farmers, partners, directors and their spouses where the spouse works on the holding.

  4. Estimates have been made for non-respondents

  5. Figures exclude school children but include trainees employed under an official youth training scheme and paid at Agricultural Wages Board rates or above.

  6. In 1998, fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions on the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census in England. It appears that this change in questions may have led to the recording of additional Labour who were not previously included in the returns. We therefore advise caution when comparing the 1998 results with previous years.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Farming
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  233W
  encouragement the Government are giving to young people to enter farming; and if she will make a statement. [79242]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: One of the key tasks of Defra is to work with all concerned to develop an economically viable, sustainable, diverse and dynamic farming industry. Providing such an economic framework is the best way of encouraging young people to enter farming. My Department is preparing a response to the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food; including its recommendations on entry into farming, and on ensuring new entrants have the right skills. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Farming (Capping Levels)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with EU Farm Ministers about capping; what steps she is taking to increase the capping levels for UK farms; and if she will make a statement. [79233]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: We have made our position on capping of direct payments clear whenever this has been discussed at the Agriculture Council or at meetings of officials preparing for the council. We oppose capping of these payments in principle and have not taken any steps to modify the proposal by altering the levels at which capping would apply.

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with(a) the European Commission, (b) the French Government and (c) other EU member states regarding the possible impact of (i) pair trawling for bass and (ii) industrial fishing methods upon the wider marine environment and the conservation of cetaceans. [79021]

  Mr. Morley
  Commission proposals for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy include a commitment to bring forward proposals by the end of 2002 to reduce cetacean bycatch and to commission from ICES a study of the impact of industrial fishing on the wider marine environment. These are plans which the UK supports and will be looking to drive forward when they come up for substantive discussion in the CFP review process. I have written to Commissioner Fischler and to the French Minister pressing the need for action in relation to cetacean bycatch, particularly in the bass fishery: the researchers contracted by Defra to trial measures to reduce cetacean bycatch have been meeting contacts from France and elsewhere to secure wider commitment to this work.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the total allowable catch of cod available for each of the fisheries management areas for which cod quotas apply has been caught by each of the member states entitled to catch cod around the seas of the United 234W
  Kingdom (a) in each of the last five years for which figures are available and (b) so far this catching year. [79024]

  Mr. Morley
  The table containing the required data has been placed in the Library.

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of compensation payments made in the foot and mouth epidemic are estimated to have been in excess of the market value of the animals destroyed; and what steps the Department is taking to recover excessive payments. [79407]

  Mr. Morley
  Compensation values for animals destroyed in the foot and mouth epidemic were set in accordance with the Animal Health Act 1981 and reflected the market value i.e. the amount the animal destroyed would have fetched at market had it been sold at the time it was slaughtered.

  Valuations were made by a large number of independent professional valuers operating as MAFF/Defra's appointed experts working on site, with the animals in view and with the herd history, recent herd transactions and historical knowledge of market price obtainable for the breed and category of the animal being valued in the relevant geographical area.

  150 valuations, about 1 per cent. of the number of valuations, were challenged where it was thought the valuations were excessive. The Department sought further evidence from the valuers on these valuations. This evidence was then scrutinised by the Department's professional adviser before payment was made.

  As a result of the scrutiny four valuations were considered excessive. Two were reduced and two others are currently in the Department's Arbitration Unit still to be resolved.

  Fuel Poverty
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group about progress towards meeting the objectives of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy; and how she intends to respond. [77445]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group was set up, following the publication of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy—November 2001, to advise Government on the delivery of its fuel poverty targets. The Group is to report annually to Ministers. The first annual report of the Group is expected around the turn of the year. The representations made will be given due consideration.

  Home Energy Conservation
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department received from local authorities(a) prior to and (b) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill; and if she will list those authorities. [77403]
  235W
  Mr. Morley
  The performance figures for local authorities' progress with their HECA strategies compiled by DEFRA have been collected from the data provided by local authorities in their energy conservation reports. This data have not been subjected to a detailed statistical analysis. Nevertheless, in compiling figures and data relating to the overall position in England, instances where data provided by authorities was clearly incorrect or inappropriate have been pursued with the authority concerned, clarified and, where appropriate, and with the agreement of the authority concerned, amended.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions were held between her Department and the hon. Member for Brighton and Kempton(a) prior to and (b) following the withdrawal of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. [77407]

  Mr. Morley
  There were discussions between Ministers and the hon. Member for Brighton and Kempton at each stage of the Home Energy Conservation Bill. There have been no discussions following the withdrawal of this Bill.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends to adopt as Government policy the target of a 20 per cent. improvement in home energy efficiency by 2010; and if she will make a statement. [77433]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government will respond to the PIU's recommendations in the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she intends to offer further financial support to local authorities to assist them in meeting their targets under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995: [77456]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to fund fully the costs to local authorities of meeting the targets that they have set in their strategies under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and if she will make a statement on any other policies and incentives which she intends to use to ensure that these targets are met. [77438]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have no plans to provide local authorities with the full funding necessary to meet the targets they have set in their HECA strategies. Non-local authority programmes, such as the Government's Warm Front programme and gas and electricity suppliers' Energy Efficiency Commitment, will deliver the majority of the improvements needed to meet these non-statutory targets. The full cost will therefore not fall to local authorities. Any new obligations the Government placed on authorities would, of course, be funded in full.

  Housing
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment procedures are in place to determine whether(a) shelters, (b) bedsits and (c) houses in multiple occupation are fit for habitation. [77422]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.
  236W
  A residential shelter will normally be regarded as a house in multiple occupation for the purpose of the Housing Act 1985 and a traditional bedsit will normally also form part of a house in multiple occupation.

  Section 604 (1) of the Housing Act 1985 provides that a dwelling (including a house in multiple occupation) is fit for human habitation unless the local housing authority is of the opinion it is not reasonably suitable for occupation because it fails to meet one or more basic standards. These include that the dwelling is to be structurally stable, free from damp and serious disrepair; have adequate provisions for lighting, heating, ventilation and supply of water; have adequate facilities for the preparation and cooking of food; have suitably located toilet, bathing and washing facilities and an effective drainage system.

  In addition section 352 (1A) of the Housing Act 1985 sets out further standards which may be applied in relation to a house in multiple occupation by a local housing authority in its determination of whether the property is fit for the number of persons or households occupying it. These standards include that the property has satisfactory facilities for preparing and cooking food; an adequate number of toilet, bathing and washing facilities and an adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Ruffiey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what resources have been provided in the last 12 months to ensure that enforcement officers' searches of suspected illegal meat imports will take place. [76010]

  Mr. Morley
  Searches for illegal imports of meat and meat products form part of the normal duties of port health authorities and local authorities. However, in this financial year, an extra £1.5 million has been allocated for checks to be conducted by additional enforcement officers at ports and airports. Defra is matching funding with the Food Standards Agency to provide additional training for enforcement officers on import rules.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional measures have been taken to comply with the new rules and regulations which come into effect from 1 January 2003 regarding illegal import of meat and dairy products; and how much additional funding has been allocated to policing the rules and regulations. [79263]

  Mr. Morley
  The Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations 2002 will be amended to bring it into line with the new Commission decision on imports of meat and dairy products for personal consumption. Revised penalty posters are being produced, as well as updated information for travellers and airlines. Guidance to enforcement officers is being revised. Stakeholders are being informed of the changes.

  The Government have allocated an extra £1.5 million in this financial year for additional enforcement officers at certain ports and airports.
  237W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions there have been for the illegal importing of meat in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [79282]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Figures on prosecutions for the illegal importation of meat are not collected centrally. Responsibility for prosecutions lies with local authorities. We are however aware of one successful prosecution this year, which was brought by Crawley borough council in July. The London Port health authority issued six cautions in October.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the checks made at ports of entry to the United Kingdom of illegally imported meat; and if she will make a statement. [79319]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: Plans to increase checks at ports of entry to the United Kingdom are at an advanced stage. Additional checks started at two seaports at the beginning of October, are on target to start at a third seaport on 4 November. Two further teams will start work at airports on 11 and 12 November respectively.

  Import Controls
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has had urging her to tighten import controls on meat from(a) the Meat and Livestock Commission, (b) the NFU and (c) others. [75143]

  Mr. Morley
  Frequent high-level meetings, at both ministerial and official levels, have been held with representatives of the NFU and, to a lesser extent, the MLC. Both the MLC and NFU sit on the Illegal Imports Risk Assessment Steering Group. Ben Gill, NFU President, addressed the Illegal Imports Stakeholders' Forum held on 21 March 2002. Also present were the International Meat Trade Association, British Meat Manufacturers' Association, National

  000 tonnes

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Beef and veal

  Home-fed production

  973

  888

  947

  1,002

  710

  698

  699

  679

  706

  645

  Imports

  206

  209

  190

  212

  169

  217

  152

  183

  197

  253

  Total new supply2

  1,014

  885

  844

  880

  799

  901

  842

  853

  892

  889

  Mutton and lamb

  Home-fed production

  401

  402

  395

  403

  383

  351

  385

  403

  389

  265

  Imports

  127

  129

  120

  147

  156

  152

  141

  137

  134

  116

  Total new supply2

  376

  347

  354

  356

  376

  362

  380

  386

  390

  334

  Pork

  Home-fed production

  810

  813

  836

  791

  801

  888

  931

  831

  725

  610

  Imports

  91

  113

  116

  168

  200

  177

  190

  235

  274

  254

  Total new supply2

  768

  796

  798

  771

  806

  817

  829

  831

  790

  807

  Bacon and ham

  Home-fed production

  189

  216

  233

  245

  241

  239

  236

  233

  209

  197

  Imports

  234

  238

  224

  228

  261

  240

  231

  230

  268

  268

  Total new supply2

  418

  450

  451

  467

  497

  471

  459

  457

  468

  460

  Poultrymeat

  Home-fed production

  1,217

  1,277

  1,356

  1,415

  1,476

  1,520

  1,545

  1,525

  1,513

  1,564

  238W
  Beef Association, National Pig Association, National Sheep Association, World Wildlife Fund, UK Association of Frozen Food Producers, Local and Port Health Authorities, British Airports Authority and British Ports Association. Meetings of foot and mouth disease stakeholders groups have been held regularly this year, addressing the issue of illegal imports. We have also received a substantial number of written representations from individuals, and organisations including the W1, Townswomen, Councils, legal firms and agricultural equipment suppliers.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards Commission allowances for intervention stocks to be directed towards deprived persons; what categories of recipients exist; and in how many instances the Government have applied for such relief in the UK. [77253]

  Mr. Morley
  The EC Surplus Food Scheme was introduced in 1988 to reduce intervention stocks and benefit the most deprived persons in the Community (those receiving income support, family credit, disability working allowance, together with those living in welfare hostels, and the homeless and destitute). The UK withdrew from the scheme from 1996 because of the reduction of EC food mountains.

  Meat Statistics
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much meat was(a) produced in the UK, (b) consumed in the UK and (c) imported into the UK in the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [79240]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The following table shows the volume of UK home-fed production, UK imports and UK total new supply of meat for the years 1992–2001.

  Supplies indicate the amount of meat available for immediate consumption in the UK.
  239W

  000 tonnes

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Imports

  183

  170

  214

  251

  281

  277

  316

  349

  355

  343

  Total new supply2

  1,316

  1,361

  1,458

  1,503

  1,584

  1,584

  1,664

  1,687

  1,694

  1,730

  Total

  Home-fed production

  3,591

  3,596

  3,767

  3,856

  3,611

  3,695

  3,798

  3,670

  3,541

  3,281

  Imports

  840

  859

  864

  1,006

  1,067

  1,062

  1,031

  1,135

  1,228

  1,234

  Total new supply2

  3,891

  3,839

  3,905

  3,977

  4,062

  4,135

  4,175

  4,214

  4,235

  4,221

  12001 data are provisional.

  2 Total new supply = home-fed production plus imports minus exports, and is the total amount of produce available for consumption.

  Source:

  DEFRA Statistics website, www.defra,gov.uk/esg

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about(a) the areas included and (b) the exclusion of river water in the nitrate vulnerable zone scheme; how it will be policed; and how many extra forms will be generated by it. [79243]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The Nitrates Directive requires the identification of polluted waters using the following criteria: (a) surface and groundwaters which contain or could contain, if preventative action is not taken, nitrate concentrations greater than 50 mg/l; (b) surface waters which are or could become, if preventative action is not taken, eutrophic.

  The Nitrates Directive then requires all known land draining into these waters, from which agriculture could contribute to the pollution, to be designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). Around 55 per cent. of England has been designated as NVZs on the basis that it drains into these waters.

  The Environment Agency (EA) are adopting a risk based approach to the enforcement of action programme measures which farmers located in the NVZs will be required to apply from 19 December 2002. The EA will prioritise farms that have the greatest potential for nitrate loss rather than visiting all farms, and will aim to work with farmers to help achieve compliance over a period of time.

  There is no requirement for farmers to fill in any new forms to comply with this legislation. Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones are expected to keep records of their application of manures and fertilisers. However, there is complete flexibility for farmers to do this in whatever way is most convenient for them, including using existing field records.

  Non-food Uses of Crops
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops has made; and if she will make a statement. [79869]

  Mr. Meacher
  Over the past year the forum has met six times and has been working on a number of studies of areas of potential development in the non-food crops sector. Examples include biopackaging, the use of natural fibres in composite materials, biosolvents and biolubricants. The forum has also considered generic 240W
  issues which affect this sector. The forum published its first annual report in August 2002 which details its work and sets out its first series of recommendations to Government. I am placing copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Pigswill
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the EU about EU member states still using pigswill. [76314]

  Mr. Morley
  In negotiations on the EU Animal By-Products Regulation, the UK opposed any delay in introducing an EU-wide ban on swill feeding. However, to secure adoption of the regulation, the UK accepted that a transition period might be appropriate for two member states, Austria and Germany, providing suitable controls were in place during that period.

  Public Paths
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government intend to bring forward statutory instruments to implement the part of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that will reclassify roads used as public paths as restricted byways. [79379]

  Alun Michael
  Our aim is to consult on the content of the regulations needed to implement the restricted byway provisions no later than March 2003.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many roads used as public paths have been reclassified as bridleways following review of their usage in accordance with section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; [79381]

  (2) how many roads used as public paths have been reclassified as byways open to all traffic following review of their usage in accordance with section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; [793831]

  (3) how many roads used as public paths have been reclassified as footpaths following review of their usage in accordance with section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [79382]

  Alun Michael
  The reclassification of RUPPS is the responsibility of Highway Authorities. The information sought is not available centrally.

  River Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she has received a proposal from the Parrett catchment project to fund a sluice on the River Parrett; [78751]

  (2) if she has received a proposal from the Parrett catchment project for a sluice on the Parrett. [78747]

  Mr. Morley
  A tidal sluice is one of the component options being considered by the Environment Agency (EA) as part of its Parrett Catchment Water Management Action Plan. The EA advises that the technical, environmental and economic evaluation of options is on-going and Defra has not yet received any formal proposal for the proposed sluice on the River Parrett.

  School Milk Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on the School Milk Scheme in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78385]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: For the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 the expenditure on School Milk Subsidy was £8,010,877.57.

  For year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 the expenditure increased to £8,632,079.31.

  For year 1 April 2002 to 29 October 2002 the expenditure was £5,849,398.72.

  Water Courses
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency regarding the cleaning of water courses; and if she will make a statement. [79237]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 November 2002]: The Department has frequent discussions with the Environment Agency on reducing pollution from water courses.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been carried out to establish that a customer threshold of 50 megalitres per annum in non-domestic water supply will enable a new entrant to make a viable financial return. [77013]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published a consultation paper on July 31; "Extending Opportunities for Competition in the Water Industry in England and Wales". This proposed competition only in the non-household sector, with an eligibility threshold 242W
  of a minimum of 50 megalitres (M1) a year. The consultation period closed on 1 October and we are now considering responses.

  In preparing the proposals, assessment was made of the broad cost breakdown between the main elements of the supply chain, the likely scope for making savings on these, and the ranges of charges paid by users. Experience shows that the market will determine financial viability in a competitive environment.

  These issues will be taken into consideration as we balance the need to create opportunities for competition while continuing to secure the Government's wider objectives for the water industry, which include protecting public health, the environment, social and economic goals, and safeguarding services for household customers.

  Wood for Good Campaign
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution the Wood for Good campaign is making towards the goal of ensuring that all timber into the UK is from legal and sustainable sources. [77581]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The impact of the Wood for Good campaign has recently been evaluated by an independent consultancy. The study showed that the campaign is meeting its objectives. These objectives do not include ensuring that all imported timber is from legal and sustainable sources. However, the campaign has improved understanding of the environmental safeguards in wood supplied from the member countries. The demand for construction timber from the member countries has increased and is attributed in part to the campaign.

  Woodland Grants Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was made available through the Woodland Grants Scheme in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and how many applicants and how much was received by each recipient through the scheme in each of those years. [78393]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The information is given in the table.

  Total paid

  Number of schemes for which payments were made

  Number of payments made

  2000–01

  16,513,784

  7,639

  8,898

  2001–02

  15,796,737

  7,063

  8,065

  2002–03 (to date)

  9,602,179

  4,816

  5,333

  Some applicants have more than one scheme and some have received more than one payment in a year. A list of individual payments would involve thousands of entries, and has not therefore been produced.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the possible effects if Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong is enacted; and what representations he is making to the Government of the People's Republic of China. [77173]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government have published outline proposals—but not yet draft legislation—on implementing Article 23. We have made clear to them that any legislation should be consistent with the principles of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong and the two UN human rights covenants.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the state of the international coalition against terrorism. [77174]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The coalition against terrorism that we helped to build in the aftermath of 11 September remains resolute in its objective to eradicate terrorism as a force in international affairs. It has a long list of achievements to its credit: apart from Afghanistan, terrorists have been disrupted and arrested around the world, and there have been significant steps forward in international co-operation. But we have no illusions about how much more needs to be done.

  Poland
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Poland. [77176]

  Mr. MacShane
  Relations between the UK and Poland are excellent.

  Pakistan
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the outcome of the recent provincial and parliamentary elections. [77178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. They are an important milestone in Pakistan's on-going transition to democracy. The next crucial step is the transfer of power to the new National Assembly and establishing its role. We are committed to remaining engaged with Pakistan throughout the transition.

  Israel
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [77179]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Lasting security can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement, not through force. We are committed to reviving final status negotiations by the end of the year. They must have 244W
  explicitly as their aims an Israeli state free from terror and a viable Palestinian state based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We fully support the efforts of the Quartet to agree a roadmap which sets out a series of steps, leading to a final and comprehensive settlement by 2005. The priority now is to agree and implement the roadmap.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of(a) disagreement and (b) agreement he has with the US Administration about the Israel-Palestinian negotiations. [77183]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the House on 25 June my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary welcomed the approach to restarting the peace process set out in President Bush's speech of 24 June. We continue to work closely with the US to turn President Bush's vision of a final settlement within three years into a reality. What ever tactical disagreements might arise we are committed to working together to resolve them without delay.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives he has undertaken to promote a peaceful dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [77192]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Lasting security can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement, not through force. We are committed to reviving final status negotiations by the end of the year. They must have explicitly as their aims an Israeli state free from terror and a viable Palestinian state based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We fully support the efforts of the Quartet to agree a roadmap which sets out a series of steps, leading to a final and comprehensive settlement by 2005. The priority now is to agree and implement the roadmap.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, What action he is taking to secure a peace settlement in the Middle East on the basis of UN Resolutions 242 and 338. [77197]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Lasting security can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement, not through force. We are committed to reviving final status negotiations by the end of the year. They must have explicitly as their aims an Israeli state free from terror and a viable Palestinian state based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We fully support the efforts of the Quartet to agree a roadmap which sets out a series of steps, leading to a final and comprehensive settlement by 2005. The priority now is to agree and implement the roadmap.

  Nigeria
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to tackle the human rights abuses involved in Northern Nigeria states' use of Sharia law. [77180]

  Mr. Rammell
  In September my noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Minister for Africa, raised with President Obasanjo HMG's concerns about the harsh sentences imposed under the Sharia penal codes. She
  245W
  emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK and reiterated HMG's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. The high commission, together with EU partners, regularly raises our concerns about the sentences with the appropriate authorities in Nigeria.

  Zimbabwe
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [77182]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss Zimbabwe with our EU partners, at official, ministerial and Heads of Government level. We have worked hard to achieve an EU consensus on policy towards Zimbabwe. This resulted in the EU's Common Position of 18 February, which imposed an EU wide travel ban and an assets freeze on key members of the Mugabe regime. The EU has extended the sanctions twice since February and they now apply to 79 people. We are in regular contact with EU partners to ensure that the sanctions are applied in accordance with the Common Position.

  Our dialogue with EU partners on Zimbabwe is on-going. The Minister for Africa, Baroness Amos, is travelling to Maputo in Mozambique this week, for talks between EU Foreign Ministers and Ministers representing the 14 SADC countries.

  Finland
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Finland. [77184]

  Mr. MacShane
  Bilateral relations are good. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last met the Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen bilaterally in London on 21 October and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Finnish opposite Erkki Tuomioja on 27 September. We are close EU partners and trading with Finland.

  Kashmir
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has had with his counterparts in India and Pakistan about human rights abuses in Kashmir. [77186]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has raised human rights abuses regularly with the Governments of India and Pakistan, including during his last visit to the region on 18–20 July. I also recently discussed a wide range of human rights issues, including Kashmir, during my visit to India on 17 October.

  Mr. Peter Devlin
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in the case of(a) Peter Devlin from Falmouth and (b) other divers involved in the Friesland salvage. [77187]
  246W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When our consular staff in Madrid were notified on 21 June of the men's detention they contacted the court and were told that Mr. Devlin and the other divers had been released pending further investigations. Our consular staff in London have spoken to Mr. Devlin on five occasions about the matter and our Honorary Consul in Vigo spoke to the judge hearing the case who confirmed that some, but not all, of the men's equipment would be released. My noble Friend Baroness Amos wrote to my hon. Friend on 11 October explaining that this was a legal matter and that the company should be guided by its lawyer.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on progress towards EU enlargement. [77188]

  Mr. MacShane
  In line with the objective first set by the Prime Minister, the Brussels European Council agreed that ten candidate countries should be ready to join the EU in 2004 (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). It also confirmed the objective of completing negotiations with these countries this year. Brussels also confirmed that enlargement will not stop there. The UK welcomes the progress made by Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

  Colombia
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, What recent discussions he has had with the Colombian Government in connection with their efforts to restore peace and security. [77193]

  Mr. Rammell
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited Colombia from 6–8 October. He met President Uribe and other Ministers, and representatives of British and Colombian NGOs and Colombian Trade Unions. He emphasised our willingness to help tackle Colombia's grave problems as well as the importance of further progress on human rights.

  Iraq
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, What recent discussions his Department has had with the US Administration concerning Iraq. [77194]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss Iraq with the United States and our other Security Council partners. It is essential that we maintain the pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations under UN resolutions, including on disarmament, through a tough new United Nations resolution that will ensure the weapons inspectors can complete their task effectively.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, If he will make a statement on the UN weapons inspection programme for Iraq. [77200]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA are responsible for ensuring that a work programme for
  247W
  inspections in Iraq is drawn up. It is envisaged that the task of drawing up a work programme will take some 45 days after the arrival in Iraq of inspection teams. The work programme will then be put before the UN Security Council for approval.

  Iran
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, What steps are being taken by the Government to encourage the Government of Iran to guarantee human rights for all its citizens. [77195]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We raise human rights issues with the Iranian authorities at all levels. My right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary did so while in Iran on 9 October. We supported the recent EU decision to establish a formal dialogue on human rights with Iran with the hope that this will bring about improvements in Iran's respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We have made clear that we expect to see concrete results and will assess progress before taking a decision on whether to sponsor a resolution at the Commission on Human Rights.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [77198]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my honourable Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my honourable Friend the Member for Rhonnda.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the breach of UN sanctions by European countries on the sale of arms. [77199]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government works to ensure the rigorous enforcement of United Nations (UN) Sanctions and takes all breaches very seriously. When the Government receives information regarding an alleged breach by a third country we raise the issue with the country concerned. We also where appropriate ensure that the breach is acted on by the relevant UN Sanctions Committee.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans are in place to provide continuing security to Afghanistan through the International Security Assistance Force. [79664]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Nations Security Council Resolution authorising the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and its immediate environs will expire on 20 December. There is, however, a clear need for ISAF to remain in Kabul for the foreseeable future. We are in discussion with our UN partners about an extension beyond that date. The provisional offer made by Germany and the Netherlands on 24 September to replace Turkey as lead 248W
  nation of ISAF is very welcome and is an important sign of the international community's continued commitment to sustaining ISAF for as long as it is required.

  Bali
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the remains of British citizens killed in the Bali bombing to be returned to relatives in the United Kingdom. [79524]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The remains of 14 victims of the Bali bombing have been repatriated.

  We are still awaiting the positive identification of three British victims. This is expected to be completed within the next few weeks.

  Four British Citizens are still missing.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the British Government are giving to the Indonesian and Australian authorities who are engaged in the identification process of those murdered in the Bali bombing. [79525]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We immediately sent a team of police officers led by the anti-terrorism branch to Bali including investigators, family liaison officers and officers skilled in identification processes. A UK coroner and pathologist travelled to Bali to ensure the Indonesian/Australian identification and repatriation processes were in line with ours. Police and consular staff are present throughout the day in the local mortuary. British police also arranged for relatives' DNA samples both in the UK and overseas to be taken and transferred to Australia for profiling.

  Beryllium
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's Answer of 22nd October,Official Report, column 247W, on beryllium, what end-use monitoring has been undertaken in relation to the export of beryllium to Iran. [78875]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Nigel Griffiths) on 28 October 2002,Offical Report, Columns 531–532W, the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that UK exports are not misused, diverted or re-exported to undesirable end-uses. A risk assessment was made at the licensing stage of this export, including careful examination of information about the proposed end-use and end-user of the goods. We continue to believe that the export of less than half an ounce of beryllium to the University of Science and Technology in Tehran is not of concern with respect to use in weapons of mass destruction and that the end-use stated in the original export licence application was legitimate. In these circumstances we have considered end-use monitoring not to be necessary for this export.

  Bus Lanes (Government Cars)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Government car service vehicle in which he was a passenger last travelled outside the exempted hours on bus lanes; and what exemption there is to rules about passenger cars using bus lanes in central London for ministerial cars. [78488]

  Mr. Straw
  The official vehicles in which I travel are not operated by the Government car service. They are adapted for police use, and are driven by police officers who are subject to the same provisions of the law as other officers in similar circumstances.

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments there have been in the constitutional review process in the Cayman Islands. [79982]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have now completed our review of the report of the Constitutional Review Commissioners and associated papers, forwarded by the Governor of the Cayman Islands in August. We have invited representatives of both Government and Opposition parties to an informal meeting in London on 9–11 December to discuss how to take the various proposals forward. I have made arrangements for the relevant reports to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Eritrean authorities concerning persecution of evangelical Christians in that country. [79190]

  Mr. Rammell
  In May this year, the Ministry of Information ordered all minority religious groups to register or cease all activities. The outcome of the registration process is not yet clear.

  Our Ambassador in Asmara, along with other EU Missions, raised the issue of human rights at every opportunity. He discussed the issue of registration of minority churches with the relevant Minister in June.

  We will continue to raise breaches of fundamental human rights bilaterally and with EU Partners.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the attacks carried out against human rights workers in Guatemala; [78774]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Guatemala; [78773]

  (3) what representations he has made to the Government of Guatemala regarding implementation of the commitments it made to the Grupo Consultivo in February. [78775]

  Mr. Rammell
  The human rights situation in Guatemala has improved since the end of the civil war in 1996. But it remains unsatisfactory. MINUGUA 250W
  (UN Verification Mission to Guatemala) has expressed deep concern at the increase in intimidation against human rights activists, politicians, members of the judiciary and media involved in efforts to confront impunity. The UK shares MINUGUA's concerns and will continue to work with the EU to urge the Government of Guatemala to take all necessary measures to protect these groups and bring human rights abusers to justice quickly.

  When my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) visited Guatemala in May this year he saw for himself the difficulties facing human rights defenders. In his discussions with the Government, he emphasised the importance HMG attaches to human rights.

  HMG urges the Government of Guatemala to implement all unfulfilled commitments under the Peace Accords, particularly those relating to human rights. The UK, with the EU, will continue to monitor the human rights' situation in Guatemala, and the Government's efforts to honour their commitments.

  International donors (including the UK) will review the Guatemalan Government's progress at the follow-up meeting of the Consultative Group (The "Group Consultivo")in spring 2003. This will not be a formality.

  Lisbon Council
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the economic objectives agreed at the Lisbon Council. [77171]

  Mr. MacShane
  There has been progress in the sense of 5 million new jobs in the EU since 2000, and cheaper telephone calls thanks to telecom liberalisation but the EU needs to go further in order to advance its ambition of being the world's most dynamic and job creating economy by 2010.

  Ministerial Meetings (Namibia)
  Mr Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of Namibia; whether he discussed the present land situation in Zimbabwe; what other matters were discussed; what plans he has to assess the need for a legal programme of land resettlement in Namibia; and if he will make a statement. [78804]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding reply of 4 November]. We support the need for land reform in Namibia, but any programme must be transparent and within the rule of law. My noble Friend the Minister for Africa met the Namibian Foreign Minister on 17 September. She raised our concerns about land reform in both Namibia and Zimbabwe. On the same day, President Nujoma addressed the Namibian Agricultural Union assuring them that land reform would proceed within the rule of law and would be transparent.

  PLO (Intifada)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations with Chairman Arafat of the PLO regarding the intifada. [78441]
  251W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  International efforts are currently focussed on ending violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories, including the current intifada, by restarting a process of negotiation which will lead to a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. We continue to give those efforts our full support.

  Poppy Farming
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the change in levels of poppy farming since the overthrow of the Taliban regime. [77190]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK contributes funds to the opium poppy survey in Afghanistan conducted by the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. It reported on 25 October that poppy cultivation in 2002 was 74,000 hectares. This is more than in 2001, but significantly less than the record level in 1999 when 91,583 hectares were cultivated.

  Prisoners (Peru)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Peruvian Government concerning(a) the imprisonment of Olga Gonzalez Zevallos, Jorge Julian Godoy and Carlos Yalle Laura and (b) the incarceration of other prisoners who have been recommended for release by the Peruvian Government's Pardoning Commission. [79189]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our Embassy in Lima last raised these cases with the Peruvian Ministry of Justice on 31 October. The Ministry said that the cases are being reviewed but admit delays are occurring in the process due to lack of resources.

  Private Sector Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what committee within his Department overseas the placement and monitoring of secondments from outside organisations to his Department. [78154]

  Mr. Rammell
  British Trade International—the joint DTI/FCO body responsible for trade development and promotion of inward investment—overseas the placement and monitoring of secondments from outside organisations to Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In doing so BTI respects the Cabinet Office guidelines on interchange and the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

  Radio Voice of Hope
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department is contributing towards the South Sudanese radio station Radio Voice of Hope. [79386]

  Mr. Rammell
  HMG has not contributed to Radio Voice of Hope.

  Somalia
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Somalia. [77181]
  252W
  Mr. Rammell
  I join the international community in welcoming the ceasefire deal signed on 27 October by Somali groups taking part in the peace and reconciliation conference at Eldoret. I hope it will pave the way for a return to peace and stability in Somalia.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) situation and (b) peace negotiations in Sudan. [77177]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army resumed the peace talks on 14 October and have agreed a cessation of hostilities and unrestricted humanitarian access for the duration of the talks. We welcome these developments and shall continue to provide our full support as they work for a just and lasting peace.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of Operation Lifeline Sudan; and whether flights are reaching those people in need of food and other necessities. [79387]

  Mr. Rammell
  Operation Lifeline Sudan remains the principal mechanism by which humanitarian assistance is provided to war-affected areas in Sudan. The UN and the Humanitarian Affairs Commission and the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Authority met in Nairobi on 25 October, they discussed the implementation of unrestricted humanitarian access agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding on the Cessation of Hostilities on 17 October. We warmly welcome these developments.

  We continue to urge all parties to give all possible help to the UN and non governmental organisations (NGOs) to ensure speedy delivery of humanitarian assistance. Our Ambassador in Khartoum raised the general issue of humanitarian access with the Sudanese Minister of International Co-operation on 24 October.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on funding arrangements through the UNHCR for refugees in the Sudan. [79388]

  Mr. Rammell
  This year the UK is providing a core contribution of £14 million to UNHCR and in each of the following years (£56 million over four years). Sudan is one of UNHCR'spriorities.

  Sudan-Eritrea Relations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Sudan and Eritrea. [79385]

  Mr. Rammell
  Relations between Sudan and Eritrea were formally restored in January 2000. Recent tension caused by fighting in eastern Sudan has affected relations between the two countries. But this has eased since the signing on 17 October of a Memorandum of Understanding on a cessation of hostilities between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Taiwan. [79035]

  Mr. Rammell
  HMG does not recognise Taiwan as an independent state. We acknowledge the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan is one of the world's largest economies and a key economic partner for the UK. Although we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we are keen to develop further economic, financial, cultural, educational, science and technology and other exchanges where we have mutual interests. The British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei actively promotes these exchanges and represents British interests in Taiwan in the absence of formal relations.

  Terrorism
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, If he will make a statement about the state of the international coalition against terrorism. [77196]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The coalition against terrorism that we helped to build in the aftermath of 11 September remains resolute in its objective to eradicate terrorism as a force in international affairs. It has a long list of achievements to its credit: apart from Afghanistan, terrorists have been disrupted and arrested around the world, and there have been significant steps forward in international cooperation. But we have no illusions about how much more needs to be done.

  Trade Relations
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to promote trade relations between India and the United Kingdom. [77189]

  Mr. Rammell
  Trade Partners UK is a joint FCO and DTI organisation, established to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas sales and investments. It has a comprehensive business plan to help UK firms expand their activity in the Indian Market. This includes a wide range of activities in business sectors where there are commercial opportunities.

  The New Delhi Declaration signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in January this year, includes a section highlighting the importance of our bilaterial trade and investment relationship.

  Uzbekistan
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's relations with Uzbekistan with particular reference to human rights and religious freedom. [76657]
  254W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK's relationship with Uzbekistan is developing well. Since 1992 we have seen Embassies established both in Uzbekistan and the UK. Both are extremely active and are doing much to bring the relationship forward. Education and drugs co-operation are key elements of that relationship.

  Much of the UK's work in Uzbekistan is devoted to pressing for improvements in the human rights situation. Bilaterally, and through the EU and the OSCE, we have urged Uzbekistan to take greater steps towards democratisation and respect for human rights. We recognise that there have been some small steps to address the human rights situation, including an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture. But Uzbekistan needs to do much more. In particular, we would like to see reform of the criminal justice system, and wider recognition of independent human rights groups, religious groups and political parties. We stand ready to help Uzbekistan make these improvements, in line with its international obligations and commitments.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking, within the United Nations, to secure the right of unrestricted access of weapons inspectors to identify whether Russia has been acquiring undeclared weapons of mass destruction. [78569]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Russia is a State Party to all the major arms control treaties governing weapons of mass destruction—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Russia already complies with the inspection requirements imposed by its treaty obligations.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Zimbabwe. [78442]

  Mr. Rammell
  Relations between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe are poorer than at any time since Zimbabwe's independence in 1980. The ZANU (PF) regime has undermined the democratic principles on which an independent Zimbabwe was founded. It has manipulated the democratic process to retain power, as clearly seen during the presidential election in March and in elections since. It has used violence, intimidation and the withholding of food aid to cow the opposition and gain political advantage. It has seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary and subverted the rule of law. It has systematically attacked Zimbabwe's free and independent media. Its record on human rights abuses is appalling. Its economic and land policies are major contributors to the current humanitarian crisis. Relations between the UK and Zimbabwe will not improve until a government in Harare makes a genuine attempt to address these concerns.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include figures for patients awaiting diagnostic tests in the national cancer waiting lists currently published by the NHS. [75771]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out waiting time targets for cancer. These targets aim to reduce the amount of time patients have to wait from urgent referral to beginning treatment, which will include the diagnostic phase, and from diagnosis of cancer to first treatment. We have no plans to include waiting times for individual diagnostic tests in cancer waiting times monitoring.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the number of patients that have been denied treatment with specific cancer drugs, including Herceptin, owing to delays in obtaining NICE guidance. [75801]

  Ms Blears
  Prior to publication of recommendations by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Department received numerous representations about the availability of Glivec for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia; Herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer and MabThera for the treatment of follicular lymphoma.

  The appraisal process, from referral to completion, has been designed to allow the full participation of patients, clinicians, companies and stakeholders. NICE is fully aware of the need to ensure that the process is as streamlined as possible, without losing any of the important safeguards it contains, in order to publish guidance soon after the treatments are launched.

  It is not acceptable for funding authorities to refuse to fund a newly licensed treatment just because it is awaiting appraisal by NICE. Decisions on funding should be based on local consideration of the available evidence when NICE appraisals are awaited.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there were in each of the last five years; and how many he expects there to be in the next 12 months. [78698]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average daily number of beds in acute wards in England since 1996 is:

  Year

  Acute beds

  1996–1997

  108,869

  1997–1998

  107,807

  1998–1999

  107,729

  1999–2000

  107,218

  2000–2001

  107,956

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03

  The NHS Plan made a commitment to increase the number of beds in general & acute wards by 2,100 by 2004.

  BCG Vaccination
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the suspension of BCG vaccination programmes in schools. [78849]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 November 2002.]: There have been concerns over the school BCG programme following Evans Vaccines Ltd. withdrawing all batches of the BCG vaccine as a precautionary measure. However, the Danish company Statens Serum Institut (SSI) were granted a trading licence by the Medicines Control Agency for its BCG vaccine on 9 September this year.

  Stocks of SSI's BCG vaccine are currently being packaged for the UK market and we hope to receive this in mid-November. Once BCG supplies are available, the priority will be to vaccinate those at highest risk of tuberculosis, principally new born babies whose parents are from higher risk communities or who live in high risk areas. The schools programme will then follow on afterwards.

  Biological Drugs
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he intends to provide to patients regarding the safe(a) transport, (b) storage and (c) use of biological drugs. [78489]

  Ms Blears
  information regarding the transport, storage and use of biological drugs is specifically provided on the product label and, in more detail, in the patient information leaflet (PIL). The PIL is supplied with the packaged product. Information and advice on transport, storage and handling of each medicinal product is based upon the scientific data, including the stability of the drug in the final packaging, which is evaluated as part of the marketing authorisation application.

  Biotechnology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has funded this year to consider the impact of patenting biotechnology inventions on health care provision; for what purpose such studies were funded; and when they will be published. [77875]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has commissioned an independent study into the impact and management of intellectual property rights within the health care sector. This fulfils the commitment made in the Government's response to the report on human genetic databases from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place. The study is proceeding in two stages. The first stage is complete and a report entitled "Identification of Intellectual Property Rights Relating to Healthcare" was published in September 2002. A conference to discuss the outputs of the second stage of the study and to build a consensus on possible actions is being planned for 12 February 2003.

  Blood Products
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to submit all blood and blood derivative products available in the United Kingdom to the Medicines Control Agency; [75003]
  257W
  (2) what plans he has for all plasma products to be evaluated by NICE. [75005]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to submit blood and blood components to the Medicines Control Agency for licensing. We do not believe that doing so would confer any additional public health benefit. The Medicines Control Agency already ensures that the United Kingdom blood services meet European good manufacturing practice standards. In addition, the new European Blood Directive will, when adopted, require the accreditation of all blood establishments to ensure common standards of safety and quality in blood and blood components across all Members States. We have no plans to refer the use of all plasma products to NICE for evaluation. Safety issues relating to plasma products fall within the remit of the United Kingdom expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation (MSBT). MSBT seeks specialist advice where necessary or includes the relevant specialists among its members.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safety of fresh frozen plasma and methylene blue treated plasma; and if he will make a statement. [75004]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation (MSBT) is continuing to consider the relative efficacy and risks of the different types of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) available. United Kingdom FFP is already a very safe product. To minimise the risk from viruses, it is made only from previously tested blood donors. The current high levels of safety are achieved by screening out potential high risk donors and then further testing every unit of donated blood for the presence of infections such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. FFP produced by the national blood service (NBS), using UK donors, has also been leucodepleted to remove white cells, which evidence suggests may carry the greatest risk of transmitting vOD. Over 300,000 units of FFP are issued annually and it is only given in life-threatening situations to prevent or stop haemorrhage associated with abnormal blood clotting. MSBT has recommended importing single unit FFP from the United States. On 15 August 2002 the Government announced that imported FFP will be used for new-born babies and young children born after 1 January 1996, as an added precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD transmission. On the advice of MSBT, US sourced FFP will be virally inactivated using methylene blue (MB) treatment. MB has been administered in medical practice since 1900, and in much larger doses (many thousand-fold) than the NBS will be using. NBS will be removing more than 90 per cent, of MB before the FFP is issued to National Health Service hospitals. MB is a registered medical device under the Medical Devices Directive and has a European safety (CE) marking.

  Cardiac Surgical Services
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further cardiac surgical services are planned in West London; and when they will be operational. [77970]
  258W
  Mr. Hutton
  The parallel developments at Hammersmith Hospital and the Paddington Basin will see the creation of two specialist centres for heart surgery in north west London in modern facilities to replace the existing centres. The two centres will provide benefits of greater service concentration, including integration with a wider range of services, and a strengthened teaching and research capacity. Whilst the developments are underway investment is being made to improve existing services. This includes creating more surgical capacity where possible and replacing worn out equipment, including operating theatres and catheter laboratories to ensure that services continue to improve in line with patient and Government expectations.

  Child Protection
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many child protection officers who had been in post for more than one year were active in each London borough and metropolitan borough in the last year; [78018]

  (2) how many child protection officers were active in each London borough and metropolitan borough in each of the past five years. [78017]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data on the number of staff working in child protection are not available centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Department of Health plays in ensuring adequate child protection among vulnerable families living in Army garrisons. [78029]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for the protection of the children of service families, including those living in army garrisons. All three armed services also provide professional welfare support, including "special to type" social work services and, in some cases, medical services to augment those provided by local authorities. When UK service families are based overseas, the responsibility for the protection of their children is vested with the Ministry of Defence.

  The Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment, in jointly revising the "Working Together to Safeguard Children" child protection guidance, were careful to remember the particular needs of children living in army garrisons. Appendix 2 of this guidance provides points of contact for armed forces arrangements for child protection.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to continue the pilot project for dealing with small clinical negligence claims; and if he will make a statement. [77917]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Chief Medical Officer has been reviewing arrangements for handling clinical negligence claims. Plans to implement any future measures for handling clinical negligence claims will be developed later this year in the light of Ministers consideration of the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations for reform.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 25 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms J. Hamnett.[79446]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 4 November.

  Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to fund research into finding a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. [77617]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on 30 October.

  District Nurses
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many initial contacts per district nurse there were in each of the past five years. [78056]

  Mr. Hutton
  District nurses are registered nurses who have undertaken further training as specialist community practitioners (district nursing). Most district nurses lead teams of staff nurses and health care assistants who will not have been included in the figures requested.

  The number of initial contacts per whole time equivalent district nurse in the past five years is shown in the following table.

  Year

  Number of initial contacts per district nurse (w.t.e.)

  1997–98

  5.1

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  5.1

  2000–01

  5.4

  2001–02

  5.4

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division Form KC56 and non-medical workforce census

  Domiciliary Oxygen Service
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the review of the domiciliary oxygen service to be concluded. [78094]

  Ms Blears
  The review is at an advanced stage, but I cannot say at present when it will be completed.

  Finnish Nurses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Finnish nurses are employed by the NHS. [77623]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the numbers of Finnish nurses employed in the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

  There is currently no government to government arrangement with Finland regarding the recruitment of Finnish nurses.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74993]

  Ms Blears
  A table listing focus groups and their purpose carried out by my Department since June 2001 has been placed in the Library. The Department's expenditure on these can only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  Health Allocation (Review)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) guidelines and (b) criteria are for the review of health allocation to local health trusts. [78616]

  Mr. Hutton
  The existing formula used to allocate National Health Service resources has been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA). ACRA's terms of reference are to advise the Secretary of State for Health on the distribution of resources across primary and secondary care. Guidelines for the review are to put in place new mechanisms to distribute NHS cash more fairly and that the healthcare needs of populations, including the impact of deprivation, will be the driving force in determining where the cash goes. The main criterion of the review has been to contribute to the reduction in avoidable health inequalities.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of inequalities in access to health care services in England and their relationship with income inequality; and if he will make a statement. [77797]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The NHS Plan emphasised the importance of reducing inequalities in access to national health service service as part of an overall effort to improve health and reduce inequality.

  Following the assessment of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, it recognised that the worst health problems will not be tackled without dealing with their fundamental causes, including poverty and economic and social disadvantage.

  That is why we introduced national health inequalities targets in 2001:
  starting with children under one year, by 2010 to reduce by at least 10 per cent., the gap in mortality between "routine and manual" groups and the population as a whole.
  starting with local authorities, by 2010 to reduce by at least 10 per cent., the gap between the fifth of areas with the lowest life expectancy at birth and the population as a whole.
  and gave priority to improving access of care to all services and reducing health inequalities in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06 published on 2 October.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he will take of rurality in his revised allocation formula for funding primary care trusts. [78460]

  Mr. Hutton
  The existing formula used to allocate national health service resources has been reviewed by the advisory committee on resource allocation (ACRA). We are currently considering ACRA's recommendations. Later this autumn when we announce the revenue allocations for the next three years we will explain changes to the formula.

  Imported Poultry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average time taken to test a consignment of imported poultry meat for the presence of nitrofurans has been in the last year for which figures are available. [77825]

  Ms Blears
  Information provided by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland (DARDNI), who carry out the testing of poultrymeat from Thailand for nitrofurans, shows the average turnaround time, from 22 May when the first results were reported to 25 October 2002, to be eight days from receipt of sample. 90 per cent. of samples within this time period were analysed within the agreed 10 day turnaround time.

  There are no figures available for the turnaround time for the testing for nitrofurans in Brazilian poultrymeat as testing has only recently commenced.

  Infected Blood Transfusion
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's estimate is of the number of hepatitis C sufferers who contracted the virus from NHS blood transfusions. [75497]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: A lookback programme conducted by the national blood service from 1995 identified 669 people who contracted the hepatitis C virus from blood transfusions before screening for thevirus was introduced in September 1991. However, it has been impossible to trace the majority of those likely to have been infected. Work has been undertaken to estimate the numbers involved and we expect the results to be published later this year.

  Jams Regulations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum penalties are for breaches of the Jams Regulations; and what the maximum penalties he intends for breaches of the EC Jams Directive (2001/ 113/EC). [77824]

  Ms Blears
  The maximum penalties for an offence under the Jams and Similar Products Regulations 1981 are: on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding 5,000; on conviction or indictment, a unlimited fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
  262W
  New domestic regulations are being prepared to implement Directive 2001/113. It is intended, subject to the outcome of a full public consultation, that the maximum penalty for an offence under the forthcoming Regulations will be a fine not exceeding £5,000. This is in line with the penalties provided by comparable compositional legislation for other foodstuffs.

  Latex-free Equipment
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the guidelines to the NHS regarding the provision of, and access to, latex-free material and equipment. [77019]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance issued to the national health service relating to latex and latex-free equipment is based on the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and is intended to remind NHS managers of their duty to comply with that legislation in assessing risks to their staff.

  A wide range of latex-free equipment is now being manufactured and many companies are now moving away from using latex in their products altogether. There are no cost implications associated with using latex-free equipment, and the latest data from NHS Logistics suggest that NHS employers are increasingly moving to latex-free equipment.

  MRSA
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people contacted MRSA and in which hospitals in 2001. [77963]

  Ms Blears
  These figures are not available as information on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infections, apart from MRSA blood stream infections, is not collated centrally. Mandatory reporting of MRSA blood stream infections was introduced for all acute national health service trusts on 1 April 2001 and data are routinely published. Results by individual trust for the first year of this scheme (April 2001 to March 2002) were published in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly on 20 June 2002 and are available on the Public Health Laboratory Service website www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf.

  National Alcohol Reduction Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many copies of the National Alcohol Reduction Strategy Consultation Paper have been sent out to user groups in the voluntary and commercial sectors. [78180]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The Government launched the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy Consultation Document on 15 October 2002, and the consultation period will run until 15 January 2003. Copies of the consultation document have been placed on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/alcohol/alcoholstrategy.htm and on the strategy unit website www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/alcohol/consultationdocument.shtml.
  263W
  The Government are keen to receive a wide range of responses from all stakeholders including user groups. The document has been circulated either in hard copy or electronically to a wide range of interested groups, including representatives of the alcohol counselling and prevention services (ACAPS), the alcohol service users national alliance (ASUNA) and the London drug and alcohol network (LDAN).

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per patient of alcohol and drug rehabilitation on the NHS was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [78532]

  Ms Blears
  There are around 3,100 bedspaces within the drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation sector. The cost per week, per patient, varies from around £250 for a placement within hostel accommodation to around £1000 for a placement within a medical/clinical facility. There is no information collected at present on community rehabilitation programmes, although work is being developed on this by the national treatment agency.

  NHS Information Technology
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the personal responsibilities of the Director General of NHS Information Technology, (b) his responsibility for the NHS Information Authority and (c) his role in directing the implementation of NHS information technology at regional level. [76323]

  Ms Blears
  Richard Granger has been appointed as Director General of Information Technology in the national health service and is responsible for delivering the national programme for IT. This focuses on the key developments that will make a significant difference to improving the patient experience and the delivery of care and services. There are four key deliverables: electronic appointment booking, an electronic care records service, an electronic prescribing service and an underpinning IT infrastructure with sufficient connectivity and broadband capacity to support the critical national applications and local systems.

  Gwyn Thomas is the Chief Executive of the NHS Information Authority (NHSIA), which is a special health authority. Richard Granger will be working closely with the NHSIA, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency and the Information Policy Unit in the Department of Health. Working together and maintaining strong working relationships will be important for all parties.

  In the new NHS planning system, strategic health authorities (StHAs) are responsible for producing local delivery plans that will link sound local investment plans on IT into the national arrangements and framework. Richard Granger will be working through StHAs to ensure that for IT, the focus is on the key deliverables for the national IT programme. He will work with the chief executives and chief information officers at each StHA to ensure that progress is maintained against the critical
  264W
  path for implementation. The chief information officers will report to both their own chief executives and to Richard Granger.

  NHS Organisations (Running Costs)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total running costs of NHS organisations serving(a) Portsmouth South and (b) Hampshire were in 1997; what the totals are now; and if he will make a statement. [78965]

  Ms Blears
  The total expenditure of the local provider organisations serving the former Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority area in 1997–98 was £242.9 million. This included Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust. The total forecast out-turn expenditure in 2002–03 for Portsmouth Hospitals Trust and the provider functions of the East Hampshire, Fareham and Gosport and Portsmouth City Primary Care Trusts is £383.6 million. It is not possible to provide information for the Portsmouth South constituency.

  The total expenditure by health authorities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in 1997–98 was £971.7 million and the forecast outturn expenditure in 2002–03 for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority and the 10 constituent primary care trusts which have commissioning functions is £1,501.4 million.

  In both cases it is difficult to make direct comparisons between 1997–98 expenditure and 2002–03 forecast out-turn expenditure because of the various organisational changes which have taken place in the intervening years.

  NHS Services (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed to carry out administration for NHS services for residents of(a) Portsmouth South and (b) Hampshire in 1997; how many are employed; and if he will make a statement. [78963]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally by constituency. Information by health authority is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health service (HCHS): administration staff1 within specific health authority areas as at 30 September

  Wholetime equivalents

  Headcount

  Code/health authority

  1997

  2001

  1997

  2001

  All administration staff

  4,490

  5,370

  5,540

  6,600

  QD1 North and Mid Hants

  1,130

  1,340

  1,420

  1,650

  QD3 Southampton and SW Hants

  1,570

  1,910

  1,870

  2,290

  QD4 Isle of Wight

  370

  3—

  450

  3—

  QD2 Portsmouth and SE Hants

  1,420

  3—

  1,800

  3—

  QEV Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hants2

  3—

  2,120

  3—

  2,660

  1Administration staff comprises of senior managers, managers, clerical and administrative staff.

  265W

  2 Isle of Wight HA and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA merged in 2001 to become Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA.

  3 Not applicable.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.

  3. 2001 is the most recent year for which information is available.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  NHS Trusts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mergers between NHS acute services trusts there have been in each year since trusts were formed. [76264]

  Mr. Hutton
  A list of all national health service trusts that have been involved in major reconfigurations since 1991–92 have been placed in the Library. Most of these have merged by dissolution and establishment of new NHS trusts, but there are also absorption mergers and parts of NHS trusts involved in the formation of new NHS trusts and primary care trusts.

  NHS Work Force Statistics
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the next NHS workforce statistics. [78183]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Figures for 30 September 2002 are due to be published in February 2003, in line with timing for previous years.

  NICE
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list members of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence who are ethicists. [78954]

  Ms Blears
  The constitution of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's board reflects its primary role of providing clear guidance on clinical and cost effectiveness to the national health service. it does not include any members appointed specifically because of their formal training in ethics.

  Number of Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of doctors per head of population in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each other European Union country; and if he will make a statement; [76295]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) doctors and (b) nurses per 1,000 head of population in England; and if he will make a statement. [77798]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The information requested is shown in the tables.

  The comparative information about the number of doctors in the United Kingdom and the European Union is published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the latest figures are shown in the table. However, these figures need to be interpreted with caution because different countries calculate the figures in different ways. If
  266W
  comparing United Kingdom data with other countries, we consistently appear near the bottom for doctors per 1,000 head of population, but this is mainly because we count only national health service doctors, whereas most other countries figures include all registered doctors, therefore counting, for example, private sector doctors and doctors who are not actually working.

  Health employment: practising physicians density per 1,000 population

  Countries

  2000

  Austria

  3.1

  Belgium

  3.9

  Denmark

  n/a

  Finland

  3.1

  France

  n/a

  Germany

  3.6

  Greece

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Italy

  6

  Luxembourg

  3.1

  Netherlands

  3.2

  Portugal

  n/a

  Spain

  3.3

  Sweden

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  1.8

  All doctors and qualified nursing, midwifery, health visiting staff and practice nurses per 1,000 population, England, at 30 September 2001

  Numbers per 1,000 population

  All doctors

  2.0

  of which:

  General practitioners1

  0.6

  HCHS medical and dental staff2

  1.4

  All qualified nursing3

  7.1

  of which:

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  6.7

  Practice nurses

  0.4

  1General medical practitioners includes unrestricted principals, PMS salaried GP's, PMS contracted GP's restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS and others and GP retainers.

  2 Excludes medical hospital practitioners and medical clinical assistants, most of whom are also general practitioners working part-time in hospitals.

  3 Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Work Force Census.Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.Department of Health Non-medical Work Force Census.Office for National Statistics (ONS).

  Note:

  Population figures are rounded to one decimal point.

  Pilot Schemes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Health Authorities Preparation of Proposals for Pilot Schemes (Personal Medical Services) (Amendment) Directions 2002 were laid before the House on 21 October. [78072]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Authorities Preparation of Proposals for Pilot Schemes (Personal Medical Services) (Amendment) Directions 2002 were not laid before the House on 21 October.

  Psychiatrists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many CAMHS psychiatrists were employed in each strategic health authority in each of the past five years. [78020]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of child and adolescent psychiatrists is shown in the following table. The number of consultants in the specialty has increased by 9 per cent., between September 1997 and March 2002.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental staff within Child and Adolescent Psychiatry by Strategic Health Authority1—England2

  1998

  Numbers (headcount) 1999

  All stuff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  England

  770

  460

  800

  490

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  40

  30

  40

  30

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  20

  10

  20

  10

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  50

  20

  40

  20

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  40

  30

  40

  30

  Country Durham and Tees Valley

  10

  10

  20

  10

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  20

  10

  20

  10

  Dorset and

  2000

  2001

  March 20023

  All staff

  Consultant

  All stuff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  England

  830

  480

  820

  490

  —

  480

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  40

  20

  40

  20

  —

  20

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  20

  10

  20

  10

  —

  10

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  40

  20

  40

  20

  —

  20

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  40

  30

  40

  20

  —

  20

  Country Durham and Tees Valley

  20

  10

  20

  20

  —

  20

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  20

  10

  20

  10

  —

  10

  Dorset and Somerset

  10

  10

  20

  10

  —

  10

  Essex

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  *

  Greater Manchester

  50

  20

  50

  20

  —

  20

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  40

  20

  60

  30

  —

  20

  Kent and Medway

  20

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  20

  10

  20

  10

  —

  10

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  50

  30

  60

  30

  —

  30

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  North Central London

  40

  30

  40

  30

  —

  30

  North East London

  20

  20

  40

  20

  —

  20

  North West London

  60

  30

  60

  30

  —

  30

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  30

  20

  20

  20

  —

  20

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  South East London

  40

  30

  40

  30

  —

  30

  South West London

  20

  10

  20

  20

  —

  20

  South West Peninsula

  10

  10

  10

  *

  —

  *

  South Yorkshire

  30

  10

  20

  10

  —

  10

  Surrey and Sussex

  40

  20

  40

  30

  —

  30

  268W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental staff within Child and Adolescent Psychiatry by Strategic Health Authority1—England2

  1998

  Numbers (headcount) 1999

  All stuff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  Somerset

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Essex

  20

  10

  20

  10

  Greater Manchester

  60

  30

  50

  30

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  30

  20

  30

  20

  Kent and Medway

  10

  10

  20

  10

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  30

  20

  30

  20

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  40

  20

  50

  30

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North Central London

  50

  30

  50

  30

  North East London

  30

  20

  30

  20

  North West London

  50

  30

  40

  30

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  20

  20

  30

  20

  South East London

  40

  20

  40

  30

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  20

  10

  20

  10

  South East London

  40

  20

  40

  30

  London South West London

  20

  10

  30

  10

  South West Peninsula

  10

  10

  10

  10

  South Yorkshire

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Surrey and Sussex

  30

  20

  30

  20

  Thames Valley

  50

  20

  50

  20

  Trent

  30

  20

  40

  20

  West Yorkshire

  30

  20

  30

  10

  269W

  2000

  2001

  March 20023

  All staff

  Consultant

  All stuff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  Thames Valley

  60

  30

  60

  30

  —

  30

  Trent

  40

  30

  40

  30

  —

  30

  West Yorkshire

  40

  20

  30

  20

  —

  20

  1Staff holding appointments in more than one StHA are included separately in each StHA. The sum of StHA totals therefore differs slightly from the England total and a direct comparison is not advised.

  2 Data are at 31 March 2002 and 30 September in previous years.

  3 March 2002 data were a mini census which counted consultants only.

  Notes:

  '—' denotes not available

  '*' denotes five or less than five

  Source:

  Department of health medical and dental workforce census.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to maintain standards in the public health laboratories after their privatisation. [78740]

  Ms Blears
  All the laboratories of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) are Clinical Pathology Accreditation UK Ltd, accredited. It is envisaged that those PHLS laboratories that will transfer to the National Health Service in the coming months will maintain this accreditation. There is no plan to privatise PHLS laboratories.

  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public health laboratories will be privatised. [78742]

  Ms Blears
  None of the laboratories will be privatised. From 1 April 2003, approximately 35 will transfer from the Public Health Laboratory Service to the management of National Health Service trusts. The remainder, approximately ten, will transfer to the Health Protection Agency when it is established.

  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what co-ordination there will be between public health laboratories; and who will be responsible for checks on them after they are privatised. [78744]

  Ms Blears
  None of the laboratories will be privatised. The Health Protection Agency will be responsible for monitoring the specialist services across the National Health Service laboratories transferring from the Public Health Laboratory Service, as well as their own laboratories. NHS trusts will be responsible for the routine microbiology services in their own trusts. They will be subject to the same performance monitoring as well by primary care trusts. External accreditation programmes will also remain in place. In time, the laboratories will form part of local pathology managed clinical networks. It is hoped that, until then, informal links will be maintained and strengthened between individual laboratories.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts will be lost as a result of changes to the Public Health Laboratory Service. [78786]

  Ms Blears
  Under the change management protocol which has been agreed with the current employers and the unions concerned, all staff transferring to the Health Protection Agency on its establishment or to a National Health Service trust will have guaranteed continuity of employment until April 2004.
  270W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the terms and conditions of employment of staff transferred to the proposed Health Protection Agency will be rationalised so that common terms and conditions apply to all staff, regardless of whether they came from the National Radiological Protection Board or the Public Health Laboratory Service; [78789]

  (2) which aspects of health protection are proposed to be dealt with by the proposed Health Protection Agency; and which posts with the Public Health Laboratory Service are to be transferred to the HPA; [78790]

  (3) what evaluation has been made of the case for abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service. [78791]

  Ms Blears
  "Health Protection: A Consultation Document on creating a health protection agency", published in June 2002, proposed that the agency would take on responsibilities in relation to the control and prevention of infectious disease, including most of the functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), radiological protection, protection against chemical and poisonous hazards and health emergency planning. All PHLS staff would transfer to the agency, other than those in the laboratories which will transfer to the national health service by 31 March 2003, under separate decisions announced on 3 September. We are currently considering responses to the consultation document and will announce our decisions as soon as possible.

  The consultation document also proposed that staff would transfer on their existing terms and conditions of service. Future changes would be a matter for the board of the proposed agency to agree with the recognised trades unions.

  Re-offending
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the recommendations relevant to his Department in the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners". [76809]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, on 24 October 2002, Official Report, column 494W.

  Salisbury Alcohol and Drug Advisory Service
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are on the waiting list for counselling at Salisbury Alcohol and Drug Advisory Service; and how long they are expected to wait for an appointment. [77314]

  Ms Blears
  The way in which waiting lists are measured at this service does not allow us to provide a number for those specifically requiring counselling. It is estimated that there are approximately 110 people on the waiting list at the Salisbury Alcohol and Drug Advisory Service (SADAS) for structured counselling and/or other treatment requirements.

  Current waiting times reported by SADAS

  Number

  Highest priority cases

  1 to 2 weeks

  Treatment for under 25-year-olds

  Up to 8 weeks

  Arrest referral

  Up to 12 weeks

  Low risk

  Up to 52 weeks

  Note:

  It should be noted that the figures above measure the time from referral to treatment, and not from the first appointment, which may have occurred at an earlier date.

  Seroxat
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the accuracy of labelling and associated information material for the anti-depressant drug Seroxat, with regard to(a) side effects and (b) difficulty of withdrawal; [76226]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the side effects of the anti-depressant drug Seroxat, including difficulty of withdrawal. [76227]

  Ms Blears
  Seroxat (paroxetine) is a member of a group of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Before a product is granted a licence for use in the UK, it must meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy. After licensing, the safety of all medicines, including SSRIs, is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), and any new evidence that emerges is carefully reviewed.

  The MCA/CSM carried out a major review of all side effects associated with SSRIs, which was completed in 2000 and resulted in product information for all SSRIs, including Seroxat, being updated and harmonised to reflect the common safety profiles of these medicines. An article in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in 2000 informed presenters about this review and reminded them about the risk of withdrawal reactions.

  Withdrawal reactions are an important and well-recognised side effect of Seroxat and also occur with the other SSRIs. The MCA/CSM warned prescribers about the possibility of withdrawal reactions associated with Seroxat via an article in the Bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in 1993. The CSM re-reviewed the issue of withdrawal reactions and possible dependence with Seroxat and the other SSRIs in 1998–99. From a detailed review of all available data,
  272W
  the CSM concluded that all SSRIs may be associated with withdrawal reactions on stopping, but that on current evidence, they are not associated with dependence. As a result of this review, product information for all SSRIs was updated in relation to withdrawal reactions. This issue was also reviewed at a European level by the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), which reached similar conclusions.

  The product information for Seroxat, which includes the summary of product characteristics (SPC) for prescribers and the patient information leaflet (PIL), contains full details of side effects and warnings about withdrawal reactions. Doctors are advised to consider gradual tapering of dose when Seroxat is discontinued rather than abruptly stopping to avoid withdrawal symptoms.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the drug Seroxat. [76741]

  Ms Blears
  Seroxat (paroxetine) is a member of a group of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Before a product is granted a licence for use in the UK, it must meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy. After licensing, the safety of all medicines, including SSRIs, is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM); any new evidence that emerges is carefully reviewed.

  The MCA/CSM carried out a major review of all side effects associated with SSRIs, which was completed in 2000 and resulted in product information for all SSRIs, including Seroxat, being updated and harmonised to reflect the common safety profiles of these medicines. An article in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in 2000 informed prescribers about this review and reminded them about the risk of withdrawal reactions.

  Withdrawal reactions are an important and well-recognised side effect of Seroxat and also occur with the other SSRIs. The MCA/CSM warned prescribers about the possibility of withdrawal reactions associated with Seroxat via an article in the Bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in 1993. The CSM re-reviewed the issue of withdrawal reactions and possible dependence with Seroxat and the other SSRIs in 1998–99. From a detailed review of all available data, the CSM concluded that all SSRIs may be associated with withdrawal reactions on stopping, but on current evidence, they are not associated with dependence. As a result of this review, product information for all SSRIs was updated in relation to withdrawal reactions. This issue was also reviewed at a European level by the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), which reached similar conclusions.

  The product information for Seroxat, which includes the summary of product characteristics (SPC) for prescribes and the patient information leaflet (PIL), contains full details of side effects and warnings about withdrawal reactions. Doctors are advised to consider gradual tapering of dose when Seroxat is discontinued, rather than abruptly stopping, to avoid withdrawal symptoms.

  Smoking Rates (Children)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the smoking rates among children in each year since 1990 in(a) England and (b) each NHS region. [75639]

  Ms Blears
  Information on smoking among young people aged 11 to 15 years is obtained from a series of surveys of school children. Until 1998, these surveys were carried out every two years; since then they have been annual. The available information is shown in the tables.

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school children aged 11 to 15, England, 1990 to 2001

  Regular smokers1(percentages)

  Base number

  1990

  10

  3,121

  1992

  10

  3,295

  1994

  12

  3,045

  1996

  13

  2,854

  1998

  11

  4,723

  1999

  9

  9,333

  2000

  10

  7,061

  2001

  10

  9,271

  1 Regular smokers are defined as those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, on average.

  Sources:

  ONS: Smoking, drinking and drug use among young teenagers in 1999.

  NCSR: Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2000. Available on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/englandsmoking.pdf

  NCSR: Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2001: Preliminary Results (DH Statistical Press Notice). Available on the internet at http:/www.doh.gov.uk/public/statspntables.htm

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school children aged 11 to 15, by Government Office Region England, 1999 to 2000

  Percentages

  Region

  1999

  2000

  Base numbers (for 2000)

  North East

  9

  8

  428

  North West/Merseyside

  10

  11

  999

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10

  9

  583

  East Midlands

  8

  11

  687

  West Midlands

  9

  11

  931

  Eastern

  10

  12

  820

  London

  9

  9

  571

  South East

  8

  11

  1,325

  South West

  9

  9

  717

  England

  9

  10

  7,061

  Notes:

  1. The base in 1999 (England) was 9,333.

  2. Data not available by NHS region.

  3. Data not available by NHS region or Government Office region prior to 1999.

  4. Only preliminary results have been published from the 2001 survey: the main report will be published in late 2002.

  Sources:

  1. ONS: Smoking, drinking and drug use among teenagers in 1999.

  2. NCSR: Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in 2000.Available on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/englandsmoking.pdf

  Staffing Levels (Portsmouth Hospitals)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on staffing levels at(a) Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, (b) St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth and (C) St. James Hospital, Portsmouth. [76506]

  Ms Blears
  This information is collected centrally at trust level and not by individual hospital site. Information on vacancy rates has been collected in the national health service vacancy survey since 1999. Information, taken from the surveys for 1999 to 2002, has been placed in the Library.

  We recognise that the south-east has suffered problems in recruiting and retaining staff. Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and the local health community continue to work to ensure that vacant posts are filled as soon as possible.

  Stem Cell Research
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to support stem cell research to combat disease. [77489]

  Ms Blears
  The Government believe that the UK is well placed to remain a world leader in stem cell research.

  The Government have been working with funding agencies and other research bodies to make stem cell research a priority area for funding. The Medical Research Council (MRC) has taken the lead with other funders in developing a national Stem Cell Initiative.

  Outcomes during 2002 include new appointments and research support, the establishment of the national stem cell bank and the organisation of a major stem cell conference that was opened by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department for Trade and Industry Lord Sainsbury and attended by 400 delegates from 10 countries, including representatives of 20 companies.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are being allocated to the setting up of the stem cell bank. [77491]

  Ms Blears
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) announced details of the new national stem cell bank in September 2002. MRC has awarded a grant to the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to establish and run the United Kingdom stem cell bank for an initial period of three years at a total cost of £2.6 million. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) will contribute 25 per cent., of the set up costs; MRC will manage the grant.

  The grant will commence on 1 January 2003 and the funding profile is as follows:

  £000

  Year 1

  472

  Year 2

  1,305

  Year 3

  822

  Total

  2,599

  275W
  Additional moneys will be sought for phase two of the bank, specifically relating to increasing capacity for therapeutic purposes.

  Stents
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of(a) drug coated and (b) plain stents; and if he will publish relative success rates. [78580]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The Department referred drug coated stents, also called drug eluting stents, to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 20 May this year for appraisal. NICE will produce technology appraisal guidance for the National Health Service on the clinical and cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents and on the appropriate use of this new technology. The Department does not currently collect information on the number of percutaneous coronary interventions that involve the use of stents or the relative success rates of different types of stent.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued to primary care trusts regarding the use of drug coated stents. [78581]

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  All completed injury and poisoning episodes

  744,870

  765,560

  747,260

  775,130

  761,220

  No external cause given

  110,190

  113,620

  111,550

  114,690

  120,500

  Percentage of total injury and poisoning

  14.8

  14.8

  14.9

  14.8

  15.8

  Note:

  This information is taken from Hospital Episode Statistics system (HES) and relates to in-patients who have finished their hospital episodes under the care of a consultant and have been discharged, transferred to another hospital or consultant specialist or died.

  Surgical Procedures (Safeguards)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical procedures have taken place in the private sector in the last six months; and what safeguards are in place to prevent a conflict of interests of those medical staff working in both the private and public sector. [78697]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information on the number of surgical procedures that take place in the private sector. We expect doctors who work both in private and public sector, like all doctors, to behave in a professional manner. The General Medical Council's ethical guidance Good Medical Practice states that doctors must not put pressure on patients to accept private treatment and must always act in their patients' best interests when making referrals and providing or arranging treatment or care.

  Teenage Pregnancy Strategy
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy commenced; how many girls in England and Wales(a) under 16 years of age and (b) under 18 years of age expressed as a total figure and as a percentage of the total number of girls, in each age range, have been provided with (i) contraception and (ii) emergency contraception in schools, pharmacies, family planning clinics and other
  276W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2002]: The Department has not issued any guidelines to primary care trusts regarding the use of drug coated stents, also called drug eluting stents. However, the Department referred drug eluting stents to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 20 May this year for appraisal. NICE will produce technology appraisal guidance for the National Health Service on the clinical and cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents and on the appropriate use of this new technology.

  Suicide
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have attempted suicide in each of the past five years and have been admitted to hospital as a consequence. [78047]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of people who have attempted suicide in each of the last five years and been admitted to hospital as a consequence is not collected centrally.

  The table shows the number of finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals with a primary diagnosis of injury and poisoning between 1996–97 and 2000–01 England.

  establishments authorised to provide contraception since the commencement of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. [78003]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Information about the number of girls under 16 and aged 16–19, and rates per 100 population attending family planning clinics are available in the statistical bulletin "NHS Contraceptive Services, England: 2001/02" copies of which are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0220.htm.

  Information for 2002–01 and 1999–2000 is also available in statistical bulletins for the relevant years, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many boys in England and Wales(a) under 16 years of age and (b) under 18 years of age, expressed as a total figure and as a percentage of the total number of boys in each age range, have been provided with contraception in schools, pharmacies, family planning clinics and other establishments authorised to provide contraception since the commencement of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. [78004]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested.
  277W
  Information about the total number of males attending family planning clinics and the rate per 100 population, is shown in Table 2 of the statistical bulletin "NHS Contraceptive Services, England: 2001–02". Data is included from 1991–92 to 2001–02 but is not broken down by age. The bulletin is available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0220.htm.

  Transfusions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proportion of patients requiring transfusion plasma who received only virus inactivated products in the past year. [75002]

  Ms Blears
  No data are collected centrally on the proportion of virally inactivated fresh frozen plasma (FFP) received by patients. In April 2002, the national blood service (NBS) introduced methylene blue treatment of FFP for neonates and children born after 1 January 1996. United Kingdom FFP is already a very safe product. To minimise the risk from viruses, it is made only from previously tested blood donors. The current high levels of safety are achieved by screening out potential high risk donors and then further testing every unit of donated blood for the presence of infections, such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. FFP produced by the NBS, using UK donors, has also been leucodepleted to remove white cells, which evidence suggests may carry the greatest risk of transmitting vdD. A commercially produced, pooled solvent detergent treated FFP is licensed in the UK and available to the National Health Service.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the use of methlyene blue treated fresh frozen plasma in children. [75006]

  Ms Blears
  Provision of methylene blue (MB) treated fresh frozen plasma for children born after 1 January 1996 is part of a larger strategy to provide single unit, virus inactivated non-United Kingdom plasma for this group. Steps are actively being taken to find a safe, reliable source of plasma from the United States, an area free of BSE. The use of a non-pooled product minimises the risk of spread of pathogens, which may not be susceptible to the pathogen inactivation process. Currently, MB is the only available product for virally inactivating single unit plasma.

  This policy will be kept under review by the Government's expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenagers in the UK were vaccinated against TB last year. [78188]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Information about the numbers of teenagers receiving BCG vaccinations is contained in table 4 of the statistical bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2001–02". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0218.htm.
  278W
  Information for Wales, Scotland and Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what co-ordination is in place from his Department with the Homelessness Unit at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in combating the rise of TB in the homeless. [78185]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Screening policy for the homeless is determined at local levels; London wide there has been regular screening of homeless people at drop-in centres, and there are studies currently looking at screening homeless people more effectively and efficiently.

  United Healthcare Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the agreement between his Department and the United Healthcare Group. [78311]

  Mr. Hutton
  The government is committed to encouraging expressions of interest from successful international organisations to partner Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in developing and testing models of integrated care in the national health service. In line with this commitment, the Department is in discussion with United Healthcare Group with a view to entering into a contractual relationship with them to provide hands-on support to a number of PCTs to test elements of United Healthcare Group's Evercare model in this country and tailor it to the needs of the NHS. Under the Evercare model, doctors and nurses in primary care work together with care staff to identify vulnerable individuals at highest risk of hospitalisation. This allows for early intervention and treatment, thus avoiding inappropriate hospital admission, and facilitating safe, early discharge where a stay in hospital is necessary. The work will be carried out under the national primary and care trust development programme to promote significant transformational change.

  Waiting Lists (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients at Eastbourne District General Hospital waited longer than(a) four and (b) 24 hours in accident and emergency in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion they were of the total. [78699]

  Ms Blears
  Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust merged with Hastings and Rother NHS Trust in April 2002 to form East Sussex NHS Trust. Data are collected by NHS trust and not by individual hospital site. Therefore data are presented for Eastbourne Hospitals Trust up to March 2002. From April to September 2002, the data are for East Sussex NHS Trust as a whole.

  The number of patients spending over four hours in accident and emergency (A&E), from arrival to departure, for each month in the last year is shown in the table.
  279W

  Month

  Patients spending over four hours in A&E

  Total A&E attendances

  Percentage of total

  September 2001

  472

  3,176

  14.9

  October 2001

  533

  3,889

  13.7

  November 2001

  484

  3,124

  15.5

  December 2001

  645

  3,708

  17.4

  January 2002

  506

  2,810

  18.0

  February 2002

  464

  2,810

  16.5

  March 2002

  511

  3,080

  16.6

  April 2002

  1,060

  6,371

  16.6

  May 2002

  1,400

  8,394

  16.7

  June 2002

  1,051

  6,876

  15.3

  July 2002

  1,560

  8,976

  17.4

  August 2002

  1,233

  7,376

  16.7

  September 2002

  1,298

  6,005

  21.6

  These data are taken from management information provided by the trusts and have not been validated by the Department.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients spending over 24 hours in A&E. Information is collected on the number of patients waiting over 12 hours for admission via A&E, the time from the clinician's decision to admit until the patient is admitted to an in-patient ward. Eastbourne District General Hospital, now part of East Sussex NHS Trust, has not reported any of these in the past 12 months.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1)what assessment he has made of the impact on medical staffing rotas of extending the Working Time Directive to junior doctors; and if he will make a statement. [77504]

  (2) what pilot studies are being undertaken in NHS hospitals to demonstrate innovative ways of complying with the requirements of the Working Time Directive. [77506]

  Mr. Hutton
  From August 2004, junior doctors will come within the remit of the European Working Time Directive. The key aspect is that junior doctors must have 11 hours rest in every 24 hours.

  It will not be possible for the National Health Service to achieve European Working Time Directive compliance by applying a single "one size fits all" model across the whole country. Instead, compliance will be achieved with a portfolio of action at local and national level.

  Individual NHS trusts will need to look critically at working patterns and whether it is necessary for doctors to be resident. Where the intensity of calls requires resident cover, it will generally be necessary to move to new patterns of working such as shifts or partial shifts.

  The Department will be issuing guidance on implementation this Autumn and is working with stakeholders including the medical Royal Colleges, British Medical Association, NHS Confederation and the service to ensure that effective solutions are developed.

  The Department is therefore funding a programme of pilot projects based in NHS trusts to develop and test innovative solutions to European Working Time
  280W
  Directive implementation. We are funding about 20 pilot studies in individual NHS trusts and groups of NHS trusts on innovative ways of delivering services while complying with the requirements of the post-2004 Working Time Directive legislation. The individual pilots will cover areas such as night teams, health care practitioners, nurse practitioners and whole systems service redesign.

  Full details of the pilot programme will be announced shortly and will be available on the Department's website www.doh.qov.uk/workinqtime/.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS facilities have workplace nurseries attached. [77996]

  Mr. Hutton
  A national survey of national health service child care provision, undertaken early in 2001, found that 114 NHS trusts provided nursery facilities for their staff. Since April 2001, a further 117 schemes for new or extensions to existing nurseries have had capital funding agreed as part of the NHS child care strategy. As a criterion of funding these nurseries should, wherever possible, provide places for the use of all health care workers, including those at other NHS organisations.

  Further capital funding will be made available in 2003–04 to meet the NHS plan target of 150 new nursery schemes by March 2004. All new build hospitals must also include a nursery in their plans.

  Obesity
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of sick days taken in each of the last five years for which figures are available as a result of illness arising from overweight and obesity; and what his strategy is for addressing this problem. [74459]

  Ms Blears
  The National Audit Office report, "Tackling Obesity in England, published February 2001", estimated that in 1998 overweight and obesity contributed to 18 million sick days. The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in obesity. The National Health Service priorities and planning framework for 2003–2006 includes targets on reducing coronary heart disease (CHD). One of these targets requires practice-based registers and systematic treatment regimes, including appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking; it also covers the majority of patients at high risk of CHD, particularly those with hypertension, diabetes and a body mass index greater than 30. The Department is working with a range of partners at national, regional and local levels, on programmes to improve diet and increase physical activity levels. Action to improve diet includes a Five-a-day programme, including initiatives with the food industry, including manufacturers and caterers, improving the overall balance of diet—working with the Food Standards Agency—and a food in schools and healthy schools programme. Plans were recently
  281W
  announced to transform physical education and school sport and club links over the next three years. There is investment to develop local exercise action pilots, led by primary care trusts, and the new opportunities fund is supporting the delivery of a physical education and sports programme.

  Weight Management
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is given on the database of weight management services developed by his Department; and how many times it has been updated since it was created. [74460]
  282W
  Ms Blears
  The database of weight management services was completed in 1997 and made available at National Health Service regional offices for local dissemination on request. The project had two aims, one of which was to identify existing projects on weight management in the regions and to compile a directory of services. The database is a directory of weight management services in England, but does not claim to be comprehensive. Entries are arranged by region and, within each region, alphabetically by town. Each entry has details of project name, funding organisation, contact name and details and information on the services the project offers and if the project has been evaluated. The information has not been updated since publication.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PrayersȔRead by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester
Peter Stephen Maurice, Lord Bishop of Worcester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Wakefield and the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Pakistan
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ahmedasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they recognise the newly elected Government of Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the British Government recognise states not governments. We have welcomed the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. The elections are an important milestone in Pakistan's ongoing transition to democracy. The next crucial step is the transfer of power to the new national assembly and establishing parliament's role. We will continue to watch this process closely and are committed to remaining engaged with the Government of Pakistan throughout their transition.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind reply. Will she agree that democratically elected governments are good for the rights of their electorate, and for peace, stability and regional development? Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the governments of India and Pakistan to start dialogue to resolve the issue of Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people so that they can have a free, fair and impartial plebiscite to decide their future?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is absolutely clear that democracy is good for south Asia. In particular, we welcomed the announcement of the Indian and Pakistani governments to withdraw their forces from their international border. We hope that both sides will take further steps to de-escalate tensions and that this will lead to a resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan, because only dialogue can lead to a lasting solution of the Kashmiri issue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I commend the Minister on her reply. It is very welcome to see some steps to de-escalate what has been a very troubling position. Given that we very much commend the Government of Pakistan on the help they have
558
extended with regard to Al'Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, what steps are they taking to close down training camps on their territory on the other side of the line of control, from which there is a steady infiltration of terrorists into India?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have welcomed the steps that President Musharraf has taken so far to clamp down on terrorist and extremist groups in Pakistan. We shall urge him to continue in that vital task. We have made clear that the international community will expect Pakistan to take firm action against any terrorists seeking to use that country as a safe haven.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister find a contradiction between President Musharraf, who has tried to introduce democracy and done his best, and other nations of the Commonwealth who deny all the tenets of democracy? Does she feel that the Commonwealth is fulfilling its moral ideal?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions in this House that the Commonwealth is made up of 54 countries, all very different. Those countries have signed up to some clear principles. The Commonwealth Secretary-General has a key good offices role, which was strengthened recently at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Clearly, CMAG's role in looking at countries that violate the principles of the Commonwealth is very important.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a good test of the democratic credentials of any government is the way they treat their minorities and uphold human rights? Is she aware that over the past 12 months in Pakistan there have been 39 deaths, 100 injuries and nine attacks on churches, church buildings, hospitals and schools? Does she recognise that one of the continuing sources of persecution against that tiny minority in Pakistan has been the blasphemy laws on the statute book there? I support the call that she and her noble friend Lord Ahmed have made for those blasphemy laws to be repealed. Will she renew that call?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we remain extremely concerned about the treatment of minorities and the misuse of the blasphemy laws. We are also concerned that extremist and sectarian groups have been responsible for violence and intimidation across the country. We shall continue to discuss that with the authorities in Pakistan.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I maintain close contact with my wartime regiment, the 19th Lancers, three of whose senior officers were members of General Musharraf's government. I welcome the noble Baroness's support for Pakistan. Does she accept that it is not really possible to have the sort of democratic elections that

559
we have in our country in a country such as Pakistan where half the population is illiterate and subject to pressures and worse from the zamindars, the landlords, the tribal chiefs and the mullahs? Should not General Musharraf be warmly congratulated on having put into practice his promise to hold an election? Finally, will the Minister reaffirm that she will continue to help him achieve the objectives of Quaid-e-Azam in the days to come in his own country and, in particular, to support him, because of his importance in a very dangerous and difficult part of the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's particular interest. I think I made clear that we welcomed the elections, although we realise that they were not perfect. European Union and Commonwealth observers highlighted the deficiencies. However, in working with countries such as Pakistan, bilaterally or through the European Union or the Commonwealth, one of our responsibilities has to be to help them to ensure that elections are carried out as freely and fairly as possible. These elections are a step forward in the transition to democracy in Pakistan. We want a stable, democratic Pakistan that works for the good of all its people.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, although some of the current trends in Pakistan are very worrying, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, does the Minister agree that there is more than one path to democracy? One kind of democracy can lead to more liberty; another kind can lead to hideous suppression and oppression of a kind that we would not welcome. Will she counsel her colleagues to ensure that when we press Pakistan we do so gently and with caution, recognising that too great an acceleration or enthusiasm for parliamentary democracy at this stage might destabilise things? Does she agree that the line taken by the European Union with the EC-Pakistan co-operation pact is very sensible and positive at this stage? Will she undertake that the Government will give their full backing to that agreement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope I have made clear that we have been working with the Government of Pakistan, not just bilaterally but also through the Commonwealth and the European Union. The noble Lord is right that the co-operation agreement is an important element of that. We have sought to give the Government of Pakistan technical assistance. That is one area in which the Commonwealth in particular has taken a lead role. We will continue to do that. The noble Lord is right that in moving down the road to democracy, it is important that all the different elements are in place.

Regional Museums
2.50 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to meet their commitment to revitalise regional museums.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we shall be providing a total of £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06. The funds are to be used to modernise and improve the quality of regional museums services.
Extra funding will also be available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with the regional museums and there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support regional museums' education.
We have asked Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, to work with regional museums to determine how funds are to be distributed across the country.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does she accept that the report, Renaissance in the Regions, produced by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, set out in some detail the way in which moneys should be made available to our museums in the regions? At present museums are closing, some of the buildings are decaying and there is a decline in the morale of many of the people who work in them. Centres are needed in each region to act as a hub to obtain the assistance that many of these smaller museums require. Will my noble friend undertake to ensure that more funds are made available to enable them to continue to contribute to cultural life in the regions of this country?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Sheldon for the work that he has already done as a member of the committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, that produced the report, Renaissance in the Regions. It is an excellent report and the Government have endorsed many of its findings. For the first time funding has been made available from central government for these museums to enable a significant start to be made to the programme set out in the report and to develop its recommendations. It is, of course, for local authorities and, in some cases, universities, to provide the core funding for those institutions.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rhetoric of the Government on museums is to increase attendance and have longer opening hours? However, museums all over the country are finding it impossible to maintain their collections and out of the question to add to them. In order to save costs, they have to cut staff and close for hours, and sometimes days, a week. This week galleries

561
will be closed in the National Gallery and the British Museum. When will the Government's performance match their rhetoric?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think that the government of whom the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was a member had a terribly good reputation in respect of support for museums. For some years the funding available to our national museums and galleries was at a standstill. This Government have increased funding to those museums by 17 per cent in real terms. I repeat what I said in answer to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Sheldon. It is for local authorities around the country to support their regional and local museums. The Government are providing additional funds to help to ensure that those museums are able to improve the quality of the services that are available to them. As regards the closure of galleries at the British Museum, the Government are making available to the British Museum an extra £400,000 in the first year of this spending round to keep all of its galleries open.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the leader in The Times today that specifically mentions regional museums and urges creative thinking? What does she construe from that urging? If she agrees with it, what direction does she believe the creative thinking should take?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have seen the leader in today's edition of The Times. It is for the regional museums themselves and, indeed, Resource—the government body that works to provide facilities, advice and funding to the regional museums—to collaborate more effectively through the system of hubs that my noble friend Lord Sheldon mentioned. It is also the Government's policy to encourage the national museums and galleries to work much more effectively than has been the case in the past, sharing collections, curatorial skills and expertise with the regional museums.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one way to revitalise regional museums is to ensure that people know where they are and can find them? Is she aware that the Highways Agency is still dragging its feet over the provision of brown tourism signs on the M4 to the excellent steam railway museum in Swindon which is part of the potential Great Western Railway world heritage site and attracts 150,000 visitors a year? Will my noble friend please encourage the Highways Agency to install signs on Junctions 15 and 16 without further delay?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall see whether the signs can he put up tomorrow. My noble friend is absolutely right; there should be good signage to all of our regional museums to enable people who wish to visit them to find them. It is, of course, the responsibility of the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency to install signs on our major
562
roads. They have been engaged in a consultation process and museums and galleries have been among the many consultees and have made their views known.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister please inform the House whether consideration has been given to providing a national portrait gallery for Wales given the excellent portrait painters in Wales and the lack of a focus for the regional heritage there?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the national museums and galleries of Wales are a matter for the devolved administration. Therefore, I cannot answer that question.

Charities: Strategy Unit Review
2.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure the widest response to the public consultation on the Strategy Unit Review of Charities; and whether they will ensure that the consultation will primarily be evaluated by the authors of the review and that the results are published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, officials from the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and from the Active Community Unit in the Home Office are undertaking an extensive programme of consultation events and meetings across the United Kingdom over the three month period. There will be some 50 events taking a wide variety of form. Responses to the consultation will be evaluated by officials in those two departments and by other departments affected by the recommendations. The results will be published.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, may I ask him to ensure that the authors of the report, which is extremely complex, have the opportunity to evaluate the responses? Does the Minister share my concern, and, I think, that of many noble Lords in this House, with regard to the impact of the review on small charities? Of the 300,000 or so charities. 95 per cent or more have no paid staff. Given that the review contains 61 proposals, and that over half of those are earmarked for legislation, will the Government consider legislating extremely cautiously and, in so far as they do, perhaps exempt the smaller charities, as was the case in the 1992 and 1993 Charities Acts? Finally, will the Government evaluate the impact of legislation a year after its introduction?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I indicated, the authors of the report will be part of the evaluation as well as the consultation process, subject, as ever, to civil servants' career progression. We shall be highly mindful of the

563
impact of the review on small charities. In fact, throughout the report there is a strong thrust of seeking to deregulate small charities and reduce the burden on them. If the review is carried through, they will have less administration rather than more. As the House well knows, the Home Office is always extremely cautious about legislating.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in further considering this matter will the Government bear in mind that the traditional definition of charity has been very widely interpreted in recent times and that perhaps the time has come for it to be more precisely defined?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. In many ways, charity law is the product of 400 years of history, which is partly what the strategy unit report examined. It looked at some of the historic exemptions and pointed out that in terms of tax relief and public confidence it is important that clear and strong principles of public benefit should be applied fairly across the piece. The central message is about public benefit, which is being utilised. That will be applied in a consistent fashion to all benefiting bodies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that among the many who have been deeply involved in charitable work, the report has been welcomed as an extremely thoughtful and stimulating contribution to the future? Does he agree that in the general approach to the work of charities at this juncture, while there may be an important role for charities in partnership with government in providing services, we must take care to ensure that they are not over-encouraged to go down the road of simply being subcontractors in service provision, as distinct from fulfilling their historic role of being initiators, capitalists and making an original, qualitative contribution to society?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, thank you for the welcome. I do not believe that there is an issue between us. I refer to the parallel report, The Cross Cutting Review, which also came out recently. It explored ways of making it possible for charities to make a stronger contribution towards service delivery, if they wish to do so, and it also looked at some of the less effective ways of procuring services. That approach sits against the background of the need to be absolutely clear that charities should set their own objectives, subject to law. If they want to become involved in service delivery, fine; and if they do not wish to do so, that is also fine. Many will wish to do both campaigning and service delivery.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, do the Government recognise that, notwithstanding the assurance in the report, many in the Churches—and,
564
indeed, other faith groups—will be concerned about the proposed abolition of the presumption of public benefit in the case of bodies established for the advancement of religion, especially because the report gives no convincing explanation for the abolition?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the central argument about public benefit is that there should be no automatic assumption of public benefit without at least some form of evaluation of that process. That is good and sound for tax exemptions reasons and because of public confidence. However, I do not believe that there is any cause for anxiety among established Churches. The report recommends that it is essential to retain the centrality of public benefit. The Churches should have no difficulty in demonstrating that if they practise the celebration of a religious right that is open to the public, because that should be seen as providing a public benefit. Over and above that, Churches with a relatively small turnover may also be absolved from some of the regulatory burdens.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Go on!
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some eminently suitable persons are put off becoming trustees, particularly of the larger and more exposed charities, on account of uncertainties about personal legal liability? Will the Minister take note of part 5 of the unit's report, which proposes the need for a degree of protection in such situations, and assure the House that those recommendations will form the basis of any future legislation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I note that concern. There are many of us in the House who are trustees and who are aware of our exposure. Sometimes, those risks can be insured against, but sometimes not. I shall consider the noble Viscount's point. As for legislation, the House would clearly not expect me to give a view one way or the other.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, has there been an increase or decrease in the number of applications from organisations for charitable status?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there has been an increase. From recollection, it is running at about 1,800 new registrations a year.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we must move on.

Female Genital Mutilation
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made since 1st January 2002 towards putting an end to female circumcision in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, female genital mutilation is a brutal practice that is illegal in this country. The Government condemn the practice and wish to see it eradicated. We are continuing to work to educate the practising communities to abandon female genital mutilation. We have increased funding for FORWARD, the leading organisation working in this field. We have also been exploring how we might strengthen the current legislation governing that practice.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging and helpful Answer. Is he aware of whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to prevent parents taking their small daughters out of the United Kingdom for the purposes of genital mutilation in the countries of origin? Is he also aware that preventive measures are in operation in some other member states in the European Union?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of that. I am ensuring that the Department of Health obtains information about the successes of other countries in dealing with this practice. On the question of taking young girls abroad, that is—or can be—an offence if female genital mutilation is also an offence in the country to which those people are travelling. However, not all countries have made the practice an offence. That is why we are considering possible amendments to the current law. If a local authority has reason to believe that a child might be taken abroad so that mutilation can be carried out, it is obliged, under the Children Act, to make such inquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I took on the Bill concerning female genital mutilation from my noble friend Lord Glenarthur? At the same time, I was engaged with another Bill on intimate body searches. I strongly wondered whether I was ever going to do any legislation above the waist. Is the Minister aware of any fatalities in this country as a result of this disgusting practice, as do occur in parts of Africa?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware of figures detailing the number of fatalities. One of the problems is that very little information comes to the attention of public authorities because the practice is kept completely under wraps. That is the great
566
difficulty. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work in producing and taking forward legislation in this area. She will know that there have been no prosecutions since the Act came into effect because so few complaints have been made.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 25 years ago the General Medical Council passed a decree to the effect that any doctor who was guilty of performing this kind of operation for social reasons in the United Kingdom might well be guilty of serious professional misconduct and would face the risk of being erased from the register? What has been the effect of that particular decree of the GMC?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that two doctors have been struck off: one for undertaking female genital mutilation in 1993 and one for offering to perform the operation in 2000.
Lord Chan: My Lords, in view of the life-threatening complications of female genital mutilation, particularly during labour, will the Minister tell us what plans there are to have partnerships between the NHS, trusts and local communities when female genital mutilation occurs? I refer to an example involving the Liverpool Women's Hospital and the Somali community.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to commend a number of excellent schemes around the country that attempt to deal with this very difficult and reprehensible issue. There are a number of specialist clinics in the NHS, all of which have trained staff to deal with girls and women and which offer reversal surgery. We are undertaking further research into the scope of the problem. Among the issues that we shall examine are the scale of NHS provision and the extent to which we need to encourage statutory agencies to collaborate more.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister told us of the educational efforts that were being made in this area. Can he tell us whether a change in attitude towards this serious problem is thought to be taking place among the generations in some communities? Are any of the educational programmes directed at young men as well as at young women?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are funding a number of educational programmes through FORWARD. I believe that the noble Baroness made some important points. So far as concerns the number of women affected, FORWARD estimates that approximately 74,000 first-generation African immigrant women in the UK have undergone female genital mutilation. It also estimates that as many as 7,000 girls under the age of 16 who live in practising communities may be at risk. Clearly we need to redouble our efforts in terms of education and support

567
from statutory agencies. Above all, we need to make it clear that such an act cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I refer to the case of the person who was struck off for offering to carry out this operation. Can the Minister tell us whether such an operation is currently illegal? If he is considering changes to strengthen legislation in this respect, will that operation become illegal under his new proposals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although no prosecutions took place in the case of the doctors, it is not for me to comment on whether they should have done. The problem in relation to legislation does not concern prosecution; it concerns the fact that FGM is not illegal in certain countries. Therefore, in law we cannot take action against parents or other adults who take young girls from this country to those countries.

Adoption and Children Bill
3.11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN
LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS
AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND
MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 82 as first printed for the
Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 44, page 27, line 38, after first "a" insert "married"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
26A Page 24, line 8, leave out "step-parent who" and insert "partner of a parent and the partner"
26B Page 24, line 10, leave out "step-parent" and insert "partner"
26C Page 26, line 5, leave out "married"
26D Page 26, line 7, leave out " a step-parent" and insert "the partner of a parent"
26E Page 26, line 15, leave out "married"
26F Page 26, line 22, leave out "married"
26G Page 28, line 19, leave out from "section" to "a" in line 20 and insert "50(2) by the partner of"
26H Page 38, line 19, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 20 and insert "But references in this Chapter to adoption do not include an adoption effected before"
26I Page 38, line 21, end insert—
"( ) Any reference in an enactment to an adopted person within the meaning of this Chapter includes a reference to an adopted child within the meaning of Part 4 of the Adoption Act 1976".
26J Page 38, line 23, leave out from "law" to end of line 32 and insert "as if born as the child of the adopters or adopter.
(IA) An adopted person is the legitimate child of the adopters or adopter and, if adopted by—

(a) a couple, or

(b) one of a couple under section 50(2), is to be treated as the child of the relationship of the couple in question."

26K Page 38, line 34, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) if adopted by one of a couple under section 50(2), is to be treated in law as not being the child of any person other than the adopter and the other one of the couple"
26L Page 38, line 40, end insert "or to any other natural relationship"
26M Page 39, line I, leave out from 'effect" to 'from" in line 3
26N Page 39, leave out line 9 and insert "adoption"
260 Page 39, line 13, leave out from beginning to "adoptive" in line 14 and insert—
"( ) an adopter may be referred to as an adoptive parent or (as the case may be) as an adoptive father or".
26P Page 39, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
"( ) Subsection (1) does not affect the interpretation of any reference, not qualified by the word "adoptive", to a relationship".
26Q Page 39, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) A reference (however expressed) to the adoptive mother and father of a child adopted by—

(a) a couple of the same sex, or

(b) a partner of the child's parent, where the couple are of the same sex,

is to be read as a reference to the child's adoptive parents".
26R Page 39, line 24, leave out "66(1)" and insert "66(1) and (IA)"
26S Page 40, line 10, leave out from "or" to "for" and insert "(if she does so as one of a couple) as the child of the other one of the couple"
26T Page 42, line 8, leave out "person to whom the adopter is married" and insert "other one of the couple"
26U Page 46, line 45, leave out "a married couple" and insert "two people"
26V Page 49, line 39, leave out from "the" to end of line and insert "adopters or adopter"
26W Page 51, line 3, leave out "a step-parent" and insert "the partner of a parent"
26X Page 93, line 40, leave out from -adoption"" to "Adoption" in line 41 and insert "after "1978" there is inserted "or in the"."
26Y Page 94, line 4, leave out from "(1)" to '66" in line 5 and insert "after "1976" there is inserted "or section""
26Z Page 94, line 7, leave out from "(a)" to "(2)(b)" in line 8 and insert "after "39" there is inserted "or subsection"
26AA Page 94, line 9, leave out from "(b)" to "66" in line 10 and insert "after "1976" there is inserted "or section""
26BB Page 94, line 12, leave out from "birth)" to "68(2)" in line 13 and insert "at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted "or section""
26CC Page 94, line 14, end insert—
"The Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36)In section 38 of the Adoption Act 1976 (meaning of "adoption" in Part 4), in subsection (2), after "1975" there is inserted "but does not include an adoption of a kind mentioned in paragraphs (c) to (e) of subsection (1) effected on or after the day which is the appointed day for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002"".
26DD Page 101, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) for subsection (1)(a) there is substituted—
"(a) a Convention adoption, or an overseas adoption, within the meaning of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, or"".
26EE Page 101, line 28, leave out from "(2)(a)" to "66" in line 29 and insert "after "1976" there is inserted "or section""
26FF Page 101, line 32, leave out from "principle)" to end of line 34 and insert "for paragraph (c) of subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(c) is an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002"".
26GG Page 101, line 35, leave out from "(5)" to end of line 38 and insert "after "1976" there is inserted "or section 68 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002""
26HH Page 105, line 3, leave out from "mother)" to end of line 4 and insert "in subsection (2), for "child of any person other than the adopter or adopters" there is substituted "woman's child""
26II Page 105, line 5, leave out from "father)" to end of line 6 and insert "in subsection (5)(c), for "child of any person other than the adopter or adopters" there is substituted "man's child""
2611 Page 105, line 17, leave out from "(3)" to "4" in line 18 and insert "after "1976" there is inserted "or Chapter"
26KK Page 107, line 16, leave out "11 to 13 and 17" and insert "and 11 to 13"
26LL Page 107, line 33 leave out paragraph 99
26MM Page 112, line 14, leave out paragraph 9
26NN Page 114, line 10, leave out paragraph 13
26OO Page 114, line 23, leave out paragraph 15
26PP Page 116, line 10, column 2, at end insert "except Part 4 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 2"
26QQ Page 116, column 2, leave out lines 32 and 33
26RR Page 117, line 31, leave out "Section 4"
26SS Page 117, line 46, leave out "Section 85(4)"
26TT Page I I9, line 10, at end insert "couple … section 139(4)"
26UU Page 119, line 27, end insert "partner, in relation to a parent of a child…section 139(7)"
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
On Report, this House debated whether adoption should be permitted by unmarried couples—whether of the opposite or same sex. By a majority of 34 votes, this House asked the other place to think again. The House of Commons has duly reconsidered the matter and, on a free vote on the government side at least, has confirmed its view that adoption by unmarried couples is both right and necessary.
I now ask this House to reconsider its decision, not for the sake of unmarried couples or for the sake of same-sex couples and not even for the sake of married couples. Not one couple in this country, whether married or not or whether opposite sex or not, has any right whatever to adopt. I ask this House to reconsider because I believe that, by so doing, it will immeasurably improve the life chances of hundreds of our most vulnerable children. Those children are central to this debate. Our only consideration should be what is in the best interests of the child. That fundamental principle derives from the Children Act 1989 and is enshrined in the first clause of this Bill.
If we are putting the child first, can there be any doubt that adoption is a much better option for children than growing up in care? On Report, I
570
referred to the outcome statistics for children in care and I believe that they are worth repeating. Half of those under the age of 18 in prison and 26 per cent of all prisoners have been in care at some stage. Up to 20 per cent of all care leavers experience some form of homelessness within two years of leaving care. More than half of all young people leaving care at the age of 16 and over are unemployed. Some estimates put that proportion as high as 80 per cent.
Does any noble Lord present this afternoon need to be convinced that adoption is the better option? Does anyone present today not feel a sense of anger at the neglect and failure of the adoption service over the past 20 years? That neglect and failure were well chronicled in a report to the Prime Minister. It showed that adoption was not being considered for enough children. It showed the delays, where decisions about how to provide secure, stable and permanent placements, including adoption, were not being addressed early enough. It showed where such decisions were not being focused clearly enough or where action was not being taken swiftly. It showed that where plans for permanent placements, including adoption, are made, they are not delivered quickly enough from the point of view of the child's time scales. The report showed that services were not providing the support that families need throughout the process of securing and supporting adoption and permanence.
In 1996, the total time spent in care before final adoption was three years and four months. In 1999–2000, 44 per cent of children had been looked after for three or more years before adoption. Thankfully, that situation is beginning to improve. But far more needs to be done. That is why we introduced the Bill. We did so in order to reform adoption law and to make it more modern. We are introducing national adoption standards so that everyone involved in the adoption process knows what to expect. They will know how long it will take and, no matter where they live, they will receive a fair and consistent service. That is why we are placing a clear duty on councils to provide adoption support services; it is why we are establishing a new legal framework for financial support which will be fairer and more flexible; and it is why we are taking action to reduce delay in court cases involving children.
But none of that will help the children who continue to wait unless we can find suitable adopters for them. New legislation and new initiatives alone will not automatically provide an adequate supply of loving and stable new families. A never-ending number of children come into care. They have desperately sad histories and wait for another chance to be part of a loving family.
There is not a never-ending supply of adoptive families for those children. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering estimates that 5,000 new adoptive parents are needed every year. In January 2001, more than 2,000 children for whom adoption was planned did not have an adoptive family matched with them and have been waiting longer than six

571
months. Thankfully, there is no shortage of adopters for very young infants. But those represent only one in every nine children adopted.
It is desperately sad that some of the children advertised in BAAF's March edition of Be My Parent magazine received no inquiries at all. That magazine featured 431 children waiting for adoption. The association received more than 1,200 inquiries about those children, but 129 children received no inquiries at all. Approximately half of all those children were from minority ethnic groups. Two-thirds of them were boys, and that is the point. It is evident that it continues to be difficult to place boys, black and minority ethnic children and, indeed, large sibling groups. I repeat that 129 children received no inquiries at all. What kind of future can those 129 children look forward to?
It is the firm belief of many adoption agencies and children's societies that permitting unmarried couples to adopt jointly would widen the pool of adopters. Let us reflect on what the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering say,
"We recognise that many people who actually inquire about adoption are living in stable relationships but are not married".
We know that that deters some people from going ahead because they do not want to differentiate between two adult relationships to a child.
Alternatively, take the Association of Directors of Social Services which says that the reality is that it is very difficult to find families for those children who have had distressing early histories and who may present considerable challenges to new families. That organisation says,
"In our experience, families who succeed with those children can be quite unusual. We do not want to exclude people from the possibility of providing a loving home based on a stereotypical view of what a loving family may look like".
The Catholic Children's Society of Nottingham says,
"While we respect and value a loving married relationship in its entirety, we believe that the amendment to the Bill has the sole purpose of securing the best possible futures for children, who by virtue of their life experience, are unable to remain in their families of birth".
When we debated this matter on Report some of the discussion was more about adoption by single and gay people than adoption by couples. Frankly, I found that surprising. Single people and gay single people already can and do adopt children. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed out on Report, single people have been able to adopt since 1926. If a single person is in a relationship—an opposite sex or same sex relationship—at the time of their application to adopt, the partner is also assessed. That is right and proper because a child will be entering a new family where the relationship between the adopter parent and his or her partner is bound to have a significant bearing on the success of the child's placement.
However, as the law stands, such a partner cannot adopt. In those circumstances it surely makes no sense for an unmarried couple, whether opposite sex or same
572
sex, not to be able to adopt jointly. How much better would it be for children living in families to have a legal relationship with both their parents rather than with just one and how much more secure would that make children, who inevitably have experienced much insecurity in their young lives, feel?
I have received correspondence from children living in families where only one parent is named on the adoption order. Those children are very clear that they want a legal relationship with two parents—not just one. Indeed, how does one tell a child in those circumstances that there are different levels of importance attached to the two adult partners, one of whom is the legal parent and one of whom is not?
Much has been said in our debates on this issue about the propensity of unmarried relationships to break down. I understand the concern about the breakdown of relationships and the devastating impact that that can have on children. But people in casual or short-term relationships are unlikely to put themselves forward, and if they did, they would not get very far in the process. Serious applicants would come from a self-selecting group, prepared for the tough process that adoption assessment entails. Surely those couples should have the same right to be assessed jointly as prospective adopters as that enjoyed by married couples.
I know full well the joys of a happy marriage and I know full well that not every married couple are happy or bring stability to their children. More than four in 10 marriages end in divorce. Of the married couples divorced in 1994, 56 per cent had children under the age of 16. Not every married couple can provide a suitable home for an adopted child, yet we know that some unmarried couples can provide wonderful homes for such children.
The key is the assessment process through which we can identify with confidence those single people and those couples who have the qualities necessary to be successful adoptive parents. Adoption is about suitability and judgments based on evidence. Generalisations cannot be used to determine an assessment. That would not be in the best interests of children. Assessments cannot be determined on the basis of a perceived hierarchy of relationships. That will not keep children safe. But we can assess each prospective adopter on his or her merits so that an informed decision can be taken as to their suitability to offer a home to a vulnerable child.
For that reason the adopter assessment process is critical. It is very tough. Some potential adopters feel that it is too tough and too intrusive. That is why adopters often drop out of the process at an early stage. But the assessment process must be tough, whether for married couples or for single people, or potentially in the future for unmarried couples.
I shall describe it. Once an initial inquiry has been made about adoption, the adoption agency asks prospective adopters to an information meeting, where they can meet and speak to social workers and adoptive parents and the adoptive parents can tell them at first hand about adopting a child and of the

573
challenges and the rewards. The social worker will answer any questions that they have about what happens or about the children who need permanent new homes.
Then a social worker will arrange to meet with the prospective adopters. That meeting gives the prospective adopters an opportunity to find out much more about what will happen if they decide to go ahead. Also the social worker will discuss with them what they want out of adoption and what they feel that they can offer a child. If at that point the social worker feels that it is not a serious application or that there is no evidence of a secure relationship, or no evidence of joint commitment, he or she raises very serious questions and the process is unlikely to go further.
If the prospective adopters decide to go ahead they need to fill in an application form. They will be asked to give permission for checks to be made. If the application is accepted, the prospective adopters will begin a longer period of preparation, assessment and training. Preparation is a time when they can find out about adoption in much more detail. They can also undertake some very important thinking about making a lifetime commitment to a child: what it means and whether they can do it. Part of the adoption agency's job is to give them that information, including the kinds of children available in the local area.
During that period of preparation, the agency will begin to assess the prospective adopters' suitability to adopt by building up a thorough profile of them. That is known as the home study. The home study is demanding; it can feel intrusive and it will take several months to complete. But at the end of the study the prospective adopters and the social workers will work together to produce a home study report. That report includes a detailed assessment of them as potential adoptive parents, along with the results of medical, police and local authority checks and personal references.
That study goes forward to an adoption panel. The prospective adopters' social worker attends that panel and the prospective adopters may also be asked to attend. The panel will recommend whether or not the prospective adopters should be approved as adoptive parents. Once approved the agency will begin to consider whether there are children waiting for adoption who may be a suitable match. Once a child or children have been identified as possibly suitable, full information about their background will be given. If the approved adopters wish to proceed, they will meet the child or children. If they all agree, and after a gradual period of introduction, the child or children will be placed with the approved adopters.
When the approved adopters and the child or children feel that they have all successfully settled down as a family, they will be able to apply to the court for an adoption order to be made. It has of course to be agreed by the courts. If the courts are not satisfied, they can reject that application. Courts have been agreeing to orders concerning married couples and single adopters, whether heterosexual or gay.
574
I have described the adopter assessment process in detail because I believe that it is essential to an understanding of what a tough, demanding and intensive process it should be. And it should be. It reinforces a fundamental principle at the heart of the Bill: the paramount interest of the child. That adopter assessment process will be gone through by anyone who wishes to adopt—married or unmarried, heterosexual or gay. Surely, that is the only test that must be applied, with the courts making the final judgment as to whether each adoption is in the best interests of the child.
Listening to the thought for the day this morning on Radio Four, I thought that Bishop Jim Thompson—
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do listen, my Lords, to the thought for the day on Radio Four. Bishop Jim Thompson put the matter so well. He stated
"There would be serious problems if the law is not changed in my view and only married couples or single people remain able to adopt".
Bishop Thompson said:
"In my own Ministry often amongst children totally deprived of love, I have seen single parents abandoned by their husband or wife give exceptional care. I have also known many gay teachers, doctors, clergy, nurses and others who have demonstrated a lifetime of dedicated care of children, and indeed of people of all ages. I know of an eight-year-old child who had been through three failed placements with foster carers who was eventually adopted by a lesbian who had a partner. The child has now had five stable loving years of necessary individual attention and the future looks full of hope. I have also known married couples who, together with their natural children, have nearly been destroyed by being too brave in adopting a child who demanded all their attention".
He continued:
"The essential is to create as warm, secure and loving an environment for a child as is possible, and we have to get real about both the children and the qualities required in adoptive parents. The widening of the possible choice of adoptive parents is not a failed ideal but a truly compassionate and, I believe, Christian realism to help provide extremely vulnerable children with what they most need, a loving home".
Surely, the bishop is right. Reflect on the poor outcomes for so many children left in care for year after year. Reflect on those children for whom no inquiries are made from potential adopters. Single people, heterosexual or gay, can and do adopt. What can be the objection to unmarried couples adopting with the added security it will give to children and the extension of the potential pool of adopters?
If a person or couple—married or unmarried, straight or gay—is willing to go through this intense process and is ultimately approved by the courts, should we really seek to prevent them so doing? I do not think that the children who continue to wail will thank us if we do.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.— (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

575
3.30 p.m.
26AB Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 26".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his introductory speech, which mapped out very succinctly the important issues that we are debating today. It is perhaps right that we should remind ourselves how good a Bill this is. Noble Lords from all parties and from none have supported it and have helped to improve it. We all want it to become law for the sake of the many vulnerable children whom we believe it can help in finding loving and supporting families.
We are left today however with one stand-alone issue that we have to resolve. Nearly three weeks ago your Lordships approved a series of amendments standing in my name; the effect of which was to reject the proposal made in another place that unmarried couples and same sex couples should be eligible to adopt children. Yesterday, the House of Commons disagreed with the opinion of your Lordships. It therefore falls to us today to decide whether we wish to ask the other place to think again about this important matter for a second time.
I am quite clear that the decision taken by this House on 16th October was the right one. I shall explain why. But in so doing, I preface my remarks by making one thing plain: I have always recognised that those who have campaigned for a change in the law in this area act from honourable motives. I would go further than that and say that I acknowledge the emotional force of some arguments advanced in support of such a change.
This is without doubt an issue with arguments on both sides. But my position can be summed up very simply. The rational arguments for change, when put under the microscope, do not withstand close scrutiny. Indeed, some turn out not to be arguments at all but rather assertions, unsupported by any evidence whatever.
I have looked very closely at all these arguments and my firm belief is that they are outweighed, and outweighed heavily, by the considerations that I outlined to your Lordships on Third Reading. I briefly remind the House what those considerations are. Unmarried relationships are, as a generality, much less stable and less enduring than marriages, especially those relationships where there are also children. Stability and permanence in a parental relationship are acknowledged by everyone and acknowledged in the Bill as the cornerstone of a successful adoption.
If we know—as we do that the rate of break-up among unmarried couples with a child is six-and-a-half times greater than the break-up rate of married couples with a child, then we cannot say that as a rule cohabiting parents offer a better prospect of stability to a child than do married parents.
576
I start therefore from the premise that the optimum environment for raising children is marriage. Indeed, there is compelling and well-authenticated evidence that children brought up by two parents who are married fare better under every measure that one can name than children brought up by those in less formal relationships—success at school, emotional stability, employment prospects and the avoidance of the terrible traps of drugs, teenage pregnancy and crime. All those desirable characteristics are much more likely to be evidenced in children who are brought up by married parents.
That is not to say that all married parents are equally successful or that unmarried parents are incapable of achieving the same result—of course not. But we need to remember one thing. Children who are adopted are different in one very important respect from children who are not adopted: they are almost always exceedingly vulnerable and frequently very damaged. Many have suffered emotional and physical neglect. Some have been abused and some have learning difficulties with emotional damage. Those are the children who, if they are left to the tender mercies of the care system, are all too likely to wind up unqualified, unemployed, on drugs or in prison. The difficulties presented by such children can be formidable. That is why the Bill should aim for the best for such children. If we believe that the best is, as a general rule, adoption by a married couple, we must examine extremely carefully why we should accept something that falls short of it.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would answer a question. Does he recognise that during the Division on Report, when I voted with him on his amendment, there was a sizeable number of people in favour of unmarried couple adoption?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was not aware of that because no noble Lord had told me that specifically. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. He may want to address that point to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding when he speaks.
Three main arguments are advanced by the proponents of change, which need to be stripped down and examined. The first is that at present, insufficient children are being adopted and we therefore need to widen the pool of potential adopters to include couples, including gay couples, who are not married. To me at least, that argument has real emotional force. There are indeed children, usually those with particularly difficult histories, who will never manage to find adoptive parents. If only we allowed unmarried and gay couples to adopt, so the argument runs, those children would have a better chance of finding loving homes.
That argument ignores one important and rather obvious fact. Individuals, both heterosexual and homosexual are, as the Minister said, already eligible to adopt children under current law. It is not self-evident to me that widening the pool of potential joint adopters will result in a greater number of children being adopted. There is no evidence for that. There is

577
no evidence that there are a lot of unmarried couples who are put off the thought of adopting merely because only one of them can legally become the adoptive parent. Widening the pool was the same argument used in a similar attempt to increase the number of foster carers some years ago. It has not succeeded and that should not surprise us.
We must consider the bigger picture. At present, there are roughly 11 million married couples in the United Kingdom. That is already an enormous pool of people. Only a tiny fraction of 1 per cent of those people would need to come forward as adopters who would not otherwise have done so for the Government's adoption target to be met. There is no shortage of potential adopters. The current problem relates much more to the off-putting adoption system and the failure of many local authorities to place children for adoption in the first place.
We should remember that the White Paper forecast an increase in the number of adoptions of 40 to 50 per cent once the Bill was enacted. That forecast relied on the eligibility criteria remaining as they are—in other words, limited to married couples and single individuals only. The Government's confidence that they will achieve their adoption target on that basis is one that we can share. Almost two years ago, when the House first debated the White Paper, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said:
"Many of the problems that we currently face with the shortage of adoptive parents stem from the number of hurdles that they have to go through, which can lead to them becoming discouraged or finding the process very off-putting".—[Official Report, 21/12/ 00; col. 843.]
The noble Lord could not have been more right. That is exactly the problem.
We would do well to remind ourselves of some of the matters that we have been debating during the past few months. The Bill as a whole provides the means by which the problems referred to by the Minister can be tackled and, hopefully, eliminated. I think particularly of the nationwide rolling out of adoption support services. Some local authorities succeed at placing children for adoption at five times the rate of others. The Bill will spur the worst of those to raise their game to the level of the best. Achieving that does not depend in the least on extending adoptive rights to unmarried couples.
I said a moment ago—I have used this argument consistently—that, as a matter of experience, marriage provides the optimum environment for bringing up children. That statement is the focus of the second main argument advanced by the proponents of change. They maintain that to talk about generalities in this context is irrelevant because of what will emerge from the assessment process. Every couple wanting to adopt will be subject to rigorous assessment that, among other things, will determine the stability and durability of their relationship.
I have no problem agreeing that adoption assessments uncover a great deal of information about a couple that bears directly on their suitability as potential adopters. That is a vital procedure. I do not accept that assessment can provide a sure test of the
578
stability and permanence of a couple's relationship. One distinction between marriage and an informal kind of relationship is the fact that when two people get married, they make a lifelong commitment to each other. For me, the commitment of those two people to each other is a prerequisite for their adopting as a couple, because it underpins the commitment that they will need to make as a couple to an adopted child.
Those who argue that the assessment process will flush out the degree of commitment that exists between unmarried partners seem to be saying that that is all we need. But, with great respect to them, I do not see how that can possibly be true. Two people who live together but who are not prepared to marry are implicitly signalling that they do not regard themselves as being in a permanent, lifelong relationship.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as one who said in Committee that, before marriage, we had seriously considered whether to marry or to cohabit, I take offence at that remark, which I regard as entirely ungrounded.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sorry that I have upset the noble Earl, which I would never willingly do, but I think that he has misconstrued me. He will know, as do I, that statistically, 60 per cent of people who live together go on to get married. I do not frown on that in any way. The context in which I am speaking is that of the long-term stability given to an adopted child. I had no intention of offending the noble Earl's sensibilities.
Two people who live together but who are not prepared to marry are signalling that they are committed to each other only up to a certain level. They may say that they are committed to each other permanently, but they have not actually gone out to do the one thing that would prove that. So if we are looking for the best indicator of a couple's commitment to a stable and permanent relationship, would we rather place our reliance on the judgment of social workers or on something much more obvious and visible: the public commitment to a lifelong relationship evidenced by marriage? To do the former would be a risk, and an entirely unnecessary one
That brings me to a broader issue. One of the main difficulties at present with the idea of unmarried and same-sex couples being allowed to adopt is that those informal relationships enjoy no protection or underpinning in law. Those who believe in using the Bill to change the eligibility criteria for adopters must show why it is sensible to grant rights and responsibilities to unmarried partnerships without having defined the precise status of those partnerships in law.
A consultation paper on civil partnerships is currently circulating. The ramifications of civil partnerships, both legal and fiscal, are considerable, but it is perfectly possible that, if there were to be comprehensive and well thought through legislation on civil partnerships, it might provide the basis on

579
which unmarried and same-sex couples could become adopters. At the moment, though, the necessary legal framework does not exist. If unmarried couples were allowed to adopt under this Bill, we would be preempting the outcome of the Government's consultation on civil partnerships in a major respect. The Minister in another place, Jacqui Smith, specifically warned about that last year. She said that it was,
"premature to commit to any changes until a comprehensive analysis of the issues and their implications had been completed".
She went on to say:
"We believe that it is better to consider adoption by unmarried couples in the wider context of partnership registration than in isolation".—[Official Report, Commons Special Standing Committee, 29/11/01; col. 383.]
The issue is especially significant in the context of property rights. Marriages can break down, but, if they do, the matrimonial court will decide on the distribution of the couple's assets in a manner that protects the welfare of the child to the maximum extent. If an unmarried or homosexual relationship breaks down, neither partner has an automatic right to the other's property. A co-habitee can be left with nothing. As legislators, we should not contemplate allowing a vulnerable adopted child to be caught up in the middle of that. Again, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, emphasised that very point in Special Standing Committee.
We need only read the recent report of the Law Commission on the subject to appreciate that the property rights of unmarried co-habitees are, at best, fraught with uncertainty. That is one of the main reasons why we ought to wait for a civil partnerships Bill, before seriously considering the possibility of granting adoption rights to unmarried and same-sex couples.
Lord Waddington: My Lords—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, first and then the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I want my noble friend Lord Howe to help me with one small matter. Is it not clear that, when the Government introduced the Bill, they did not consider it necessary to extend the right to adopt to unmarried couples in order to see the purpose of the Bill fulfilled and more children adopted? Does my noble friend know of any new evidence that has emerged since the Government first introduced the Bill that would account for the Government's complete change of mind?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is right. When it first entered the other place, the Bill was in the state that it was in when it left your Lordships' House nearly three weeks ago. I know of no evidence that might have persuaded the Government to change their
580
mind. Indeed, I do not believe that, as a whole, the Government have changed their mind. We have not heard a statement from the Government that their policy has changed; we have heard statements from individual Ministers. That is a peculiar state of affairs.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I listened with particular care to what the noble Earl just said about civil partnerships because of my Private Member's Bill. Am I right in thinking that he and his party said that they would oppose a civil registration scheme for heterosexual unmarried partners but favour it for gay and lesbian partners? Was not that the position taken by the noble Earl's party, and is it not still the position taken to this day?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the position of my party is that we will look constructively and sympathetically at any legislation proposed by the Government in this area. I can go no further; we await such a Bill.
The third main argument advanced by the proponents of change is the human rights argument. Last week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report that concluded that the Bill, as amended by your Lordships, gave rise to potential violations of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, combined with Article 8, and of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I find myself at something of a disadvantage in the matter, since, unlike my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—two of the distinguished members of the committee—I am not a lawyer. Despite that handicap, I can say with considerable confidence that that report need not influence your Lordships' thinking to any great degree, if at all. I say that not simply because I have in front of me counsel's opinion, which concludes that the report is fundamentally flawed. It might be said that it is just another lawyer's opinion. I say it because it is clear to anyone that there is more than one way to interpret human rights.
For a start, which report of the Joint Committee are we to believe? Do we believe last week's report or the report published by the selfsame committee last December? I remind your Lordships that, at that time, the Bill proposed what was then—no doubt, still is, as I said—the Government's policy that only married couples and single individuals should be eligible to adopt children. That is exactly the policy that I advocate today. Last December's report concluded that the Bill contained no human rights difficulties at all. The Secretary of State, Mr Milburn, signed a statement of compatibility on the Bill as it originally stood, certifying that, in his view, the Bill was ECHR compliant. He would not have made such a statement, unless he had received advice from the Government Law Officers that it was safe to do so.
The Secretary of State may also have been influenced by the knowledge of our obligations under the 1967 European Convention on the Adoption of Children, which specifically restricts adoption to married couples and single individuals. That

581
convention post-dates the signing of the ECHR, and the Joint Committee failed to mention it in its report last week.
Those who wish to change the Bill and the existing law have not made their case. The change that they seek is unnecessary, extremely risky and divorced from any coherent legal framework. For us to approve what the other place asks us to, when so much is at stake, would be thoroughly irresponsible. Therefore, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 26".—(Earl Howe.)
4 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I rise early in the debate to correct something that I said on Report. I regret to say that it was not one of your Lordships who spotted the error but a member of the public—a Mr Jarvis—who seems to read my speeches with close attention.
I referred to a Scottish case in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gave the leading speech. The case concerned a very disabled boy, and the prospective adopter was a male nurse who was also a homosexual. At col. 879 of Hansard of 16th October. I referred to the case as a good example of an adoption order that had been made in favour of a single homosexual. I might have taken several other reported cases, but I chose to take that one. At the end of my speech, when I came back to that case, I inadvertently referred to the "prospective adopters"—in the plural. That was wrong. The law of England is the same as the law of Scotland, then as now. The only couples who can adopt are married couples. I apologise for that error; I hope that it has not misled any of your Lordships.
I am glad to have gone back to the case. On its facts, it was remarkable. The application was made on the express understanding that the child would be brought up jointly by the male nurse and his partner. The Lord Ordinary thought that that raised an important new point of principle, but the court disagreed. The case raised no important question of principle. It was simply a question of what was best for that child in those circumstances. Accordingly, the adoption order was made.
Rereading the case has made me wonder what the noble Earl's amendment is really about, at least so far as it affects homosexual couples. Is he intending to make it unlawful for children to be brought up by two homosexuals living together on the grounds so often heard that that will mean that as they grow up they will have two "mothers" or two "fathers"? If that is his intention, I must inform the noble Earl and the House that the amendment will not achieve that result. Until we turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, there is no amendment to exclude
582
a single homosexual from the operation of Clause 50. If the amendment is passed—indeed, whether the amendment is passed or not—it will not affect in any way the validity of the Scottish case. As I think that he accepts, it will still be perfectly lawful for a single homosexual to apply for an adoption order on the basis that he and his partner will bring up the child jointly. However, if the noble Earl is content, as apparently he is content, that it should be lawful for a homosexual couple to bring up children together in that way—obviously where that is in the best interests of the child—what exactly is the advantage of making the adoption order in favour of one of those two, and not both?
That brings me to the question which the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, asked me on the previous occasion and which I failed altogether to answer, and to some of the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. The noble Baroness was correct. Adoption does indeed involve a legal relationship, as does marriage. I can understand, although I do not agree with, the argument that if as prospective adopters a heterosexual couple are unwilling to enter into one of those legal relationships, they should not be permitted to enter into the other.
How does that argument apply in the case of homosexual couples? Since homosexual couples cannot marry, it is surely better that they should both enter into a legal relationship with the child, rather than one only. They can only do that by both becoming adopters in law.
I agree with every word that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said about marriage and the importance of upholding marriage. But again how does that argument apply in the case of homosexual couples unless it is argued that single homosexuals should not be permitted to adopt, or perhaps only on the basis that they enter into some kind of vow of chastity? It seems to me that the question of homosexual couples and whether they should be allowed to adopt or not can have nothing to do with the question of whether we want to support the institution of marriage. It has everything to do with human beings as they are.
There is another point. Some of your Lordships may have professional experience—some perhaps even personal experience—of bringing up children who are severely disabled or damaged. I have no such experience myself. I suspect that it can be a daunting task physically, spiritually and emotionally. I can well imagine that a single homosexual might feel unable to undertake that task unless he can share the burden with his partner. Here I come close to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in his remarkable speech three weeks ago.
If a homosexual couple are going to share the burden of bringing up a child, is it not better that they should also share the legal responsibility? Over and over again last time, and again I suspect today, I find myself asking: why on earth not? It may be that some of those who spoke or voted in favour of the amendment on the previous occasion did so because of

583
a concern that there will be a flood of homosexual adoptions and that heterosexual couples will somehow lose out. I do not believe that to be the case for one moment.
I do not know what the number of current homosexual adoptions is: I suspect that it is quite small. It may be that there will be an increase in the number of those adoptions. Again, I would suspect that it would be quite small—perhaps very small indeed. Why do I think that? It is because the natural inclination both of those who take the first filtering decision in all adoption cases, and indeed of the learned judge, will be in favour, let us put it this way, of a heterosexual couple. At any rate, the judge will not make an order in favour of a homosexual couple unless he is satisfied—as any human being can be satisfied in matters of this kind—that that is in the best interests of the child.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, why does the noble and learned Lord believe that married couples will be favoured automatically? If the Government's wish prevailed and they were automatically favoured, surely that would be discriminatory against heterosexual couples cohabiting or homosexual couples of whichever gender.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is important that we should get away from any notion of discriminating in the case of a married couple, an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple because that is not what happens in practice.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has just said that. He said that in the filtering process married couples would be looked on favourably.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, that is so because a large number of all adoptions—I cannot remember the exact percentage—are heterosexual adoptions. That is bound to be so. However, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that what we are concerned with is not a question of discrimination; it is a question of finding the right people to adopt the particular child in question.
My point is that the actual increase in homosexual adoption—and I see no reason why this should not be the case—will not be great. I cannot say minimal, but it will not be great because whole number is not great. That is the position and if we can put that question on one side—and I ask noble Lords particularly on the Conservative Benches to try to do that—the question is: what is left?
What is left is the widening gap between those who are suitable to adopt, willing to adopt and able to adopt and those who are in need of adoption. There may be other ways of making a start in filling that gap—and in this very Bill we are making a good start in filling that gap—but we will make an effective impact on that gap only if we take what I argue is the
584
most obvious course; that is, to allow unmarried couples to adopt by including them among those who are eligible to do so.
On that aspect, I agree with every single word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on the previous occasion. However, with great respect, I do not agree with what fell from the Bishops' Benches on that occasion. I have no idea how many new adoption orders will be made if we widen the pool to include heterosexual unmarried couples. I have no idea, but, despite what the right reverend Prelates say, if there were only one unmarried couple suitable, willing and able to adopt one child in need of adoption who would otherwise spend the rest of his childhood in a children's home, that child's need must come first.
Although it has been said often, I need to repeat the fact that this has nothing whatever to do with the rights of unmarried couples to adopt. It has nothing whatever to do with the rights of homosexual couples to adopt. I regret very much the timing of the report of the Human Rights Joint Committee which can only muddy the waters. I will say nothing whatever about the contents of that report because we are not concerned with human rights in any shape or form. We are concerned with human needs; the needs of children to spend the rest of their childhood, if at all possible, in a loving home of their own.
Finally, I will conclude by quoting the very wise words of Lord Kilbrandon in a case which came before this House in 1977. I am pleased to be able to say that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce was a party to that decision, although it seems a long time ago. Lord Kilbrandon said:
"it could easily be productive of injustice if one were to attempt any hard and fast rule as to the attitude which the courts ought to adopt, in custody, access or adoption matters, towards those whose sexual abnormalities have denied them the possibility of a normal family life. This is because it is not possible to generalise about homosexuals, or fair to treat them as other than personalities demanding the assessment appropriate to their several individualities in exactly the same way as each heterosexual member of society must be regarded as a person, not as a member of a class or herd. Naturally, in a family law context, the fact of homosexual conduct cannot be ignored, but no more can the consequences of taking it into account be standardised".
Those are very wise words and I hope that noble Lords will have them well in mind when we come to vote on these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we have heard three very powerful speeches, particularly those from the Front Bench. They starkly showed up the differences of opinion which divided the House when we last debated the matter on 16th October.
The Motion which I have tabled with the amendment attached rejects this all-or-nothing approach. Both my noble friend and the Minister referred frequently to unmarried couples, drawing no distinction whatever between couples which consist of a man and a woman and couples which consist of either two men or two women. My Amendment No. 26AC, with Amendment No. 26AD attached to it, makes it clear that I agree with everything the Minister

585
said about unmarried couples which consist of a man and a woman. On the previous occasion I used the word "heterosexual". I can only refer noble Lords to the note on page 6 of the report of the Human Rights Joint Committee to get a good laugh as to what that committee thought about the word "heterosexual". It was clearly wanting to lift the sheets to see whether they were at it. On the other hand, I reject the idea of the law opening the door to adoption by two same-sex people.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was honest with the House when he confessed that he had got one case wrong last time. I, too, got something wrong last time. When I rose to intervene in the closing speech of my noble friend Lord Howe I said that no noble Lord had supported my amendment and indicated that in those circumstances I would not feel it right to try to move it. I could not have been more wrong.
I was right about what was said in the debate; no speech was made in favour of my amendment. However, as a number of noble Lords may have observed during the Division on my noble friend's amendment, I was—and I use the word advisedly—besieged by noble Lords from all parts of the House expressing their dismay that I was not going to move my amendment. Some, I know, went into my noble friend's Lobby very much as second best. They would much rather have voted for an amendment as I then had it on the Marshalled List and as I have it now.
In the past two-and-a-half weeks since that date, many other noble Lords have indicated that my amendment would have their support. I have therefore been encouraged to re-table it and it appears on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 26AD.
Last time it would have been open to me to move it, whatever the outcome of the first vote. I was not preempted. This time, due to the technicalities of the drafting of the Motions—not the amendments but the Motions—to agree or disagree, if my noble friend's Motion is carried, I will be pre-empted. The House will not have an opportunity to vote on the amendments that I have tabled. If noble Lords want to vote "yes" to an unmarried man and woman couple but "no" to a same-sex couple, it will be necessary in the first instance that my noble friend's amendment be not carried. If it is carried, I will not have a chance to put that question and seek the opinion of the House.
What about the case? I will try to be brief because I know that many noble Lords want to speak. The case for widening the circle of prospective adopters to include unmarried couples is based, as the Minister made very clear, on three propositions. The first is the need to find more stable families willing to adopt the difficult, older children and reduce the numbers in local authority homes. The state is not a good parent and anyone who has studied the Waterhouse report will have to say "Hear, hear" to that.
The second reason is that we live in a period of great social change in the patterns of family life. Sadly, a rise in broken marriages and a rising divorce rate are features of life today. Equally, there are many more
586
long-term stable relationships where couples decide, for whatever reason, not to marry. I agree with the Minister that the stringency and thoroughness of the assessment process and its emphasis on the stability, continuity and commitment of prospective adopters will be able to sort out a great many short-term unmarried relationships—and we all know about that—from the long-term stable ones. If that process is carried out equally rigorously on unmarried couples and married couples, the risks of breakdown must be very comparable.
It does not help, as some noble Lords have said, to quote overall figures for the short-lived nature of unmarried unions because they include a very large number of young people who may live together for a while before they get married or live together and then move to another partner. We know that this happens. As I said on the previous occasion, noble Lords will have come across this kind of situation within their own families.
The third reason emphasised by the Minister is that single people in informal relationships can and do adopt—but it must be desirable that a child should stand in a legal relationship with both an adoptive father and an adoptive mother. I stress those two words. Adding unmarried couples consisting of a man and a woman to the pool of adopters available will achieve that, and we should accept that proposition.
I turn now to the second leg of my amendment, which states,
"but shall not cover couples of the same sex".
On Report, I quoted from a paper where a Barnardo's research officer argued that the Bill should be extended in the way that the Government appear to wish. She said that there,
"has been no research specifically on outcomes for children adopted or fostered by lesbians or gay men".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, chose to interpret this as,
"no research at all on the effect on children of homosexual couples".—[Official Report, 16/10/02; cols. 890–891.]
But that is not what I said. I recognise that research has been carried out where one of the partners in a same sex relationship is the natural parent of a child who then goes on to live in a gay or lesbian household, but one of the parents is already a natural parent of the child.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having already made my apologies to the noble Lord in private for misinterpreting him, perhaps I may repeat them in public.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl. I thought it right to mention this to him beforehand. I am glad that we have resolved the differences.
There has been research on children where one of the parents is the natural parent, but there has been none on children adopted or fostered into such households. The question, therefore, is whether we really need to open this door.

587
Of course, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, it is open to the courts to approve adoption by one partner in a same-sex relationship. I agree with him, too, that this very rarely happens; it is not the most common event. Indeed, in the hierarchy—and I know that some adoption agencies reject the concept of a hierarchy—that would come at the bottom of the list. It would be married couples first and same sex relationships at the bottom.
But the case made by the noble and learned Lord for giving both partners in a same sex relationship the legal status of adoptive parents is very much weaker than the case where there is both a father and a mother. I cannot be convinced that the well-being of an adopted child with two fathers or two mothers is significantly enhanced by going through the motions of giving them both legal status. I do not believe that the country is ready to accept that adoption by same sex couples should have legal equivalence—for that is what is being sought—to adoption by a couple consisting of a man and a woman. It is for that reason that if my amendment is called, as it may or may not be—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he recall that at the opening of my speech on Report I apologised for being slow on the draw in not having asked him but having asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, whether or not this proposal would be fatally flawed by litigation in this country under European human rights legislation? He was not keen on answering that question. I therefore said that I looked forward to hearing the noble Lord's answer in due course because he had addressed the House at length on an amendment which he did not move.
In the interim, the noble Lord obtained from the Christian Society an opinion of counsel that his proposal would be fatally flawed. He handed that to me—I was very grateful—and then, at the very end, the noble Lord withdrew his amendment. Is not the reason for the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment on the previous occasion that he was persuaded by the opinion of counsel, provided to him by the Christian Society, which he read and then handed to me before making his concession and withdrawing his amendment?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I can answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, by saying no. That was one opinion, but I spent the weekend—perhaps rather fruitlessly—reading not only the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but the whole of the judgment in the Fretté case in the European Court of Human Rights on which the legal adviser to the Joint Committee based his advice. By Sunday evening I had come to exactly the same conclusion as the Government: we should not pay any attention whatever to the Joint Committee's report. I believe it to be nonsense and full of factual errors. The fact that in the other place the Minister devoted only eight lines of her speech to the issue at the end of a very
588
long debate—the Minister in this House has not mentioned the report at all—would indicate, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we can leave aside that consideration. This matter can be decided in the courts in this country under existing law. Of course such matters are open to challenge, but like my noble friend I do not believe that we should consider that factor as determining our position.
The other place has rejected my noble friend Lord Howe's proposition on at least three occasions, most recently when it rejected the amendment passed by this House on 16th October. Why should we suppose that if we send it back again it will not meet the same fate? If we try to do that, surely we risk Mr Speaker saying that there is deadlock and the Bill will fall. None of us wants that; we all agree that it is an extremely good Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the Speaker would not have to do so if the Government wished to retain the Bill and not lose it by agreeing to your Lordships' amendment. This is rule by the clock.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, having heard the Minister and read the debate in another place, if my noble friend thinks that that is what they are going to do he may be misleading himself.
But if, as I hope, my noble friend Lord Howe's Motion is not carried and I can move my Motion, we shall be offering the other place a compromise that the country as a whole would approve and that the Government would be wise to accept.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, we all agree that adoption should be for the benefit of children, not adults. So the Government's commitment to put the child's welfare at the centre of the adoption process must be strongly supported.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us, too many children are remaining in local authority care, which is sometimes inadequate and invariably impermanent, who deserve the opportunity to be welcomed into a loving, stable and committed home environment. The current shortage of adoptive parents, often stemming as we have heard from the number of hurdles in the adoptive process that have to be overcome, needs to be reversed. Much in the Bill tackles that.
The Minister referred to Bishop Jim and "Thought for the Day". I hope that he will continue to listen to "Thought for the Day" and be strong in his support for its retention. Bishop Jim and I agree on many matters, but on this issue we are at variance. Many in this Chamber voted against extending the opportunity for joint adoption to unmarried couples, both heterosexual and same sex, because we believe that it would be disruptive to the aims and objectives of what is otherwise an excellent and timely Bill.
If the welfare of the child is the paramount concern, we need to take seriously the damage that could be incurred by a child placed with a cohabiting couple.

589
All potential adoptive children have an in-built vulnerability, including an understandable inevitable confusion of origin and identity, often stemming from deep feelings of rejection.
For many years I have been closely involved with adoption issues. I am convinced that there are significant risks—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does the right reverend Prelate believe that it is better for a child to be brought up in care than by an unmarried couple, however short of ideal that may be?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, that is a persuasive point that has been made repeatedly. But there must be particular emphasis on encouraging more married couples to come into the adoption pool.
I am convinced that there are significant risks to a child's psychological development in growing up with two parents of the same gender, just as there are risks of a different but no less real kind when the adoptive parents are not formally committed to staying together.
It is argued that because the majority of those whose life chances would be vastly improved by adoption are older children and many have special needs, the pool of potential adopters should be widened to include cohabiting heterosexual and same-sex couples. But surely that is not a convincing argument. Older adoptive children often require and deserve even greater assurance of stability and security which the long-term life-long commitment of a married couple can best provide.
The sad reality is that there is only too clear evidence that, notwithstanding the rates of marriage breakdown, heterosexual relationships short of marriage are statistically much less secure and more prone to dissolution than marriages, as are same-sex relationships.
It can too easily be forgotten that the clause in the Bill stating,
"The paramount consideration must be the child's welfare",
is completed with the words—
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate referred to an argument used many times that unmarried couples have less stable relationships than married couples. Perhaps he might consider the following case: two couples who have had exactly the same history; each person had two short-term serious relationships and then settled down for life. One couple have settled down for life by marrying; the other couple have settled down for life as partners without marrying.
Using the right reverend Prelate's argument, statistically the married couple would appear to be far more stable because we measure their stability only when they are married, whereas the couple who decided not to marry would be defined as not stable because they have each had three unmarried
590
relationships. Yet we know that the history of the two couples is exactly the same. Is not the right reverend Prelate's statistical argument bogus?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, that is a scenario to which I can respond with some warmth, but the argument is essentially flawed. The married couple are making a public declaration in law to be committed to one another for life. That is the distinct difference.
In the previous debate on the issue I said that not only do I believe that the Judaeo-Christian ethic is clearly contrary to any change in the present law on this issue, but it also emphasises that it is within the context of the committed heterosexual relationship of marriage that the paramount interests of the child are best served. We spoke of children being neither pawns nor trophies. Less still should they be in the front line of what is effectively an experiment in social engineering. They need and deserve to be cared for and nurtured—
Lord Warner: My Lords, can the right reverend Prelate explain to us why this experiment in "social engineering" is so significant when we have an assessment process that is extraordinarily rigorous? Can he also explain how that assessment is a higher risk than the public pledge that both he and the noble Earl have made much of, which has a 40 per cent failure rate in terms of marriages that break down?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. However, I still resist that view. I believe that the phrase "social engineering" is valid because we are moving into uncharted territory with the direction that this amendment is taking. I am concerned that that basis should be safeguarded as much as possible.
Children need and deserve to be cared for and nurtured, ideally within a home environment in which the complementarity of the sexes is expressed by a male and a female parent, committed to one another—
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate, who speaks with great authority. However, from my personal experience, I have to check him on one point. I do not know how many Members of this House were brought up in care, but I was. If we put obstacles in the way of a child in care being taken into a happy and loving home, whatever origin you are talking from—whether Christian, or whatever—surely that is totally cruel and unjust. I hope that that view will be considered. Looking back over 50 years, I know how children in care are feeling. Frankly, if we are talking about depriving them of an opportunity to be taken into a loving and stable home, that would be appalling.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point of view. Earlier in my address, I mentioned that I have much personal involvement, interest, and concern with adoption issues.

591
This Government have consistently stated that they want to sustain the particular position of marriage as the fundamental reference point for family life and adult relationships. I cannot see how Parliament can responsibly allow the committing of children and young people for life to couples who are not committed to each other, publicly and in law, for life.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support the Government's group of amendments, and to oppose those tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, which I believe to be clearly discriminatory.
As we have said throughout these debates, the main consideration in regard to the adoption of children is their well-being. To achieve that for the maximum number of children, we must widen the net to attract all those who would make good adoptive parents. That is because it is a fact that children in public care fare a great deal worse than the majority of children in their own homes, whether with their natural or adoptive parents. Children with parents—any parents—do better at school and their physical and mental health is better. They develop better social skills and they have a much lower incidence of getting into trouble with the law. So we have a duty to find them loving parents and to ensure as best we can that their home will be stable and their environment suitable.
To leave a child in care is to condemn him to an awful life. We should not, as was the case with the noble Earl a short while ago, be comparing the lives of children in married families with those in unmarried families. We should be comparing the lives of children with some kind of family with those in care with no family. We all know which is better. Clearly, there are some people who should never be allowed to look after children—people who do not understand children's needs, and those who neglect or abuse children. Some of these people are straight, some are gay, some are single, and some are married. However, those who have the qualities that make a good parent are also a mixed bunch. Some are gay, some are straight, some are single, and some are married. Marital status and whether a person is gay or straight are unreliable predictors of parenting qualities.
What we are charged with doing in this Bill is setting the legal and regulatory framework within which individual children can be found the best possible family for them. Once prospective adopters have come forward, we have in place a very rigorous process by which they are evaluated to see whether they would be the right parents for the child. However, sadly, the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seek to remove a whole raft of good people from even being considered.
Let us turn to some of the objections—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps she
592
could answer this question. I understand the distinction between unmarried heterosexual people and homosexuals. However, I assume that the basis of the relationship between unmarried couples is love, and that the reason for adopting a child is love. My understanding of love has two major foundation stones: the first is sacrifice; and the second is responsibility. If that is the basis of love, why do not unmarried couples make the sacrifice in order for the child to be adopted?
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his intervention. However, I shall address some of the issues about unmarried couples a little later in my presentation to your Lordships. Many couples express love for each other and do so, as they hope, for life in just the same way as married people do. They do it in their own way. They live their lives in their families in their own way. I do not make any value judgment about that. I do not believe that that has any effect on their ability to love and care for a child.
I turn to some of the objections that have been raised to unmarried couples being allowed to adopt. Clearly, it is not the unmarried status itself to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, objects, or he would have proposed an amendment to stop single people adopting, as they currently can. The noble Earl based his argument on certain statistics relating to the stability of the relationship and said on Report, and also today:
"Nothing that has been said against my position today has refuted the validity of the statistics that I quoted".—[Official Report, 16/10/02; col. 909.]
I am about to refute those statistics.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, uses figures from the Office for National Statistics to claim that unmarried couples are less stable than married ones. Stability, of course, is desirable in an adoptive home, but we are talking about particular couples adopting particular children. No one can predict which partnerships will break up. However, let us look below the surface of these statistics to see whether they are valid. We find that they ignore the fact that many cohabitees never intended to stay together for ever in the first place, or they would have got married. No one asked them about that. Anyway, such people are highly unlikely to apply to adopt and, if they did, they would most certainly be rejected.
Neither did the statistics detail the age of the couples. However, we do know that a critical factor in the stability of a union, regardless of whether it is a cohabitation or a marriage, is the age of the couple when it started. Young people tend to split up more. The Performance and Innovation Unit report on adoption shows that the average age of people applying to adopt is 35, which is well past the age where married and unmarried unions are frequently unstable.
I turn to same sex couples. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, claims that their relationships are even less stable. He quotes the Christian Institute's claim that the average length of a closed gay relationship is 21 months. What the organisation did not say was that its

593
research was conducted for the purpose of developing sexual health strategies. It was deliberately conducted in places where younger gay men were considered likely to go for the purpose of sexual encounters; for example, pubs, clubs, and cruising areas. If a study were conducted for the same purposes with a heterosexual population in pubs, clubs and red-light districts, it might result in a similar finding. However, nobody would try to suggest that the results were typical of the heterosexual population as a whole. If they did, they would be rightly condemned.
On the subject of statistics, I shall address the claim by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that children of gay parents have lower educational achievement. If that were good-quality evidence it might sway some people. It is important, therefore, to look at the quality of the study. It is of poor quality. The book from which the noble Baroness quoted, Children as Trophies? Examining the evidence on same-sex parenting, makes extraordinary claims that do not stand up to close scrutiny. For example, the author states that,
"the lifespan of homosexuals is so much shorter than heterosexuals"
without bothering to explain that his study is based on a cohort of young men who are HIV positive and whose life expectancy is eight to 20 years shorter than that of their non-HIV-positive counterparts.
The study does not appear on any list of academic research that has been subject to peer review. In this country, we do not give much credence to research studies, published or not, that have not been subject to rigorous peer review. It must be noted that all such research carries an inbuilt bias in that the legislative background is so hostile that, while gay families do exist, they do so quietly. When civil partnerships were debated, numerous examples came to light of gay partnerships that had lasted for 30 and 40 years. It must also be noted that around 20 per cent of foster parents are unmarried. Should they not be allowed to adopt a child that they had been fostering successfully? Must that child be moved elsewhere?
Another argument against allowing unmarried or same-sex couples to be considered by the courts as adoptive parents is that the number of adoptions is rising and that 90 per cent of people who enquire about being adoptive parents do not make it through to approval. Could we not solve the problem by letting more married people through? First, I would not want to let any unsuitable people through the process just because they happened to be married. Secondly, the 90 per cent figure relates to the percentage of respondents to National Adoption Week campaigns who did not get through. But only 36 per cent of the people who responded were interested in becoming adopters; all the others had different enquiries. A reliable fact is that 90 per cent of people who get as far as going before an adoption panel are approved. It is a rigorous process.
However, there are still children in care. Barnardo's and other respected children's charities say that some children are never even placed for adoption because it is known that there will be no adopters for them. So the number of children who really need good homes is even larger than the number placed for adoption.
594
There are currently 55,000 children in care. Every year, 5,000 children are looking for an adoptive family and most of them remain in care, where their future is highly likely to include lack of educational attainment, clashes with the law, mental illness and homelessness.
My reason for exposing the failings of these so-called statistics is that children deserve better from us than clever debating ploys and twisted statistics They must certainly not be used as bait for marriage. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, seems to rely a great deal on statistics. If the situation were to change whereby it could be proved that unmarried couples stayed together longer than married ones, would the supporters of his amendment want to change the law to allow only unmarried couples to adopt? What if it could be shown that Muslim or Jewish marriages lasted longest? Would they claim that only Muslim or Jewish couples could adopt? 1 think not. That would be ridiculous.
Some people worry that children who live with gay parents are denied either a mother-or father-figure. So, too, were my children during part of their growing period, but there were plenty of other adults to whom they could relate. If that is such a critical point, why have we been allowing single people to adopt for so many years? Should we take away the children of widows and put them with an adoptive couple? No family is an ideal family, but every loving family will try to fill whatever gaps it has in some way. Society is very mixed, and people play many different roles in the lives of children.
Another objection to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt is that their children will get teased or bullied at school. We know that children can pick on those with a difference, even those with red hair. But some children have parents who wear different clothes, some have a visible disability and some are of a minority ethnic background. We do not condone bullying on those bases; neither should we accept it on this one—I assure noble Lords that teachers do not and will not. Teachers these days are a very mixed bunch themselves, but all are trained to be sensitive to the special circumstances of each child. No longer do they assume that all children have a mummy and daddy at home, for example. It is insulting to the teaching profession to assume that teachers could not protect the adopted child of unmarried or same-sex parents from bullying.
Some people have voiced concern that children placed with gay adopters would be abused. There is no evidence that this is likely, and, anyway, such concerns are far too narrow. We should be concerned for the safety and welfare of all children, not just those who are adopted. Many high-profile cases of abuse involve step-parents, but we do not, therefore, conclude that all step-parents are evil or incapable of caring for children and we should not make such a crude assumption about gay couples either.
Anybody deemed suitable to care for children under this legislation will have had to prove that fact to social care and childcare experts, to adoption panels and ultimately to a judge. The Bill does not confer on

595
anyone the right to adopt a child. It simply enables a wider group of good people to be eligible to have their suitability to adopt assessed by this rigorous process.
We on these Benches believe the changes to adoption law in this Bill are right, because children should not be political or ideological pawns. But they deserve the best parents who can be found: parents with infinite patience, stamina, a commitment to the child's education and good health, honesty, a sense of fun and a moral framework. Those qualities are not the preserve of married people; they are shared by unmarried, including same-sex, couples. Children who have had the worst start in life deserve the best possible support for the rest of their lives. They do not just need parents; they need the best parents. This Bill allows us to find more of those.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in this debate, particularly because I have not participated so far. However, I have followed the debate throughout the stages of the Bill.
One of the reasons that I wanted to speak at this stage was my growing dismay at the misrepresentation, particularly in the past 24 hours, of the terms on which this debate has been conducted. It has been misrepresented as a debate between those who are interested in the rights of adults and those who are interested in the welfare of children. I exempt the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from my comments, because he specifically said the opposite this afternoon. But the description of the debate has been caricatured in that way, as anyone who has listened to, or read, the proceedings in Grand Committee, on the Floor of this House and in another place would bear witness. This is an issue not about rights but about responsibilities. We have a strong and heavy responsibility, because we have the chance to influence the future of some of the most vulnerable and damaged children in our society today—those in the care system. It is an issue in interpreting what is best for those children, where there is room for those with similar objectives to hold very different views. That extends not only across parties, but, as the right reverend Prelate has accepted, to past and present members of the Bishops' Bench. It is possible to have very different views and still be committed to the welfare of children.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain asked:
"What is the justification for amending the Bill in the other place? Is it political correctness? Is it social engineering? Or—perish the thought—is it the permanent downgrading of marriage and the family?".—[Official Report, 16/10/02; col. 882.]
My answer is "No, it is none of the above". I rather resent the assumption that those could be the only reasons for so doing. I resent that not only personally, but on behalf of all those adoption agencies and all those organisations concerned with children who, after long and deep experience and consideration, have said that they believe that this is the right way forward.
596
I want to take a few minutes to examine our responsibilities. The noble Earl ended by saying that we would be irresponsible to agree with the Commons in what they have said. I should like to explain why I believe that our responsibilities lead us in that direction. We have responsibilities as Members of an unelected second chamber. There is no generality here. In view of what I shall say later, I would be the last to suggest general rules. We exercised our right to ask another place to think again. They have thought again. They have had a very thoughtful debate with some excellent contributions that noble Lords will have read. Overwhelmingly, on a free vote—I know a few dog licences were issued, but it was largely a free vote—they rejected our amendment and said that they believed the original amendment made in the Commons was correct.
There are many strengths about this House. I have had the privilege to serve in another place and here. I have to say that I rather enjoy being here better than being in another place. However, one thing that we do not have is the privilege of the responsibility of direct representational obligation. We should listen very carefully to those in another place who have those obligations on issues such as this.
We have another responsibility—a responsibility as legislators to provide coherent and intellectually robust legislation. If we do not accept the amendments, I do not believe that we shall fulfil that obligation. In a way, it is being suggested, with a nudge and a wink, that we do not have to worry about this issue, because adoption by same-sex couples already happens, as does adoption by unmarried couples. It happens de facto, because single people can adopt. They are allowed to adopt only after not only they themselves, but their partners, if they are in a partnership, have been assessed as suitable parents. The only thing that we should not do is allow that de facto state to become de jure. That does not seem to be a responsible legislator's position. It seems to lay down that we prefer children to be legally in single-parent families rather than in two-parent families. That sits very ill with the commitment to the two-parent family that most of those who have articulated a commitment to marriage have spoken about.
I do not know how many of your Lordships read the article in the Guardian about the educational disadvantage suffered by children in institutional care. It struck me strongly in the context of the idea that children would somehow be disadvantaged, made fun of or stigmatised at school if they had parents who were not married or parents who were of the same sex. I am a devotee of marriage. I have spent the past 25 years bringing up children in inner London. I have seen an enormous variety of parenting from my children's friends and schoolmates. I have seen parents who were not married, step-parents, parents who were single and parents who were gay do extraordinarily good jobs of parenting. I know in my heart that if it were me—and I suspect the same is true of many children from institutions—faced with the choice of

597
who should go in and bat for me at parents' evenings, I would rather have two parents of the same sex than one institution.
That is the dilemma that we have to consider. We have to look at whether we do a grave disservice to children who are adopted by a single person by robbing them of an element of security if that single person dies, by putting their legal status in a vulnerable position and by somehow saying to them that their parents are less good and qualitatively different, because they have not made that public commitment through a civil or religious marriage that they should have done, or because they are gay and are not able to do that. That is a terrible message to give to children who are vulnerable. It seems to fly in the face of looking at the individual.
That takes me to my third set of our responsibilities tonight. Those responsibilities are towards the children who are going to be assessed for potential adoption. We must provide the best that we can for those children. It is an issue about widening the opportunities for those children to be adopted. We have already heard about the disadvantages and risks of institutional care and the difficulty of placement. However, it is not only about increasing the numbers. As noble Lords have argued, it would be possible to increase the numbers overall simply by increasing the pool of married applicants. We are not talking just about quantity; we are talking about quality. We are talking about the right placement for every individual child. It has been taken as Gospel and as a truism on all sides of the House that children are best brought up in a two-parent family with a male role model and a female role model; a two-parent family that is there before they are conceived and continues throughout their life. That, instinctively, is what I believe. I am no radical in many areas. I am no radical as regards assisted conception, for example. However, we are not talking about children who do not exist; we are talking about children who already exist and whose lives are already not ideal. A friend of mine always used to say that those with happy marriages lead sheltered lives. However, the children we are discussing do not lead sheltered lives; they have experienced the opposite. They deserve their individual circumstances to be considered.
We have talked about the gold standard but throughout this debate I have not heard anyone argue that there are not a few children for whom, even if a married couple were available, one single adopter would be better. Some children have been so damaged by their experience that the view of social workers, of assessment panels and of judges is that the best family for them would comprise one parent giving them one-to-one care. without a partner and without other children. Those children are the exception to the rule, but there are exceptions to the rule that married parents always produce happy children. There are exceptions to every rule.
The fundamental reason I support the Commons in asking us to think again is that I consider that we sell these children short if we look at them only in terms of statistical probabilities. They are not statistics; they
598
are individuals, each with different troubled backgrounds. Can we offer them only a rule of thumb and a best guess as to what a category of adopter would do? Are we to rule out of consideration the possibility that there are some extraordinary people out there who could offer those children the best placement? That seems to me a terrible dereliction of duty. It is not a question of social engineering. To hold a sword over people's heads and say that they can adopt only if they agree to sign on the dotted line and marry, seems rather more like social engineering to me than what I am suggesting.
The nub of the issue is whether we tackle the problem of adoption for some of the most troubled, vulnerable and damaged children in our society on the basis of statistical probabilities as regards a group of whom neither they nor their potential adoptive parents are typical, or we give them one thing to make up for all that they have suffered; that is, the right to have their case individually assessed against the widest range of people who could offer the best hope for stability—the chance to pursue happiness. For me that is what the issue is about and that is why I hope that we shall not be obdurate in our views tonight.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that not one person who supports my noble friend on the Front Bench has ever, throughout the whole of the passage of the Bill, argued that people should be invited to sign on the dotted line and, simply because they are married, should forgo the rigorous process of assessment. I shall not give way to the noble Baroness as I have made the point and the noble Baroness has made hers.
The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons was indeed deemed to be compatible with human rights obligations. Then came the amendment proposed by a Back-Bencher in another place. The House of Lords returned the Bill to the House of Commons in its original form. Now we hear from the Joint Committee on Human Rights that if the House of Lords amendment is accepted, the Bill would be incompatible with our obligations under the human rights legislation. The Minister in another place appeared to have dismissed the conclusions of the Joint Committee; in other words, I assume that the Government stand by their original view that the Bill as originally introduced into the House was indeed compatible with human rights. I must ask the Minister for clarification. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Bill was compatible with human rights without the Back-Bench amendment in another place, how can it now be compatible with it?
The Minister invoked the bishop who spoke on the Radio 4 programme this morning. Bishops come in many shapes and sizes and have many varying points of view. We heard a wonderful speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and one with a similar view from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I predict that another bishop will speak before the end of the debate who may

599
express a different view altogether. We can all select our favourite bishop to make our case. I make no secret of who my favourite bishops are.
In 1998 a Labour government Green Paper carried the following words,
"marriage is the surest foundation for raising children".
In February 2000, at a No. 10 Prime Minister's Office briefing, the following was reported. Responding to questions about the draft adoption Bill drawn up in 1996 by the previous government, the Prime Minister's Office said that it had been drawn up under the last Administration to address some of these issues of adoption. However, presumably because of the election, it had not been progressed further. The Labour government were seeking to deal with some of the hurdles which made it very difficult and very demoralising for couples who, for the best of reasons, were seeking to adopt children. Questioned whether some of the difficulties included, for example, white couples trying to adopt black children, the PMOS said that, like gay couples trying to adopt children, this was a side issue. The Prime Minister believed that children were best brought up in a stable relationship with a mother and a father. The PMOS stressed that we were talking about the hurdles in the way of adoption. It was important not to go down side roads.
Then in July 2000 the Prime Minister's own review of adoption stated at paragraph 3.76 on page 35:
"What was clear from our discussions with agencies was whatever effort was put into advertising, there was a huge dropout rate from initial enquiries to the number of approved adopters. As a general rule-of-thumb, 1-in-10 of initial enquiries would result in an approved adopter".
That is only 10 per cent of those who set out to adopt. We know many of the reasons for that as they have been aired throughout our debates. Some would-be adopters are put off as they have not thought through the massive responsibility of adopting a child. Some are rejected on spurious grounds of suitability. Others, sadly, drop out because of the response they receive from some social services departments and/or adoption agencies which, according to many, are unfriendly, unsupportive or even insensitive. Many drop out because of the inordinate time that it takes to see the process through to adoption. Those points are all raised in the Prime Minister's own review published in July 2000.
I, and many others, have been accused of exaggerating those points. Therefore, I hope that I may be allowed to tell the House about a young girl whom I met only a week ago. She is a young officer in the Royal Air Force. She has been married nine years and would like a child. Adoption was suggested to her. However, she said that she could not possibly go through that as the group captain with whom she works and his wife went through the most traumatic and long process of trying to adopt. They were turned down simply because they were service people and it was likely that they might be posted around the country. As a service wife, I point out that almost all the service people whom I came across made
600
absolutely outstanding parents. The fact that from time to time we were posted should not be a reason for not allowing such people to adopt.
I turn to the issue of heterosexual unmarried couples and the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I agree with those who argued that my noble friend's amendment would involve unacceptable discrimination and I shall not vote for that amendment tonight.
Adopting a child is a very serious undertaking for any couple. The process is, and should be, rigorous. Couples have to meet the criteria that are set out in the Bill. However, one must question a couple who are not even prepared to make a legal commitment to each other. What security does that offer a child?
A lady on television last weekend said that she did not wish to be forced to make a commitment to marriage before God. No one is forcing anyone to make such a commitment before God, although that is what I personally should prefer. The couple can marry with little or no pomp and ceremony. My serious point is that a couple who are prepared to make a legal commitment to each other through marriage substantially improve the security and stability of the child.
Emotionally damaged children require love, stability and security. All the evidence shows that cohabiting heterosexual couples and same-sex couples may also love. However, they do not offer the same level of security and stability as married couples; security and stability are so lacking in the lives of many of these children. One partner of a same-sex or even an unmarried couple can so easily simply walk away from the relationship. There is no security there for the child.
Much has been made of single adoptive parents. The Minister knows and I know—and so does anyone who has anything to do with adoption—that such cases are very exceptional indeed. We have heard of one exceptional case; I happen to know a little about it, but not as much as the noble and learned Lord. The relationship between the medic and the child was exceptional and right on that particular occasion. That was a major deciding factor in the case. Very few children are placed with single people.
I shall give another example, which may explain why the provision has not been removed from the statute book. A couple who fostered a child for two years—this is a true story—decided during the period of fostering that they would like to start adoption proceedings, and they did so. However, just before the court order made that a legal proposition, one partner died. The adoption eventually went through and the single parent was allowed to keep the child. By that time, there was a particular relationship.
Much has been made of the need to widen the pool of would-be adopters. I agree with that aim but, as I have already said, the effect of the Bill, which is supported by most of us in this House—certainly by most of us on these Benches—will be to widen the pool not of people who simply get married, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, but of those who are

601
married and who go through the rigorous process. The system will be more transparent, there will be an appeals system to deal with those who believe that they have been wrongly rejected as suitable parents and there will be more support for those who adopt children, particularly the more challenging children. The issue of widening the pool for adoption has already been addressed. It would be wise for all of us to see how that works.
My motivation, and that of those who support my noble friend Lord Howe, has nothing whatever to do with being anti-homosexual or anti-cohabiting couples. Too much of this debate—I shall incur the wrath of the noble Baroness by saying this—inside and outside Parliament has been about lifestyles and the rights of adults. I have heard it said on too many occasions that we are creating two tiers of adoptive parents. That is about the rights of those people, not about the rights of the child.
I am unequivocal in my support for my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady O'Cathain. I support the well-being of children. Some of them are damaged emotionally, physically and/or mentally. They should have the greatest stability and love. In the words of the Prime Minister, the surest way of achieving that is to place a child in a family with a mother and a father.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords—
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we should hear from the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I very much respect those who wish to strengthen the role of marriage in society, and I share that aim. In particular, I share the commitment of my friend the right reverend Prelate to marriage and support his work with adoption agencies.
It may be true that we have our favourite and least favourite Bishops. One of the good features of this House is that we can all listen to rational argument and, I hope, be persuaded by it. I listened with particular attention and interest to the speech of the noble Earl, who said that he had looked at the arguments as rationally as possible. I honestly believe that it would be difficult for his case to be put more strongly and persuasively than he put it.
However, perhaps the noble Earl will agree that some of his arguments were stronger than others. First, we can all agree that cohabiting relationships are statistically likely to last less long than married relationships as a general rule. The noble Earl rightly devoted most of his attention to that particular, special, selecting group of people who are willing to adopt, particularly among the group of usually older children who often have special needs. He argued, as did my friend the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that if they were going to commit themselves to a child, they should first show their commitment to one another in a public
602
declaration. I take that point seriously. However, that applies to two different categories of people in two very different ways. Gay and lesbian couples are simply not able to make a public legal commitment to each other in this country at the moment. The noble Earl's argument falls in relation to that group of people. We may wish that the situation were otherwise, but that is the case. They are not able to make a public legal commitment to each other.
Secondly, some cohabiting heterosexual couples have genuine conscientious objections to getting married. Perhaps they have been seared by the breakup of their parents' marriage or shattered by the breakup of their friends' marriages. They honestly believe that their relationship is more likely to last if they do not commit themselves to marriage and simply commit themselves in love to one another. We must respect the conscientious objection that certain people have to marriage.
When we consider the kind of couple who might want to adopt children in that situation, we are considering a very special kind of couple and a very particular kind of commitment. As has already been pointed out, the average age of such couples is likely to be about 35. To use the language of the old prayer book, they are not going to enter into adoption unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly; they will do so after a great deal of serious thought and only with the assurance that they can commit themselves in the long term to each other and the child. With all respect to the noble Earl, I do not believe that in either of those cases his arguments are finally persuasive.
Thirdly, the noble Earl argued that this legislation will not widen the pool, as has been suggested on a number of occasions. In response, I can only say that 382 agencies, which are most concerned with this issue, believe that it will widen the pool. They include Church of England and Catholic agencies. Therefore, the people who are most concerned with this issue, who are most committed to it and who work with it day by day believe that the legislation will widen the pool.
Fourthly and finally, the noble Earl pointed out that it might be more sensible to wait for greater clarity on the nature of civil partnerships and on the kind of legal rights and responsibilities which will come about with such partnerships. No doubt there is currently a great lack of clarity in relation to property and inheritance.
But surely one thing is crystal clear: if the Bill is passed with the Commons amendment, then any child who is adopted will have a clear legal right to two parents and those two adoptive parents will have a clear legal responsibility to that child. If we believe that the legal bond of marriage strengthens a relationship, as I believe it does, then surely it follows that a legal bond between the adopted child and the adoptive parents will strengthen that relationship. The love that exists will be strengthened by the legal relationship.
The noble Earl suggested that we should go for the very best for this group of particularly vulnerable children. But, as we know, sometimes the good is the enemy of the best. I believe that, for the reasons I have

603
suggested, the good of this particular group of very vulnerable children points to accepting the Commons amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have been present throughout the passage of the Bill, except during one debate when I attended a board of the National Care Standards Commission. I am a practitioner. I shall not make the speech that I was intending to make because I believe that most of the points have already been raised. I stand here between two colleagues who are also practitioners—my noble friends Lord Laming and Lord Warner. I suppose we could say that, for decades, in many ways we have been responsible for trying to place such children. I am also looking around at other colleagues who have had similar experiences.
We have struggled with old adoption legislation. Improved as this is, our colleagues who have now taken up the cudgels will struggle with this legislation. The reason is that, by the time the children reach us, they are extraordinarily disturbed and difficult. That is not their fault. They have been through extraordinary experiences. I spent 15 years listening to children on the telephone at Childline and I heard about their experiences. Many of the children were in heterosexual family homes. We should not deceive ourselves that marriage and a family make a family a safe place; nor should we deceive ourselves that any relationship makes a safe place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made many of the points that I have chosen not to make about the way that statistics are interpreted and the way that families are characterised. I would not sully your Lordships' ears with the details, but I have heard of the worst forms of abuse taking place in families with a mother and a father where children have been extraordinarily sexually and physically abused. Those children often end up in our children's homes, where our staff make tremendous efforts to put things to rights. But no social worker in the country would say anything but, "Could we place some of these children in a family? That would be our choice". That is not always the choice that is made; sometimes there is a need for residential care.
We have talked about adopters dropping out. I have made this comment on a number of occasions: when one tells would-be adopters about the children that they are likely to adopt, it is not surprising that they drop out. I understand absolutely that many families want to adopt a baby. We know—we have said it several times in this House and throughout the debate—that there are simply not enough babies to go round. I repeat that phrase in order to emphasise how we view the matter. We should not be looking at how many babies there are to go round but at how many families we can find for every child in need. Indeed, the noble Baroness stated that very clearly. A sentiment felt strongly on both sides of the House—a view that I respect—is that we are looking for the best for every child.
604
However, it is necessary to look at the behaviour of some of the children to whom I refer. I believe that my noble friend Lord Warner, in his present position, is more aware of this than I am. A 10 year-old who is already sexually active, who has burgled the whole local village and who is not against a street mugging is not an easy placement. By the time that child is 14 years old, the odds of placement will be even lower and the likelihood of it happening even narrower. As someone who has tried and struggled to find homes, I can tell your Lordships that people who long to give homes to such children are simply not out there.
I believe that real issues arise in relation to placing some of those children in family homes where there are other children. In carrying out an assessment, one is careful to ensure that one does not leave other children in the family vulnerable to the sexual advances of a young man who is already abusing in his career. Therefore, many assessment decisions have to be made.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, whose previous speech I admired and whose speech today I admire even more, argued about the homosexual issue, and so I shall not refer to it. I simply want to remind the House that it is not in homosexual, heterosexual or single relationships where boyfriends enter the scene that children are abused; it occurs in the whole range of relationships. The real test is to get right the training and assessment of children.
I am not a lawyer and so I do not know about the human rights or property debates. I only know and understand how I would feel as a child. I heard recently of a child who, on the death of both his parents, desperately wanted to be placed with his uncle and his uncle's friend. He wanted to know what would happen to him if his uncle also died. Would he have property rights? Would he belong in the same way to this new family in which he chose to be placed? Children do not understand such subtleties; they understand only the need for love and care.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships—I believe it is my responsibility to do so—about the voices of some of the children. I have recently been involved with the Seiff Foundation, which looks at the issue of children in prison. Earlier, a noble Lord referred to the fact that, although a statistical number of children are apparently waiting for adoption, there are many more who could use families if only we could find them. Again, about 3,000 of those young people are in prison-type institutions in this country. As we have heard time and time again, a staggering percentage have experienced the care system or have had multiple placements. Perhaps your Lordships will listen to the voice of a 14 year-old in secure accommodation:
"I'm only in secure because I've been in the care system since I was four. It's only because I'm in the care system that they can do this to me. I'm vulnerable, but I wouldn't be here if I wasn't in care".
Another said:
"Since the age of 11 I've been running off and looking after myself. I'm not like a normal 15 year-old that has a family and has never run off".

605
I have said before that anecdote does not make evidence but I could produce hundreds and hundreds of examples of voices of children telling us about their wish to be in a secure family. Their behaviour would deny that but we know that, if we can hold on to them for long enough and give them stability, those children would settle down. These are the children for whom we should lose no opportunity to find the widest pool of alternative caring families. I take the view that finding one family for one of these children is worth while. When I started with Childline I said that if we could help one child it would be worth it, but we have helped a million.
We should not give up on these children, but putting them in ordinary families can cause a difficult situation. Some of the children say that they do not want an ordinary family relationship. There are youngsters who say that they would prefer to stay in a residential home than repeat the kind of family experience that they have had. Sometimes an alternative experience with single people, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, or in a different kind of family will give such children another chance, so that they are not put under the kind of relationship strain that they have already experienced.
The situation depends on where children find themselves. This is not a test-tube situation in which a child has a choice. Most of these children find themselves in foster homes where they have a loving relationship and then they are put forward for adoption, often with adoptive parents who are not married or who are in a gay situation, or where one of the people is a parent. The children want to feel stable with both parents. It is not about finding children for families, but about children finding themselves in families.
I am unmarried so I do not want to participate in the debate on the sanctity of marriage. I do not want to talk about the rosy picture that is often painted of family life. Let us remind ourselves that even adoptive families break down and even the best assessment processes occasionally will not make everything perfect. Let us not seek absolute perfection, but look for the best. Family breakdowns are damaging to children. I assume that every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate is not divorced and is providing the best possible context for his or her own children.
In this debate we should be discussing the assessment of applicants, the training of social workers and our ability to listen to children. In an age when we cannot attract social workers to the profession—need we ask why when we consider the type of tasks that we ask them to undertake—why have we spent such a tiny amount of time discussing the issues with half a dozen of us sitting around a table or in this Chamber, yet today. with great interest from many noble Lords, we are spending so much time discussing this matter?
We must do nothing to prevent children, especially children in trouble and those with disabilities, from finding a place that will be their emotional home. That
606
may not be conventionally comfortable; it may not fit our beliefs—I say that as a Christian—or our prejudices, but is it really ours to take away?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, described the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as nonsense. I believe he also found the judgments to which we referred in our report extremely unhelpful; that is the unanimous judgment of the South African constitutional court delivered in September and the minority view in the Fretté v France, where the British judge, Sir Nicolas Bratza, formed part of the minority.
I am sorry that the noble Lord found our report to be nonsense. Without going into the detail of that report, I want to mention a couple of points. At this late hour noble Lords will not want me to say more. First, why did the committee, which is a unanimous, all-party and beyond-party committee, deliver its report? The answer is that one of the matters that the committee tried to deal with in scrutinising legislation is amendments that are tabled in the course of a debate, but which have not received consideration by a Minister's compatibility statement. We believe that it may help both Houses to deal with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly referred to as our responsibilities as legislators. We try to inform both Houses of our opinion—it is no more than an opinion—as to whether we consider an amendment likely to be regarded by the courts as compatible or incompatible with the human rights and duties by which the UK is bound.
That is why we report and we have to do so with great speed. That does not excuse the fact that our report contains one mistake for which I must apologise. It summarises the Fretté v France case incorrectly. It makes it appear to be a case about a lesbian couple, but it was a case about a single homosexual man.
My other point is that when I hear noble Lords say that they do not agree with the report, I wait in vain for them to explain what they disagree with in relation to the reasoning. The constitutional court of South Africa, as one will see if one reads page 8 of the report, was faced with a child care Act with identical provisions to those in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The constitutional court of South Africa, a common law jurisdiction of high repute, unanimously decided that it would have to strike down the exclusion of homosexual couples while dealing later with the position of heterosexual couples.
We predict—it is no more than that—that if our courts were faced with a human rights challenge to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, under the Human Rights Act, they would he likely to declare either or both of those amendments to be incompatible. If they made a declaration of

607
incompatibility, the matter would return here. That is only a prediction and I am simply one member of the committee making that prediction.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am confused. My noble friend on the Front Bench raised this point. The Bill was drafted by the Government, supported by the Government in the other place and certified by the Government to be compatible, as the noble Lord's committee agreed. He is now saying that that is not the case and that it would fall if challenged. What has happened in-between?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am anxious not to take time on this matter, but we deal with that point in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, can read it. We explained what has changed at the beginning of the report. He will see that this is not the Bill that was originally introduced and that the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, changed the original Bill.
I suggest that if this matter had to be argued before the senior courts of this country, they would be likely to follow the constitutional court of South Africa's reasoning, as they have frequently in other human rights cases when considering the decisions of other constitutional courts across the Commonwealth. I hope that it will not be necessary—the House will reject these amendments—to employ lawyers like myself and to take up the time of the courts with the result that the matter is referred back to this place.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I have thrown away my original speech because many powerful points that I wanted to make have already been made. I want to emphasise and support my noble friend Lady Hayman who spoke about widening the pool of adopters. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, also mentioned that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, most people who want to adopt, want to adopt babies, not difficult children. Therefore, the pool needs to be widened. Children who are difficult to adopt are often left in care.
I want to quote from yesterday's Daily Mail—a journal that I do not often read—and from a spread about a lesbian couple, the headline of which reads,
"Liz and Josette have been together for 17 years and have adopted three emotionally disturbed girls".
I shall read out the letter from one of those girls which pulls together some of the points that have been made by many noble Lords about the problems of children who are not adopted. The girl said:
"Dear Lords and MPs, I am adopted and I would like to have both of my mums' names on my adoption certificate.
"I want two legal parents and I don't care if they are married. I did not want a dad because of some private things I cannot say.
"I already had a mum and dad and I have a birth certificate to prove it. They were very bad and I never ever want to see them again.
"I am a good girl at school and I work very hard and I feel like you make us feel punished and wrong again. I feel you telling me my family is wrong. I think you are being horrible to us".
608
The question is whether this girl is better off in a children's home than with these two parents and her siblings, who clearly love her.
I implore your Lordships to think again about the flexibility which is essential to allow such children to be adopted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we could draw a few threads together and consider a possible time limit. We started at 3.15. Are your Lordships agreeable to contributions being concluded, other than those of Members winding up, by about 6.30? There would then be an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and others to speak. Would that be too early for your Lordships?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is glaring at me and saying, "6.15". I therefore capitulate.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I too have a speech—not very long—prepared. Most of what I was going to say has been said already.
It is disappointing that the other place rejected the amendment which was passed so conclusively in this House on 16th October. I know that there are those—and this point was mentioned again today by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—who feel that this House is undemocratic because noble Lords are not elected. A great number of people outside this House have followed this issue extremely carefully. The mailbags have shown where the preponderance of preference lies. I think that this House has actually done a great service to this issue and has listened, whereas the other House has not necessarily listened. I do think that that is democratic.
Let us remember that the vote on this issue was won here only because of support from all sides of the House—either actively voting for the amendment or abstaining for their own special reasons. It is not a Conservative issue only; it is an issue for us all. It is an issue only about children. It is that we should get more damaged children "rescued" from the instability of changing foster placements or from institutional care, offered a permanent, stable home and given a fresh, new start by loving people who put the welfare and the care of those children above other considerations. That, in essence, is what we all wish for each of these children.
The point was made that we are using statistics to our own advantage. In fact yesterday the Minister of State for Community, Department of Health in the other place, Jacqui Smith, used the phrase,
"dogma backed up by dodgy statistics".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/02; col 96.]

609
Statistics have been misquoted in this House today which imply that we said that couples who marry have the same kind of stability as couples who cohabit. The Office for National Statistics' figures, which were quoted before, state that, for couples who are married and have a child, within five years of the birth of that child 8 per cent split up; and for couples who cohabit and have a child, within five years 52 per cent of them split up. That is the salient difference when we talk about the stability of married couples and of cohabiting couples.
People talk about cohabiting couples in loving relationships. They will have to commit to this child—a very difficult child as has been pointed out. We all know these children are not babies. They have been fostered. They are children who have been in and out of institutional care. If heterosexual couples are prepared to commit to this child in a legal way, why can they not commit to each other? No one—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in particular has certainly not convinced me about that—
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not know of some couples who cannot get married because one of them is married already and for various reasons cannot get divorced?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, yes, I think I do. They probably do not want to adopt, do they?
Because of the proposals in the Bill, we are all talking about widening the pool of adopters. Absolutely, that is what we want to do. But let us not forget that the pool has been widened significantly since 1997 when the Prime Minister took a personal interest in the issue. At that stage 1,900 children—out of a potential 5,000 offered for care—were adopted. This year the figure is 3,800, which has hit the Government's target for the year 2004. The momentum started with the Prime Minister. The pool will he widened further once the Bill becomes an Act. I am absolutely convinced of that. Again those 3,800 children are not babies but damaged children.
The amendment to the Bill in its passage through the other place aims to widen the pool. I think that is not necessary. I do not want to get involved in the legal minefield. I shall not. But in the interests of brevity I should just like to say that these are not dogma and dodgy statistics but statistics supplied by the Office for National Statistics.
Looking at the matter from another angle—and this is my last point—is there a large demand by non-married couples to adopt? I think not. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering's study of 1,932 adoptions reported not one case involving a person adopting a child while living with a partner. That is the agency which sent us all this information, including Be My Parent. The same study found three reported cases of a homosexual being approved as an adopter. Homosexual adoptions comprised 0.2 per cent of all those approved.
610
What we really want to ensure is preference for adoption by married couples in the interests of damaged children. This was supported by the Government's statement in the Green Paper on the family that,
"marriage is the surest foundation for raising children".
Unless this House insists on the amendment we are debating, not only will we be flying in the face of the Government's commitment to the married family but we shall also take a huge risk with the long-term prospects of the damaged children we so much wish to protect.
Lord Laming: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, I have not been able to be here throughout every stage of the Bill. I am grateful for the opportunity to say something today, albeit briefly.
A great deal has already been said in the debate today. I shall not try to rehearse it. Indeed, I could not say it as well. The Minister set out very clearly the rigorous process that adoptive parents have to go through. That is only part of the process. They then have to go to court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, set out at Report and again today the kind of thinking that courts adopt when they consider matters of this kind.
In 1961, I first started to work in courts which dealt with, in those days, family matters. I was struck by the great care and concern of the courts which dealt with these matters. I was aware of the anxious thought that was devoted to trying to ensure that all parties were treated fairly, but in particular that the interest of the child was always kept at the centre of the court's attention.
Of course we should all like to see children placed in what might be described as ideal situations, whatever that may be. The reality is that courts rarely deal with ideal situations; they deal with quite difficult situations where a great deal of sensitivity has to be displayed and a great deal of careful judgment has to be exercised.
I mean this as a compliment when I say that in the years of my involvement in the courts I never thought that they were remotely interested in or influenced by what might be called social engineering or political correctness. They have always devoted their time and energy to carrying out their main function, which is applying the law to the best needs of the individual child.
Some children come forward for adoption having had bad experiences. But it is not possible to legislate for every possibility. Perhaps I may suggest one possibility to illustrate the point that I want to make. Let us imagine a family with two young children and the parents are killed in a car accident. Fortunately, there is a loving maiden aunt, who willingly offers the children a home and her care. In due time, the maiden aunt decides that, for the long-term security of the children, she will seek to adopt them. During the adoption process it emerges, first, that she is engaged in a long-term lesbian relationship and, secondly, that her health has some questionable aspects to it. In the long-term interests of the children and their security, it

611
may well be thought sensible for both women to adopt the children. The reality at present is that are they unable to do so.
Parliament cannot anticipate every possible human situation where adoption may be necessary and where it may be right for a child or children. What Parliament can do is to create a framework of legislation allowing judges and those in the courts who deal with these difficult matters to exercise careful judgment about the best interests of the child, given the reality of the situation in which he or she finds herself. That reality cannot always be anticipated by Parliament. Parliament has to create a situation where it is possible for the courts to exercise such judgment. I suggest that that is best achieved by allowing the amendments from the other place to go through.
6 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I came to this House today with an open mind—having "sat on the fence" at Third Reading—determined to reach a conclusion. This has been a fascinating and brilliant debate. It has certainly helped me to reach—albeit agonisingly—a decision. I shall vote with the Government.
I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the following point. Ironically, it touches directly on a point made by the previous speaker. It concerns the efficacy of the assessment process. Everyone in this House has been caught up with the effectiveness, the wisdom, of the means of arriving at an adoption decision. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, generously said at Third Reading:
"I happily agree with many noble Lords that married couples should have priority over unmarried couples. I also agree that unmarried couples should have priority over gay couples".— [Official Report, 16/10/02; col. 874.]
He was indicating that in the assessment process one can expect the adoption panel, social workers and the court to take account of all the considerations of which those comments are a part.
However, thinking back to the early days of my own career when I acted in adoption cases, I have to say that the second part of the two-part process—namely, where the judge reaches a decision in court—was cursory at best. During the past two days, I have checked on this with current practitioners of adoption law. Both confirmed that, in the phrase used by one, it is a "victory parade". He said that by the time the case comes to court, it is over and done with. These days, there are photographers, flowers, even drink, and everyone is dressed in their best bib and tucker. It is not, so I am informed by current practitioners, a very effective second part of the process, and that is the norm in most courts—it may vary from court to court.
Since everyone rightly places such importance on this two-part process, the Government may be well advised to inquire as to the extent to which the second part of the process is a real one. If it is an unreal one—
612
and I suspect that it is—the House, and indeed the country, would be greatly reassured if it were given the efficacy that many assume it to have.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on the previous occasion I voted in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I am afraid that this time I cannot do so. Perhaps I may explain why.
I voted as I did, along with a sizeable number of Members of this House—which may well be reflected in the Lobbies this evening—to make a point on the question of same-sex adoption, aspects of which concern me. I have never been opposed to adoption by heterosexual unmarried couples.
The debate has indicated that we should be very careful about voting down the proposition that has come to us from the Commons in that area. Society has changed; and we have a duty to reflect those changes. My position was half set out, both on the previous occasion and on this one, by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is not that I am altogether concerned about certain types of same-sex adoption—in particular, lesbian adoption. There is adequate evidence of many successful placements of children in lesbian circumstances. My main concern relates to the placing of boy children in a household where two men are the official adoptive parents.
It is not the question of abuse that concerns me. That question will be adequately dealt with during the assessment process. It is likely that there will be less abuse given that an assessment process has taken place than in heterosexual conditions—that is to say, under normal parenting arrangements. I am worried about what will happen in the mind of a boy child in those conditions. I have seen no evidence, work or description of conditions relating to such cases.
As I understand it, technically, boys can currently be adopted by individual homosexual men—who on occasions, I presume, live with their partners. There must be work available in this area, but I cannot locate it. Have Members of this House seen any of this material? It is simply not available. All I ask is this. Before we take a decision of this magnitude, let us see some evidence of what happens in such circumstances.
I am worried about the position of boys in the local community. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to bullying. In some communities bullying is extremely difficult to handle. When I ask how children will manage, I am told that they will be helped—but by whom? It is often difficult for a child who is bullied to find the necessary help to stop the bullying. I am worried that boys in those conditions may well be targeted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I do not think that I have ever interrupted a noble Lord's speech before, but does the noble Lord think that we should allow bullying on the basis of colour or disability to continue? If not, why should we allow it to continue on this issue?
Lord Campbell-Savours: The answer to the noble Baroness is no.

613
Boys may well reject their family environment. In certain conditions, they may turn against society. I do not know, because there is no evidence and no one has provided any information about what happens in such conditions. They may become anti-social. I do not know. But people are asking such questions. Concern is naturally expressed by those who take an interest in the matter. Could boys in such conditions become sexually confused? I understand that that has not been a difficulty in the case of lesbian adoption, so perhaps that anxiety should not trouble me.
Last week, I consulted widely for a day and a half, not with the national professional bodies but with individual social workers in various parts of the country. I offered them anonymity during my conversations. I told them that I would not repeat what they had said in terms of identifying them under any conditions, and I asked them for an honest view on the implications of the provision.
What surprised me is that there was division among social service workers on the ground that is not reflected in the case made by the national bodies to this institution of Parliament. There are mixed views within teams dealing with such matters. But I had not heard the other view, which is expressed by social workers and people in family placement teams. I had heard only one view: that being expressed in the main by their national representative bodies.
There is clearly satisfaction within social service departments and family placement units over the apparently widespread success of lesbian adoption, but repeated reference was made to the fact that no research had been carried out in the area. I found that most worrying. Most of those to whom I talked will no doubt read the report of what I have to say tonight. I must also report that during most of my conversations, underlying anxiety was expressed about some of the Bill's consequences. Indeed, I am told that some people in the field—in the front line—will simply not refer children into same-sex adoptions where a couple have joint adoption responsibility.
I conclude that we need more information before we go down that route. Curiously, my position tonight will not necessarily obtain in the long term. In a future society, when people are even more readily able to understand same-sex relationships, this debate may well appear irrelevant. We may entirely adopt the Government's position on the matter. I simply believe that we do not yet have sufficient information.
I shall vote with the Government tonight, and shall vote for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we can just hear from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. He has been waiting a long time and always speaks briefly.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I shall speak for only one minute. First, I want to make clear that I am neither homophobic nor homosexual. I feel that the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was addressed to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, which I shall therefore not be supporting. However, the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, carries much merit because it would not stop any of the cases of homosexual adoption of which we have heard. It would allow only one partner's name to go onto the bit of paper. That will be of benefit, because problems arise if there is a break-up. It will avoid the tug of love that currently arises in a divorce.
There is no legal framework to deal with a tug of love in the case of an unmarried couple who are separating. Until that is set up, we should not provide a framework in which that tug of love can happen. Some such relationships will break down. I cannot see why a couple who are happy living together will have a problem with putting only one name on the adoption paper. I cannot see why that will be a bar. If they are unmarried and heterosexual, they have only to visit a registrar, which is simple. I see no possible argument against the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, after a long, passionate, thoughtful and compelling debate, the issue remains clear. Our decision concerns the definition of who shall be qualified to apply to become an adoptive parent and, in particular, whether to extend that qualification to gay and straight unmarried couples—always remembering that today, as for many years, gay and straight individuals living in couples can adopt children. That is what this debate is about.
A great deal of statistical argument has been advanced, into which I shall not enter. Instead, I remind your Lordships of my noble friend Lady Walmsley's extremely cogent speech about the statistical issues. I also remind your Lordships of the argument advanced so forcefully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in our debate on 16th October. He said that in a case in which adoption of a child is in question, the judge and everyone else are concerned not with an average couple but with whether the couple concerned can provide a home for that child. We should remember that at the end of the debate.
At present, a single person, whether gay or straight and whether living in a couple or not, can adopt a child. It is illogical to allow that to continue but to prevent a couple from adopting a child together. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, told us that that argument was unworthy of a legislative assembly. After all, two parents are better than one and joint parenting is more effective than parenting by one person with the other person not sharing responsibility. A child adopted by a couple has a far

615
greater hope of continuity of parenting in the case of the death of one parent, because that child will have another parent whose responsibility will continue.
Where couples separate—married as well as unmarried couples separate—if both are loving parents, they may both remain as loving parents to that child, even if they are no longer living together. A child would, arguably, have greater financial security with a couple if both members of that couple were its parents.
The main objective of the Bill is to reform the system of adoption so as to reduce the length of time taken to arrange a suitable adoption and to enable more children to find adoptive parents. The principal consideration for everybody involved is the welfare of the child throughout its life. A relevant fact is that the greatest predictor of offending behaviour is upbringing in a children's home. The second is the total breakdown of the family life of a child in its birth family, which amounts to the same thing. Children, especially if they have been traumatised by their early life or have had to be removed from their birth home, need adoptive parents with the stamina, commitment and mutual solidarity to provide a secure, lifelong, loving home.
If the Government's amendments can widen the circle from which parents can come, who are we to stand in the way? When the time comes, I will support the Government, and I hope that the majority of your Lordships will do likewise.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it has, once again, been an intense and passionate debate. I am heartened by the consensus in all parts of the House on our shared determination to improve adoption. Like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I rejoice that there are encouraging signs that the drive to increase adoptions is working.
I listened carefully to those who argued that, if we continued to make that progress, we could rely solely on married couples. However, that simply is not the view of those who know best, those who deal with adoption day in and day out. We should listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, to the many adoption agencies and to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. They say that the evidence proves categorically that it is not easy to find families for children waiting to be adopted and that we must widen the eligibility criteria to encourage more adopters to come forward. They say that an increasing number of single people, some of whom live with a partner, is interested in adoption. They say that we simply cannot afford to exclude such people on arbitrary grounds related to their marital status. If we are serious about finding families for children, we must welcome applications from all families who believe that they have something to offer and judge each application on its merits.
Some ask, "Why, if unmarried couples are so committed, don't they get married?". The debate is not about the reasons why unmarried couples are unable
616
to or choose not to marry. It is about increasing the number of vulnerable children who have the opportunity to grow up as part of a stable, loving and permanent family. That must be the test. Any couple wishing to become adoptive parents must prove not only that they can provide a loving and stable environment for a child but that their relationship is sound and likely to last.
There are many reasons why people who live together may not marry. It may have nothing to do with their commitment; it may, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford suggested, be because of the trauma of an earlier failed marriage. Gay couples, of course, cannot marry. Society is as it is, not as we would wish it to be. It is as it is. In 2000, more than 40 per cent of births were outside marriage. More than 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce. No doubt, noble Lords wish that that were not so, but it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the civil registration of partnerships. He asked why we were not waiting for that. We are looking at that matter across government, but children do not have time to wait. The opportunity to legislate on adoption comes very infrequently. Now is the time to settle the matter once and for all. The noble Earl spoke about the breakdown of unmarried relationships and about how a co-habitee could be left with nothing and the child left in the middle. The Children Act 1989 places all children on an equal footing, whatever the marital status of their parents. All couples with children have remedies, on the breakdown of marriage and co-habitation, in respect of children. The Children Act enables orders for maintenance or for adjustments of property to be made, as well as lump sums, in favour of the children of those parents. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, a legal relationship to two adoptive parents is surely a source of strength and security to the adoptive child.
I say to the noble Baroness. Lady O'Cathain, that I cannot accept the concept of a hierarchy of relationships. In the end, it undermines the paramountcy of the child. It says that a married couple should always be considered in a higher category than an unmarried couple, whether of the same or opposite sex. If the child is central to our concerns, we cannot close the door to whole groups of potential adoptive families. Our approach must recognise that the child's interests are paramount. Each applicant must be judged on his or her merits, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, always makes relevant contributions to our debates. He asked how good the courts were as a check. Under Clause 1, the courts will always be obliged to consider the child's welfare as the paramount consideration. The court can make the adoption order only if it is satisfied that that is better for the child than not doing so. The court must consider full reports on cases from the adoption agencies. Often, it is their reading of those reports that exercises and informs the judges. That will all be set out in court rules.

617
The Bill also allows the courts to commission independent reports on the case from a CAFCASS officer, if they think it necessary. Family Division judges are trained in children's issues. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his extraordinary initiative in the area. Specialist adoption centres have been introduced, so that expert judges can deal with adoptions. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that there will be thorough training for the judiciary in implementing the Bill. The transient relationships so feared by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when speaking about co-habitees, simply would not get past the starting post of the tough adopter assessment process that I set out today—let alone getting anywhere near a child.
There is the question of the European Convention on Human Rights and the interesting report of the Joint Committee. When the Bill was introduced into the Commons, the Government took legal advice. That advice was that the position in the Adoption Act 1976 and the Bill, as it stood, was, on balance, defensible on ECHR grounds. The committee has now given its view that the Bill, as amended by the Lords, is incompatible with convention rights. The Government do not necessarily accept the committee's reasoning, but we recognise—as we always have—that, in the light of developing case law, there is always a risk that current law and the Bill, as it stands, could be found to be incompatible. Much will depend on the circumstances of the case.
We have always recognised that, in this area, compatibility was an "on balance" judgment. We have always realised that current law and the Bill, as introduced in October in another place, could be open to challenge. The JCHR report draws attention to that.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not agree that in the words which appeared on the face of the Bill when it came before the House, no suggestion of balance was made by any Minister of this place or another place? The word on the face of the Bill was "compatible".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a highly experienced Member of this House and a highly experienced Minister. She will know that many judgments have to be made on balance. On the advice my right honourable friend was given, on the balance of argument, he felt able to sign that certificate. I believe that I have given as full—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that the report of the Joint Committee relied for its decision on the fact that there had been a case which has already been referred to—the Fretté case—between when the Bill was first introduced and when the amendments were passed a fortnight ago? Is the Minister also aware that the decision in that case went the other way? The only way that the Joint Committee could justify its view was
618
to say that the case was wrong and would have to be reviewed. That cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to the human rights debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of the cases to which the noble Lord refers. That is why I said carefully that the Government do not necessarily accept the reasoning of the committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Human Rights Act expressly frees our judges not to be bound by a majority decision of a chamber of the court, but to be able to be persuaded by other cases such as that in the South African constitutional court? Does he also agree that that is why it is a difficult judgment as to where our courts would finally strike the balance in the way that the Minister had himself to do?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with that.
Lord Elton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Elton: My Lords, I speak as a non-lawyer and a layman and I want to get this clear. Is the Minister saying that when it says on a Bill that the Minister signs it off as compatible, it means that it is probably compatible?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a ridiculous point to make. Ministers make decisions and judgments on the basis of evidence and argument and they have to make them often on the balance of argument. That is all I have said. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health was confident when he signed that certificate that he was right to do so. It was based on the balance of argument.
I turn briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He agrees with me up to a point. Particularly, he accepts the thoroughness of the adoption assessment process. However, I have a problem with his amendment because I believe that what he proposes is surely discrimination. Both the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised the issue of research. I have looked at varying degrees of research. More is needed—I have no doubt about that. However, there is no evidence to suggest that children of gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely than children of heterosexual people to become homosexual. Indeed, most lesbian and gay people grow up in heterosexual families.
There is growing evidence based on outcomes for children living in same-sex households. No reliable research to date has identified significant differences between lesbian and gay parents and their heterosexual counterparts. When I look at the challenging childcare taken on by some gay adopters I do not excoriate them, I salute them for their courage and determination at what they are giving to young people. Rather than just worry about children's

619
security in that area, let us do what we can to increase it. Children being looked after by a couple, only one of whom at the moment is able legally to adopt them, have made it clear time and again that they want a legal relationship with two parents and not just one.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the question of whether the reason for bringing back this amendment is one not of concern for the child, but of concern for political correctness or social engineering. Perhaps I may say—
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I did not say that at all. I never mentioned social engineering or political correctness.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise. It is something the noble Baroness said on Report and was referred to by a number of other noble Lords. I want to say clearly that there is no question here of social engineering. It is simply a question of seeking to provide the best basis possible for ensuring that vulnerable people are given all the support they can get within loving families. As my noble friend Lady Hayman said, there is not a division between those who argue for the rights of children against the rights of adults. This is about children.
It is why we made so many improvements to the Bill, such as advocacy, financial support, ensuring rights of access to information about adoption, and improved placement provision. Those amendments were supported and inspired by adoption and children's organisations. Noble Lords have listened to them and attached their names to so many of the key amendments which we have accepted in a spirit of consensus.
On the question of unmarried couples, why would noble Lords, who have faithfully replayed the views of those organisations on so many occasions, reject the wisdom and experience of those organisations such as BAAF and Barnado's? Listen to Barnado's. It says that the issue has been portrayed as an attack on marriage and a dilution of the importance of the family. In fact, says Barnado's, it is the opposite in that those amendments seek to strengthen the security of couples who wish to provide a secure home base for an adopted child, but who do not choose to, or cannot, marry. Barnado's recognises that the Bill's construction is such as to ensure that the child's interests are paramount.
It was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford who mentioned the question of social engineering. I can reassure him that it is not. It is about children—vulnerable children, often lonely children, children with multiple deprivation, or children who have been grossly neglected. Of all the Bills that I have taken through your Lordships' House—and that is quite a few—this is by far the most important. My noble friend Lady Billingham summed it up so well. The Bill will give hope to thousands and thousands of
620
young people. It would be so much better if unmarried couples can be permitted to adopt jointly. I urge the House to reject the noble Earl's amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a good debate and it is time to vote. I shall make one or two points. Many noble Lords will have made up their minds on the issue long before we started debating today. The best I can hope to do is influence those who have not done so. To those noble Lords I say that I have not heard anything today which has tempted me to change my mind. I believe that the Commons amendments are misconceived.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that I do not believe he did anything to counter the point that I was trying to make—and made very well by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll—that to grant rights to unmarried partnerships without defining the nature and status of those partnerships in law is premature and exceedingly ill-advised, not least in the area of property rights when the relationship breaks down.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. It is a fallacy to talk about giving rights to unmarried partners. What we are talking about is giving rights to the adopted children of single people who live with partners who would have no legal responsibilities towards them otherwise.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree that this is not a debate about the rights of adults and there is no difference between us there. But like it or not, the effect of the Commons amendments would be to grant rights to individuals who do not have those rights at the moment. That was all that I was seeking to say.
The Minister knows perfectly well that the Children Act provisions are much weaker than those available to the matrimonial court. The Minister in another place, Jacqui Smith, had it right last November when she argued cogently and at length for the law to remain as it is for that reason and for others. Above all, a change in the law would do the one thing which none of us wants; that is, to take a gamble and thereby create an added risk for very vulnerable children. Is it right that we should place a child into a legal relationship with two adults who have no legal relationship with each other? I do not think so.
Those who say that there is nothing worse than being in the care system need to reflect on whether there is in fact something potentially worse; that is, to be an adopted child and then suffer the trauma of an adoption that breaks down when the adopters split up. That is the risk that my amendments are trying to minimise.
I am dismayed by the raft of new amendments from another place not only because they have not been properly debated, or debated at all, but because of what they do. It is perhaps enough to say that they have the effect of undermining marriage in what I see as a deeply regrettable way.
One thing I do feel is that this should not be a debate about discriminating between one group of cohabitees and another. There may be some of your Lordships

621
who feel inclined to vote for the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I hope that anyone in that position will think again. But if they cannot, I hope that at the very least they will vote for my amendment in the first instance. I say that for two reasons. The first is that to vote against me or to abstain would split the vote. The second is that my noble friend's amendment, which he has presented as a compromise, is in fact no such thing. It stands not a ghost of a chance of being accepted by the Government. If the Bill runs the risk of running out of time, my amendment is more likely to be accepted for the very good reason that it represents the Government's own policy. If there is any concern about ECHR compatibility, it surely centres on my noble friend's amendment. For that reason, I do not believe that the Government, or for that matter another place, would wish to entertain it.
It is a very important matter. The House is entitled to reject the Commons amendments for a second time. It is entitled at least to urge the Government to implement their own policy. I believe that it should now do so and I therefore commend the amendment to the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26A13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 215.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ackner, L.

Cockfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Courtown, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Arran, E.

Crathome, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Attlee, E.

Deedes, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Denham, L.

Bell, L.

Dixon, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blackwell, L.

Dundee, E.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Elton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Emerton, B.

Brennan, L.

Erroll, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bridges, L.

Feldman, L.

Broolunan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fitt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fookes, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Burnham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Freeman, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Geddes, L.

Chalfont, L.

Glentoran, L.

Chan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Greenway, L.

Chester. Bp.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

622

Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.

Owen, L.

Hanham, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Hanson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B

Hayhoe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Home, E.

Peel, E.

Hooper, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Plumb, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hylton, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Islwyn, L.

Prior, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Quinton, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Quirk, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jopling, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Reay, L.

Kimball, L.

Rees, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Kirkham, L.

Renton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Saatchi, L.

Laird, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lane, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Selsdon, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Slim, V.

Luke, L.

Soulsby of Swallham Prior, L.

Lyell, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

McColl of Dulwicho, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Stewartby, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Stokes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Strange, B.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tebbit, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tenby, V.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Molyneatix of Killead, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Tombs, L.

Monson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moran, L.

Vinson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waddington, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Noakes, B.

Wakeham, L.

Northboume,L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Northbrook, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller]

Wilberforce, L.

Onslow, E.

Wilcox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Orme, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Addington, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Adebowale, L.

Best, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Biffen, L.

Alli, L.

Billingham, B.

Andrews, B.

Birt, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Avebury, L.

Borne, L.

Bach, L.

Bowness, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Bragg, L.

Barnett, L.

Brett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Brightman, L.

623

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Burlison, L.

Burns, L.

Jacobs, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chandos, V.

Judd, L.

Christopher, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Condon, L.

Laming, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Layard, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Listowel, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lucas, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dubs, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elder. L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

McNally, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Maddock, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mafia lieu, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Marsh, L.

Feam, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Methuen, L.

Flather, B.

Mitchell, L.

Freyberg, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morgan, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gavron, L.

Newby, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Gilbert, L.

Nicol, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northover, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ouseley, L.

Goodhart, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pendry, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

[Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Greaves, L.

Prashar, B.

Greengross, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Radice, L.

Grocott, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renard, L.

Harrison, L.

Richard, L.

Haskel, L.

Rix, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayman, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rooker, L.

Hohne of Cheltenham, L.

Roper, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Russell, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sawyer, L.

624

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Tope, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Selborne, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sheldon, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walpole, L.

Simon, V.

Warner, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitaker, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Whitty, L.

Taverne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilkins, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wilson of Tillyom, L.

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.57 p.m.
26AC Lord Jenkin of Roding moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof, leave out from "26" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof, and do propose the following amendments in lieu of the Commons amendments—
26AD Page 27, line 39, at end insert "provided that such regulations shall cover married couples, unmarried couples consisting of a man and a woman living together and single persons, but shall not cover couples of the same sex"
26AE Page 83, line 28, leave out "(whether"
26AF Page 83, line 28, leave out "or the same sex)" "
On Question, amendments negatived.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 48, page 29, line 41, after "a" insert "married"
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 32 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
33 Clause 49, page 30, line 15, after "a" insert "married"
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 33 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
34 Page 30, line 17, after "a" insert "married"
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 34 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
35 Clause 50, page 30, line 24, leave out subsection (2)
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 35 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
36 Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) the person is married to a parent of the person to be adopted,"
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 36 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.

625
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
41 Insert the following new clause
"Power to modify sections 82 and 84(1) Regulations may provide for section 82 not to apply if—

(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met.

(2) Regulations may provide for section 84(1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—

(a)the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met.

(3) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly."
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
41A Line 7, leave out "step-parent" and insert "partner of a parent".
41B Line 13, leave out "step-parent" and insert "partner of a parent".
41C Line 14, at end insert—"( ) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under this section—

(a) the statutory instrument containing the regulations is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

(b) accordingly section 135(2) does not apply to the instrument."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41A to 41C to Lords Amendment No. 41. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58A, 61A, 93A and 96A.
As we discussed at Third Reading, Amendments Nos. 41, 58, 61, 93 and 96 relate to the application of the inter-country adoption provisions to parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents. We have received representations from inter-country stakeholder groups expressing concern that parents, relatives, guardians and step-parents were excluded from the restrictions on inter-country adoption. We listened to those concerns and agreed that the issue needed to be addressed.
We therefore tabled amendments to Clauses 82, 84 and 128, to Schedule 4 and to insert a new clause. These amendments remove the specific exemptions of parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents from the inter-country provisions and replace them with powers to make regulations exempting those groups should it prove appropriate. The powers include powers to
626
specify that parents, relatives, guardians or stepparents are exempted only if certain conditions are met. The amendments allow us to strengthen the safeguards on inter-country adoption that we are putting in place through the Bill.
Amendment No. 41 inserts a new clause after Clause 84 to provide regulation-making powers to provide for Clause 82 not to apply and for Clause 84(1) to apply with modification or not to apply to parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents where any prescribed conditions are met. Amendments Nos. 58 and 61 make the equivalent changes to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 to replace the exemption of parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents in the provisions in that Act on inter-country adoption with the regulation-making power.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 make the equivalent changes to the Adoption Act 1976. The Government tabled a number of amendments to those amendments in the other place relating to the parliamentary procedure to be applied to regulations to he made under the provisions and the use of the term "stepparent". Amendment No. 41 provides that the regulation-making power in the new clause would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
That is consistent with the approach taken to regulations made under Clause 82 and the majority of the Bill. The negative resolution procedure would also apply to the regulation-making powers inserted by Amendments Nos. 58, 61, 93 and 96, which is consistent with the approach taken to regulations under the 1978 and 1976 Acts.
A memorandum was submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee explaining the amendments. As the House will be aware, the committee took the view that it would be preferable if a way could be found to apply the affirmative procedure at least for the first exercise of the power of the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 41.
We fully understand that view, and I indicated that we would table amendments to reflect the committee's view. Amendment No. 41C does that. It provides that the first set of regulations under the new clause may be made only if a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The committee recommended that the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied only to the first exercise of the power in the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 41. However, the Government consider it would be appropriate to provide for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to the first regulations made under the powers inserted by the amendments to the equivalent provisions in the 1976 and 1978 Acts. The amendments to Amendments Nos. 58, 61, 93 and 96 therefore have the same effect for the equivalent procedures of those Acts.
Amendments Nos. 41A and 41B are needed as a result of the Vote that has just taken place on joint adoption by unmarried couples. As part of the package of amendments we supported earlier, we

627
confirm that the Bill should allow for unmarried couples falling within the definition we have restored to Clause 139 to be able to adopt their partners' children without the natural parent having to adopt their own child in the same way as married step-parents may under Clause 50.
Under the restored definition of "couple" in Clause 139, the term "partners of parents" includes both married step-parents and each partner in a couple falling within the definition of unmarried couple. As I have explained, Amendment No. 41 inserts a power to modify the application of the restrictions in Clauses 82 and 84 on taking children in and out of the country for the purposes of adoption to relatives, parents, step-parents and guardians.
Given the change made by our earlier amendments on unmarried couples, we need to make corresponding changes in this modification power to ensure that it can apply to adoptions by partners, married or unmarried, rather than just to step-parents. That is what Amendments Nos. 41A and 41B deliver. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41A to 41C to Lords Amendment No. 41.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Barker: My Lords, this has been a strange day; indeed, it has been a strange Bill. I commented to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, some days ago, that one could never have predicted the alliances that have formed at different times on the Bill. But we are back to normal because we are talking about regulatory powers.
On this side of the House we repeat our usual mantra on such occasions that it is important that they are made by affirmative resolution. I believe that that is what the Minister was saying. As ever, I believe that that is right, particularly in the light of the decision that we have just taken. All noble Lords have a right and a duty to satisfy themselves that the regulations flowing from that decision are the correct ones.
It is more right than ever that we should have affirmative resolutions on the regulations. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been too much exerted this afternoon, but I lend my weight to his case on that matter. I thank the Minister for the amendments, which we are happy to accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
44 Before clause 110, insert the following new Clause—
"Orders with respect to children
In section 8 of the 1989 Act (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children) there is inserted—
"(5) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations providing for the separate representation of children in specified circumstances relating to any matter arising from proceedings under this section."".
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 44 but propose Amendment No. 44A in lieu thereof—
44A Page 68, line 25, at end insert the following new Clause—
"Interests of children in proceedings
(1) In section 41 of the 1989 Act (specified proceedings) —
(a) in subsection (6), after paragraph (h) there is inserted—
"(hh) on an application for the making or revocation of a placement order (within the meaning of section 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002);",
(b) after that subsection there is inserted—"(6A) The proceedings which may be specified under subsection (6)(i) include (for example) proceedings for the making, varying or discharging of a section 8 order."(2) In section 93 of the 1989 Act (rules of court), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—"(bb) for children to be separately represented in relevant proceedings,""
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44A in lieu thereof.
Amendment No. 44A seeks to meet the spirit of the amendments made in this House on Report. It provides for the representation of children in court proceedings concerning their future but eliminates the technical flaws and duplications in the amendments.
I should make it clear that neither the amendments made in this House, nor indeed the Government's own amendment, add to the existing powers of either my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or the courts. The courts can already order that a child can be made a party and separately represented in any family proceedings. However, the Government have listened to and respect the views expressed in both this House and the other place that those powers should be explicit in primary legislation.
The Government's amendment therefore makes it clear in primary legislation that applications for the making or revocation of a placement order under the Bill will be specified proceedings as defined by Section 41(6) of the Children Act 1989. As such, a children's guardian will be appointed and the child separately represented in every case. This point has been raised in debates in both this House and the other place and the Government have already stated publicly that we will make such proceedings specified. The amendment makes that commitment clear in the Bill.
The amendment provides that proceedings for Section 8 orders such as for contact or residence in circumstances to be established by rule of court can also be specified proceedings. That will give us the necessary flexibility to take into account the outcome of public consultation on the representation of children in private law proceedings. We hope to commence consultations later this year, using Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996 as a basis to amend Section 93 of the Children Act on rules of court to provide for the Lord Chancellor to make rules to provide for the separate representation of children. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can already make such rules and has done so, but the amendment makes that explicit in primary legislation. The government amendment will apply to all proceedings under the Children Act, including applications for parental responsibility and special guardianship orders.

629
The Government recognise that this amendment is not enough on its own to meet the concerns expressed both in this House and in another place. We need to ensure that these provisions work in practice. We are hoping to commence full public consultation later this year on how we ensure children have a voice in decision-making concerning their future. As I mentioned on Report, we need to ensure that we take account of the views of children and of young people, together with those who represent them, in devising a flexible system that takes account of children's diverse needs.
Consultation will enable us to identify whether there are categories of private law case that should be designated as "specified proceedings", and whether further guidance is needed for the courts on the types of cases where children should be made parties and separately represented. This is intended to meet two areas of concern expressed in your Lordships' House and in the other place: first, that there is too stark a distinction between the way that children are represented in public law cases where the state intervenes in a family's life—for example, care proceedings—and in private law disputes between individuals; and, secondly, that there should be greater consistency of approach. There will also be full consultation on how the voice of the child can best be heard in adoption proceedings as part of the implementation process for this legislation.
I should state, again, that the Government's amendment does not change the existing position. Children can already be separately represented in any family proceedings. The government amendment is intended to make the commitment explicit on the face of primary legislation, thus recognising the crucial importance of listening to children when decisions are made about their future care. I commend the government amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I welcome the government amendment, which sets right many of the flaws and redundancies in the amendments that I tabled. It is doubly welcome because it extends the spirit in which I laid down my amendments. As the Minister said, the Government have sought to recognise the concern that there is too stark a difference between arrangements in private law proceedings and those in public law proceedings in which children are involved.
The Minister has ensured that the arrangements for separate representation for children that we requested are explicitly stated on the face of the Bill. There is now a mechanism that will encourage separate representation and allow it to be accessed more frequently by children in private law proceedings. I expect the Minister and her officials have probably spent quite some time on this in preparatory work. I hope that the noble Baroness will permit me to thank
630
both her and the officials in the department for putting that work into the amendment in response to my suggestions.
Following the consultation that the Minister is undertaking, I hope that this mechanism, combined with all the work that also must go into the process, will make it easier in the future for the separate representation of children to take place in private law proceedings; and, indeed, that, under certain circumstances that will be prescribed, separate representation will be the default setting for children in some parental disputes. I hope that noble Lords will also welcome the government amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
46 Clause 112, page 63, line 29, at end insert— "(b) a birth parent;"
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
46A Line 2, leave out "birth"
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46A to Lords Amendment No. 46.
This was a Liberal Democrat amendment accepted by the Government on Third Reading in this House on the understanding that we would need to table a technical correction in the Commons. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is abroad at present and is not here to live his triumph.
The effect of Amendment No. 46 is to insert birth parents into the list in Clause 112(14F)(3), which states that if people require special guardian support services a local authority "may", or, if the Secretary of State requires, "must", assess such needs on request. We previously said that we could use the power in subsection (3)(c) to prescribe other people who may be assessed. This would be a means of including birth parents. We are sympathetic to the suggestion that we should provide a signal in the legislation that we anticipate that birth parents are likely to be key recipients of special guardianship support services. That is why we agreed to the amendment.
However, as I said when accepting the amendment, it is necessary to change the wording. The term "birth parent" is not one used in the Children Act. Therefore, we need to correct the wording to refer simply to "parent". That is the aim of Commons Amendment No. 46A. It achieves the intention behind the original amendment as the term "parent" will be given its natural meaning—the child's birth parents —or, in the case of adopted children under SGOs, their adoptive parents. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46A to Lords Amendment No. 46.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is abroad at present, to thank the Minister for picking up the intention behind our amendments. I should like also to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I have in mind in particular the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the Minister and his department. They have all helped to make this a better Bill. Many small amendments have been agreed during the course of our debates. They have made this a piece of legislation of which we can all be proud.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at the risk of incurring the wrath of my noble friend, I should like to respond by saying that this has been a Bill of great interest, and one upon which we have had many excellent debates. I believe that we have achieved consensus on many aspects of the legislation. I, too, should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in our proceedings. I thank especially the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and her colleagues, together with other noble Lords, for the great spirit in which we were able to discuss the legislation. I believe it to be a tremendous Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
48 Before Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
"Powers of court in certain family proceedings
In section 37 of the 1989 Act (powers of court in certain family proceedings) there is inserted—
"(7) Where in any family proceedings in which a question arises in respect to the welfare of any child, the court shall have particular regard on the evidence before it to—

(a) the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding;

(b) the need for the separate representation of the child concerned, and upon making an order for separate representation the court may appoint a children's guardian; and these shall be considered specified proceedings within the meaning of section 41 of this Act.""

The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 48 but propose Amendment No. 44A in lieu thereof.
49 Insert the following new Clause—
"Proceedings relating to representation of child
In section 41(6) of the 1989 Act (representation of child and of his interests in certain proceedings) there is inserted—
"(j) on applications under section 8 in specified circumstances to be established by rules of court,"."
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 49 but propose Amendment No. 44A in lieu thereof.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 44.
632
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
58 Clause 128, page 74, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In section 50 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain) —

(a) in subsection (1), "not being a parent or guardian or relative of the child" is omitted,

(b) after subsection (3) there is inserted—"(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for subsection (1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—(a) the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child (or one of them is), or(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child, and any conditions prescribed by the regulations are met.""

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
58A Line 13, at end insert—
"(5) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (4)—

(a) the regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament, and

(b) accordingly section 60(2) does not apply to the statutory instrument containing the regulations."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58A to Lords Amendment No.58.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58A to Lords Amendment No. 58.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
61 Page 75, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide for this section not to apply if—

(a0) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents (whether or not they have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child), natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
61A Line 8, at end insert—
"(9B) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (9A) —

(a) the regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament, and

(b) accordingly section 60(2) does not apply to the statutory instrument containing the regulations."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61A to Lords Amendment No. 61. I have already spoken to these amendments.

633
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61A to Lords Amendment No. 61. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
66 Clause 139, page 83, line 26, leave out subsection (4) to (7)
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 66 but propose Amendments Nos. 26A to 26UU in lieu thereof.
66A
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 26.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
[Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
93 Schedule 4, page 112, line 18, at end insert—
"9B In section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976 (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain) —

(a) in subsection (1), "not being a parent or guardian or relative of the child" is omitted,

(b) at the end of that section there is inserted—

"(4) Regulations may provide for subsection (1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—

(a) the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met.

(5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales.""
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
93A Line 14, at end insert—
"(4A) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (4)—

(a) the regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(b) accordingly section 67(2) does not apply to the statutory instrument containing the regulations."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A to Lords Amendment No. 93.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A to Lords Amendment No. 93.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
96 Page 113, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide for the preceding provisions of this section not to apply if—
634

(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
96A Line 8, at end insert—
"(8B) On the occasion of the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (8A)—

(a) the regulations shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(b) accordingly section 67(2) does not apply to the statutory instrument containing the regulations."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A to Lords Amendment No. 96.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A to Lords Amendment No. 96. (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chinook ZD576: Select Committee Report
7.20 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettlerose to move, Thai this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576 (HL Paper 25).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the report before your Lordships relates to a Chinook helicopter that had recently undergone a mid-life update. During that process, an automatic fuel system commonly known as FADEC was installed. It was designed to keep the aircraft's two rotors turning at 100 per cent speed to ensure that the blades were kept properly apart by centrifugal force.
At the time of the accident there had been problems with the FADEC—five in normal flight. On 1st June 1994, the day before this tragic accident, a problem arose at Boscombe Down, the research establishment, which operators were unable to trace because of an apparent difficulty in verifying the computer software involved. The establishment had, therefore, grounded Chinooks for the time being. They remained grounded at Boscombe Down until October 1994. There had also been other malfunctions with Mark 2 Chinooks; that is to say, Chinooks that had undergone their mid-life update. The malfunctions included spurious engine fail captions, undemanded flight control movements (UFCMs), undemanded engine run-up, engine shut down and torque mismatches between the engines.
On 10th May, Chinook ZD576 had suffered a detached balance spring bracket in a confined space, where its controls were kept. There is doubt about whether that caused a UFCM or whether it merely affected the controls. The report of the board of

635
inquiry referred to it as a UFCM. The president of the board giving evidence to the committee said that it was an alteration in the field.
The flight in question, from Northern Ireland to Inverness, was made by a special forces crew that was very experienced in flying helicopters. The senior sergeant load master was also reckoned to be a very good navigator. They planned the flight under visual flight rules (VFR). Owing to icing restrictions imposed on Mark 2 Chinooks as a result of the difficulty that had been experienced in verifying the software, the entire flight could not have been carried out under instrument flight rules, given the high hills that would be encountered in Lochaber. The crew was aware that fog and low cloud were covering the Mull of Kintyre. The crash took place in cloud at 810 feet above sea level, a short distance inland from the lighthouse on the Mull.
All crew and passengers were killed, probably instantaneously, in this tragic accident. The RAF immediately set up a board of inquiry. An RAF inquiry consists of an initial board that hears evidence and makes investigations whose findings are reviewed by reviewing officers. I shall refer to the initial board as "the board" by contrast to "the reviewing officers" to make the details easier to follow.
The initial board was set up immediately. It flew to the site of the accident and spent many months producing a detailed report. It concluded that the flight captain, Flight Lieutenant Tapper, who was the non-handling pilot, had committed an error of judgment and that the co-pilot, who was handling, was not at fault. The board scouted many potential mechanical defects, which, it concluded, it was unable to exclude as possible causes. However, it was unable to determine any definitive cause.
Two years later, a fatal accident inquiry was conducted in the sheriff court of Paisley by a very experienced sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, who is now Sheriff Principal of Grampian Highlands and Islands. The inquiry lasted 16 days, and the sheriff produced a 123-page judgment. Applying the standard of proof required in a fatal accident inquiry, namely the balance of probabilities, the sheriff was unable to determine the cause of the accident, although it was his statutory duty to do so. It follows that, if the sheriff had been asked to make a finding of negligence, he could not have done so. Without a cause, a finding of negligence cannot be made.
In 2000, the Public Accounts Committee of another place rejected the finding of the board, and, on 30th May 2001, the House of Lords Select Committee was appointed. Our remit was as follows:
"To consider the justification for the findings of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF board of inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter which crashed on the Mull were negligent".
The standard of proof has been an important aspect of the inquiry. The RAF rules included the following provision:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent".
636
That standard of proof is far higher than the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, and the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for such a high standard is fairly obvious: a deceased pilot is not there to explain his actions to a board and has no-one to represent his interests at that board.
The committee considered its remit carefully and concluded that it was required simply to look at the evidence that was available to the board and the reviewing officers. It was even suggested that we could dispose of the matter simply by looking at the remarks of the two senior reviewing officers and dealing with it on that basis. We concluded that the House expected more from us, so we called some evidence and looked at many documents. I propose to address your Lordships, as briefly as possible, on two bases: first, on the basis of the material that was before the board and the reviewing officers, and, secondly, on the basis of the material before us, including what was before the board. I should explain that the reviewing officers had no evidence to consider other than that which had been considered by the board.
We had evidence from a yachtsman, who was the only person who saw the aircraft between the time it left the coast of Antrim and the time it crashed. We also had the evidence of the senior inspector from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch at Farnborough, who had provided the board with a comprehensive and detailed report.
The aircraft carried neither accident data recorder nor cockpit voice recorder. There was no black box, so there was nothing to work on in that line. The investigator could only try to piece together events from what was left of the aircraft on the hill.
The task of Mr Cable, the investigator, was made very difficult by the lack of evidence available, because the aircraft not only hit the ground twice and was seriously damaged by that, but also caught fire, resulting in a great many components being damaged. Some help was enlisted from the manufacturers.
I must say a word about the navigation equipment that was carried. It was a device manufactured by Racal, which has been referred to as SuperTANS. For convenience I shall refer to it simply as TANS. A number of waypoints on the projected flight could be fed into it before the flight started. When the first waypoint was put in, a screen in the cockpit showed the distance and bearing of that waypoint and the time to go, which was calculated from the current speed of the aircraft. As the display was constantly updated, on a constant bearing the distance would decrease. If the course was altered, the bearing would decrease.
In this case, the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse was chosen as waypoint A. Waypoint B was the narrows of Corran on Loch Linnhe. The TANS was never intended as a flight recorder, but, with considerable ingenuity, Racal extracted two pieces of information from it. First, the waypoint was changed from A to B

637
when the lighthouse, which was the first waypoint, was bearing 18 degrees true and 0.81 nautical miles distance.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, but I thought he said that the first waypoint was the lighthouse. My recollection is that the first waypoint was before the lighthouse.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, my understanding was that the first waypoint was the lighthouse, albeit the waypoint change was made before the lighthouse was reached.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am a tiro in these matters, but it would make no sense to have the lighthouse as a waypoint, because the aircraft would crash into the lighthouse.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, no doubt I shall stand corrected, but—
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is it correct that the first waypoint selected was approximately 280 metres to the north-east of the lighthouse, because the co-ordinates had been incorrectly put into the SuperTANS?
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, that is partially correct. There was a minor error in the TANS navigation system that contributed to part of the 280 metres. However, the waypoint was certainly on land. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, may find it curious, but that is what we were told.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I think that my noble friend Lord Gilbert is wrong. The waypoint can be on land or at sea. The relevant point is when the helicopter flies over it or close to it. I think that is what the noble and learned Lord was saying. I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I hope that is for the benefit of the House.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Anyway, my Lords, when waypoint A, whatever it may have been—if noble Lords prefer that—was bearing as I have said, the waypoint was changed to B. That removed from the screen all reference to waypoint A—no distance, no bearing—and substituted the bearing, distance and time to go for Corran. However, notwithstanding that alteration, the aircraft flew on into the Mull.
This is a matter of considerable importance, because one would normally expect that when a waypoint was changed, the aircraft would alter course to the next waypoint that came up on the screen. Mr Cable, the inspector, found that there were a number of detachments of items in what was described as the broom cupboard—a small cupboard at the rear of the cockpit in which were housed most of the hydraulic controls for the rotors and other parts of the helicopter. He could not dismiss the possibility of some
638
pre-impact detachment of the control system jam. Paragraphs 33 to 35 on page 68 of the House of Lords Paper 25(i) set that out clearly. I shall not trouble your Lordships by reading through that.
Mr Cable came to the conclusion that there had been some last manoeuvre of the aircraft before it finally crashed. The manoeuvre involved the aircraft climbing up in a flare. To try to find out more about that, he asked Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, to do a simulation. He gave the details of the position of the aircraft and such information about its mechanical state as he could find. Boeing came back with the answer that the only speed and rate of climb that could be matched to a situation immediately before the final flare was an air speed of 150 knots and a rate of climb of 1,000 feet per minute, followed by the final flare, which was a much steeper climb with the nose up, but that had been initiated four seconds before the final impact and had started 2.9 seconds before. The difference of 1.1 seconds is the time that it took for the action of the flare to take effect.
The board referred to various unforeseen malfunctions of the HC Mark 2 Chinooks, such as undemanded engine shutdown, undemanded engine run-up, serious engine fail captions and misleading and confusing cockpit signs. There was no positive evidence that any of those things had happened, but the board was not prepared to discount that such might have happened without trace. The board also assumed that the crew of the aircraft had not seen the Mull at the waypoint change, but made no comment on the failure of the aircraft to alter course after making that change. At the end of the day it concluded that the cause of the crash was the selection by the pilots of an inappropriate rate of climb to overfly the Mull. As I say, it found that the captain of the aircraft was guilty of an error of judgment but that the non-handling pilot was not.
The matter was then subjected to the reviewing officers. The group captain at Aldergrove reckoned that the exact train of events could never be determined with certainty. The group captain at Odiham, Air Commodore Crawford, who gave evidence to us, thought that it was highly probable that the crew had seen the coast and had decided to fly VFR up the west side of the Mull. He considered that the changing of the waypoint on the navigating system was absolutely crucial as it was entirely appropriate if it was the intention of the crew to fly VFR up the side of the Mull, but wholly inappropriate if in fact they intended to fly on into the cloud covered Mull. However, he reckoned that the evidence was not sufficient to be specific about any human failings.
Air Chief Marshal Day, as he then was—now Sir John Day—reckoned that none of the possible factors and scenarios postulated by the board and by the group captain were so strong that they would have prevented such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight. He found both pilots negligent to a gross degree. They should have turned away on approaching cloud or reduced speed and climbed. However, he went on to say that it was incomprehensible that the pilots had acted as they did. By referring to the factors not

639
being so strong, it appeared that he was not applying the appropriate standard of proof. Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten agreed with him. He reckoned that there was not even a hint of circumstances beyond the pilots' skill to accommodate. He, likewise, made no comment on the waypoint change.
The air marshals merely proceeded on the basis that the required standard of proof was satisfied if no positive evidence of cause other than negligence could be found. That, of course, overlooks the board's view that there were possible malfunctions which left no trace and also the inspector's view, or his refusal to dismiss the possibility of a control jam. Taking the report as it stood, your Lordships' Committee considered that the air marshals had failed to apply the correct standard of proof and that their conclusions were therefore defective.
That was basis one. Our second basis was reached after we heard evidence. We heard evidence from both air marshals; Air Commodore Crawford; the president of the board; the yachtsman, Mr Holbrook; an inspector; and from two airmen, Squadron Leader Burke, who was a maintenance test pilot at Odiham, and Witness A, who was a highly decorated special forces pilot. Mr Holbrook, Air Commodore Crawford and Witness A all thought that the crew would have seen the shoreline of the Mull below the cloud level which was at about 300 feet, particularly as there was at the time a 25 knot onshore wind. With the consequent breakers the shoreline must have been fairly readily visible. The two RAF witnesses had no doubt that the changing of the waypoint was consistent with an intent to fly visual flight rules west of the Mull. As I say, the change of waypoint was not a matter that was addressed at all by the air marshals.
As I say, Mr Cable refused to dismiss the possibility of a control jam. Both Squadron Leader Burke and Witness A were of the view that that was the most likely cause of the aircraft carrying on flying into the hill. The air marshals, however, assumed that the pilots had made a conscious decision to fly into cloud and that the negligence consisted of their failure to reach safety altitude before reaching the Mull. That, of course, would have meant going into instrument flying rules.
Sir John Day was at pains to point out that his conclusions were based on fact, but, when they were examined, it was clear that some of them were merely hypotheses or assumptions. We set the matter out fairly clearly in paragraphs 135 and 136 of our report.
The Boeing simulation was relied on as showing that ZD576 was under control during the last four seconds of flight, from which assumption was made that it was under control from the waypoint change to impact. But it was demonstrated that the simulated prediction speed of 150 knots and 1,000 feet rate of climb prior to the final flare was not possible in practice. Witness A tried it and could not produce a rate of climb at that speed. Sir John Day had a mathematical simulation carried out and could not achieve more than 650 feet a minute at a speed of 150 knots. It is probably fair to say now that the subsequent Boeing simulation altered
640
the position slightly. But the Boeing simulation did not cast any light on whether the aircraft was or was not under control at the time that the reputed flare occurred. We took the view that the evidence was not such as to enable it to be said that there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the aircraft was under control during the last four seconds. There was no positive evidence that it was under control and no negative evidence to exclude the flare occurring as a result of malfunction.
As I say, the Boeing simulation does not throw any light on that. But even if the aircraft was under control during the last four seconds, that does not help to determine what the position was between the making of the waypoint change and the time when the flare started. Both the air marshals conceded that they could not exclude the possibility of a control jam having occurred, but considered that the pilots were grossly negligent in approaching so close to the Mull when they made the waypoint change. That assumed a continued high speed from the waypoint change and an inability to see the land mass. But, again, that does not take account of the fact that had the pilots reduced speed after the waypoint the radius of turn would have been substantially decreased, and that if they were in danger by being at the waypoint on an assumed continuation of their course and speed, that danger could have been eliminated by reducing speed. A very helpful document was produced by the MoD after we had completed our deliberations—indeed, our report was nearly finished. It showed the effect of speed on the turning circle of this aircraft and certain degrees of bank. That demonstrated the dramatic effect that would be achieved in reducing the radius by reducing the speed.
The cloud was hugging the Mull. We know that that was the evidence from the yachtsman. There is no suggestion that the cloud came out past the sea; the evidence of the yachtsman rather suggested the contrary: that it was hugging the hills. One has to ask: first, what possible reason would there be for the pilots to make a waypoint change, which lost them all reference to the lighthouse or the point somewhat to the east of it? Secondly, knowing that there was cloud ahead—they had been warned of that before they had left—and presumably could see it, as the yachtsman could, why should they wish to abandon the visual flight rules and convert to IFR? In order to do that they would have had to have climbed very much higher than they did.
In summary on that matter, the committee concluded that the pilots probably saw the coastline at the waypoint. It would have been normal in that situation to have altered course. There was no apparent reason for departure from what was normal. Why fly into cloud under VFR when they must have known that it was there? I suggest that in that situation one has to look very hard at the possible malfunctions that could have occurred. It cannot be said that there was absolutely no doubt that it was their negligence, and not a malfunction that left no trace, that was responsible.

641
It only remains for me to deal with the answers from the MoD. I should explain that along with its answers was produced what I can only describe as a tome from Boeing, extending to 160 or 170 pages, including graphs and all sorts of pieces of information that are fascinating, no doubt, to those who understand them. I do not propose to deal with Boeing's latest effusion; I am content to leave that to my noble friend Lord Tombs, who is far more able and better equipped to deal with it than I am.
Finally, I turn to the MoD response. It refers in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, to the fact that 576 could not have reduced speed to 80 knots by the time the waypoint was changed. Mr Holbrook said that he thought that the speed of the aircraft when he saw it was 80 knots, but there is no other such suggestion; we certainly did not suggest it, and Mr Holbrook had never seen a Chinook previously. He wanted to see one before giving evidence to the board and asked if he could but was never afforded the opportunity. There is really no evidence—and the committee did not rely on any suggestion—that the aircraft was doing only 80 knots at the waypoint change.
At paragraph 15 of section 1 of the MoD response, it is said that it was implausible that any jam could have cleared itself before the final manoeuvre without trace. First, that assumes that 576 was under control at the time of the flare—that any jam had disappeared by that time without trace. In any event, what about all of the detached inserts in the broom cupboard, which could have jammed? We know that there had previously been jams. What about the inserts that were found detached after the crash?
It was also said that the detached balance spring bracket, which was found on the previous occasion in this aircraft. only alters the feel of the control. Squadron Leader Burke differed from that. More important was an engineering report to which we refer in paragraph 56 of our report, which makes it clear that such a displacement was a very serious flying hazard.
We are then referred in the report to the inescapable conclusion that controlled flight into terrain was involved. We all agree that it was flight into terrain but to say that it was "controlled" begs the question. The issue is whether the aircraft was or was not under control at the time.
In paragraph 23 of section 1, the MoD again refers to the pilots failing "to take avoiding action". If they had and the aircraft was under control throughout, and they had just flown straight on into the Mull with no problems, I do not believe that anyone would dispute that they were at fault. That, we submit, is not really what happened.
It is suggested at paragraph 10 in section 2 that the pilots made a conscious decision not to follow the route directed to Corran. There is no suggestion as to the reasons why they made such a decision and it means, as I said, that they had abandoned the intention to fly VFR but voluntarily headed to cloud, knowing that sooner or later they would have to convert to instrumental flight rules although they had not taken any necessary steps to do that.
642
The MoD refers in its response to the speed at the waypoint change. The committee found that the speed was unknown; there was no evidence because although one can deduce speed from a current screen under the heading, "Time to go", that could not be extracted by Racal in relation to the original waypoint A.
The MoD also refers to the pre-impact detachment of a balance spring only affecting the feel of the controls. I have already made the point but refer again to the engineering report. It is said that it was implausible that the jam could have cleared itself before the final flare without trace. Again, I have dealt with that by referring to the state of the broom cupboard after the crash and the warning in the engineering report.
A good deal was made in the MoD answers about spurious engine fail captions. The report alleges that they could not have contributed directly. We would not dispute that. The purpose of referring to them is not that they would have affected the flight as such but that they would have provided a serious distraction to the pilots, who would be justified in thinking that the light was telling the truth. After all, it was not there only for ornamentation; it would not be unreasonable for them to have thought that it was performing its correct duty rather than acting spuriously.
Paragraph 23 of section 3 of the government response states that,
"all … hypotheses … are implausible … [no] known fact • does not fit … controlled flight".
That ignores the declared intent of the captain of the aircraft—Tapper—to fly VFR. It ignores the making of the waypoint change, with consequent loss of positioning relative to the Mull, and it assumes that the absence of positive signs of malfunction can be treated as proof that no such malfunction can have occurred. Notwithstanding the evidence of Mr Cable, the inspectorate could not dismiss the possibility of a restriction or jam, nor some other fact highly relevant to the accident.
When the air marshals said—this is repeated in the MoD answers—that the aircraft was in danger at the waypoint change, they were assuming that it was continuing at the speed at which it was then assumed—it is only an assumption—to be travelling; that is, at a fairly high speed. If the speed could have been. or had been, reduced and if, thereby, the radius of turn had been much reduced, then there is no basis for saying that, in that context, the aircraft would have been perilously close to the Mull. They say that there was no honest doubt of negligence. I submit that that, again, is not the standard which should be applied; namely, that of absolutely no doubt whatever. It comes far nearer the ordinary criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".
I shall not say any more about Boeing. The other matter that I want to raise is that of negligence. The MoD criticises the committee's reliance on the test of negligence, which is referred to in the RAF's own guidance. It says that, in the test that we referred to, the pilot should have foreseen that action or failure to take

643
action would in all probability occasion the final event. In response to that, the government response states that,
"dangerous flying exposing an aircraft merely to a very serious risk of crash, falling short of a probability could never be negligent, even if that risk were to materialise".
If the manner of flying was such that an aircraft was exposed to a serious risk, one would have thought that a properly trained and competent pilot should foresee the probable consequences of incurring that risk. If the results were fatal or catastrophic, then I should have thought that he would be negligent.
Prior to our doing so, the air marshals—albeit not in their initial remarks—concentrated on negligence at or before the waypoint change. We considered that matter in two stages and took the view that at the waypoint change they could be said to be negligent only if they should reasonably have foreseen that whatever action they took then or thereafter was likely to place flight 576 in a position of serious danger. Our position in relation to that is that reduction in speed and reduction of radius would have avoided that. Therefore, we concluded that that test was not fulfilled.
We then went on to consider whether subsequent negligence was the cause of the accident. I believe that we have already dealt with those matters—at least, I hope that I have. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to say any more about the MoD response. However, in short, we take the view that this has in no way met the points that we made in the report nor weakened the strength of our conclusions.
In drawing to a close, I should perhaps mention that our report does not in any way impugn the integrity or honesty of the air marshals. We simply think that they were over-generous in imputing to hypotheses and assumptions the attribution of fact and in applying a lower standard of proof than was required of them by the RAF rules.
I am very grateful to my colleagues on the committee for their assistance during the course of the hearings and for the preparation of our report. I believe we would all want to express our gratitude to our Clerk, Andrew Makower, for making all the arrangements. He had a great deal of work to do and had an immense amount of paperwork, with which he was supplied from all directions.
My noble friend Lord Chalfont has been good enough to keep me informed about the amendment which he has tabled tonight. I have thought carefully about my position in relation to that. It seems to me that, as I am moving the Motion that the House takes note of the report, it would be illogical if I then supported the amendment to my Motion. Therefore, I believe that the proper course will be to abstain if there is a Division on my noble friend's amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576 (HL Paper 25).—(Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle.)
8.7 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee whose report we are debating tonight. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for agreeing to my speaking before he moves his amendment. Since what I have to say is complementary to the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Jauncey, I hope that this arrangement will be of assistance to the House.
We were very fortunate to have as our chairman my noble and learned friend, whose vast judicial experience guided the committee and whose painstaking fairness and objectivity permeated our deliberations. Since my colleagues were all eminent lawyers, I shall confine my remarks tonight to the engineering aspects of our report and those raised in the government response. I have spent most of my working life in the heavy electrical manufacturing, electricity supply, nuclear power and aero-engine industries, and so am no stranger to accident investigations.
This accident was very severe, not only in terms of the loss of so many lives but also in terms of the extensive damage to the aircraft. The technical side of an RAF accident investigation is carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), which reports to the board of inquiry but plays no part in its conclusions.
There was no cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder, despite previous recommendations that they should be fitted. The AAIB carried out a very thorough examination of the available evidence and remarked that that evidence was "remarkably thin". It reported that fire had,
"appreciably damaged 80 per cent of the aircraft and destroyed around 20 per cent".
It also reported that,
"few reliable signs of cockpit and cabin instrument indications at initial impact were found, due to gross initial shock loading on impact or deformation and subsequent impacts".
In conclusions 43 to 45 it said,
"Almost all parts of the flight control mechanical systems were identified, with no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunction, although the possibility of control system jam could not be positively dismissed".
"Most attachments on both flight control system pallets had detached, including the balance spring bracket that had previously detached from ZD576's thrust/yaw pallet, with little evidence to eliminate the possibility of pre-impact detachment".
Significantly, it added:
"The method of attaching components to the pallets appeared less positive and less verifiable than would normally be expected for a flight control system application".
My final reference to the AAIB report, which is long and comprehensive, deals with the fracture of a tie-bolt in the linkage between the pilot controls and the hydraulic servos operating the flight control systems. The bolt was badly manufactured, with a second, redundant and roughly drilled split-pin hole in the threaded area. The AAIB report concluded that,
"although the means by which the overload had been applied was unclear, the failure had resulted due to impact forces".

645
Like the AAIB, I have no hypothesis for the failure of this component in the control linkages, but the assumption faute de mieux that it resulted from impact serves to illustrate the extent of uncertainty resulting from the extensive damage.
As part of the AAIB investigation, and at the request of the board of inquiry, Boeing carried out a simulation of the final three or four seconds of the flight to see whether the attitude of the aircraft on impact could have resulted from a pilot-controlled flare. Boeing were given a series of possible conditions preceding those final seconds and were able to confirm that one of them was possible, involving an air speed, as my noble and learned friend said, of 150 knots and a rate of climb of 1000 feet per minute. That was interpreted by the board of inquiry, and the reviewing air marshals, as confirmation that the aircraft was under control at impact.
In oral evidence to us it became clear that the conditions relied upon were not achievable by a Chinook in those operating conditions, a conclusion accepted by Air Marshal Sir John Day following his own investigation. Although a later simulation by Boeing claimed that the aircraft was in fact able to achieve those flight conditions, that was only under carefully controlled and instrumented conditions and is properly referred to in the government response as "theoretical".
There seemed to be some misunderstanding in several stages of the inquiry as to the role of a simulation and a failure to realise that it can only indicate what might possibly have happened and not what in fact happened—a distinction accepted by Boeing in their later simulation report, to which I shall return later.
In summary, there was no factual evidence to indicate the reasons for the aircraft failing to turn at waypoint A, as the crew had decided, and no direct evidence that the aircraft was under pilot control at any time following the selected waypoint change.
There seemed to be a readiness on the part of the board of inquiry and some of the reviewing officers to accept that absence of evidence of a technical failure meant that there had not been a technical failure. That was a remarkable assumption, especially given the "remarkably thin evidence", the service experience and the various caveats of the AAIB report, some of which I have quoted.
I turn now to the Government response to the committee's report and I shall again confine my comments to the technical issues, with one exception. At a number of points in that response they refer to the reviewing officers as a body expressing opinions. Reviewing officers can be divided into two: two wing commanders and two air marshals and in general they were not in agreement. In general the wing commanders agreed with the report of the board.
Apart from that, the response contains some misleading statements. In paragraph 17 it suggests that detachment of the flight control inserts to the pallets, to which I referred earlier,
646
"would result in a change in the feel of the controls and is readily detectable. The aircraft is still controllable—and moreover the AAIB report indicated that the pallets were likely to have become detached during the post-accident break up of the aircraft''.
The partial detachment of a single insert on a previous flight of this very aircraft did indeed lead to a change in feel of the controls, but a Royal Air Force engineering report on the following day said,
"Detachment of the bracket within the flying control cabinet during flight could present a serious flight hazard, with the danger of a detached bracket fouling adjacent flying controls".
That confirms the obvious, that detachment of one or more of those brackets in a very confined space could result in a total control jam. But even more misleading is the attempt to ascribe to the AAIB the view that the brackets were likely to have become detached as a result of the crash. On the contrary, as I said earlier, the AAIB report referred to
"little evidence to eliminate the possibility of pre-impact detachment",
and went on to comment unfavourably on the method of attachment.
Paragraph 15 of the response claims that it is implausible to suggest that a control jam occurred and then cleared itself. But that is exactly what happened to a US Army Chinook which almost crashed, and Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, the senior reviewing officer, told us in evidence (Question 415) that he had experienced one such event himself. In any event it might be noted that the clearing of a possible control jam formed no part of the committee's findings; it was part of the MoD hypothesis that the aircraft was under control at the time of the crash.
I turn now to the further simulation work carried out recently by Boeing. It adds little to the previous work apart from being considerably more thorough. But two points should be brought to your Lordships' attention. First, Boeing suggests that its earlier simulation did not play a great part in the conclusions reached by the board of inquiry. That is contrary to a careful reading of the board of inquiry report and oral evidence to our committee by the reviewing air marshals.
More important is Boeing's constant and entirely correct insistence that a simulation cannot describe what actually happened. It said,
"The Boeing simulation was exactly that—a simulation, not a factual reconstruction".
More generally, and in a way applicable to much of the investigation—I apologise for this rather long quote but it is extremely important—it said:
"Since our primary interest is flight safety, our comments are based on balanced information and probability rather than absolute fact since, in the engineering safety realm at least, things are usually more approximate than absolute. In many instances with aircraft accidents, what may be considered as fact is not really fact at all and may even be contradictory of other 'facts'. For this reason every 'fact' must be weighed according to its relative probability of truth. It is rarely known with absolute certainty exactly what all the reasons for an aircraft accident are. One can only determine a most probable cause; as many accidents in the past have demonstrated, even with cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders, there is always room for doubt".

647
I agree wholeheartedly with that standpoint but, taken in conjunction with the "remarkably thin evidence", it supports the conclusion of the committee that the conclusions of the board of inquiry did not satisfy the rigorous standards of absolute certainty required of them.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Chalfontrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert "accepts the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576 and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set aside the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have already written to many noble Lords with an explanation and even something of an apology for my amendment to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, which is a "take note" Motion upon which there may be debate but on which it is not normal to vote. As the Government were unable to accept—in other words, rejected—the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord's Select Committee, I felt it was important that the House should have an opportunity to express its opinion on this somewhat cavalier dismissal by the executive of the findings of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. For that reason I tabled this amendment.
In my recent contacts with the Government on this matter, it has been made clear to me that they have no intention of changing their attitude. Indeed, I gained a clear impression that if I pressed the amendment the Government would not allow a free vote. If that is so, I think that it is a pity. Apart from anything else, it means that the 27 Labour Peers who voted in April for setting up the Select Committee will be deprived of the opportunity of recording their acceptance of its conclusions, if they should wish to do so. However, we shall see what happens later this evening.
It is not my intention today to rehearse any of the familiar technical arguments which surround the crash of the Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre, about which we have heard a certain amount already today. I intend to address my remarks only to the justification for the verdict of gross negligence brought against the pilots by the two air marshals reviewing the findings of the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry. In other words, I intend to stick to the subject of the Select Committee's report.
Here I repeat something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, has said. I repeat it because it is crucial to the whole of this case. The Royal Air Force regulations in effect at the time of the crash required—and I quote because it is important to know the exact words:
"Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent".
I repeat, "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
648
It was with this very strict standard of proof in mind that the original Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry, under Wing Commander Pulford, came to its conclusions in the section of its report headed "Consideration of Human Failings". That is an important part of the Board of Inquiry's report. It came to these conclusions. In the case of Flight Lieutenant Tapper, it stated:
"It would be incorrect to criticise him for human failings based on the available evidence".
In the case of his colleague, Flight Lieutenant Cook, it said:
"The Board concluded that there were no human failings with respect of Fl Lt Cook".
When these clear conclusions reached the two station commanders involved—already referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey—the station commander at RAF Aldergrove, commented:
"I believe that the exact train of events can never be determined with absolute certainty".
The station commander at RAF Odiham said:
"In assessing human failings, the evidence is insufficient to be specific".
In other words, the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry and its first two reviewing officers all concluded that there was insufficient evidence to state,
"with absolutely no doubt whatsoever",
that the accident was caused by human failings, much less by gross negligence. It was only when the matter reached the two senior reviewing officers, Air Vice-Marshal Day, as he was then, and Air Marshal Wratten, that gross negligence was attributed to the pilots, without—as the noble and learned Lord has said—any additional evidence of any kind.
Air Marshal Wratten began his comments as the reviewing officer with the significant statement:
"Without irrefutable evidence which is provided by an ADR and a CVR"—
these, as we have already heard, are the accident data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder, neither of which was present in the helicopter—
"there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise details of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
I repeat, "a degree of speculation". Yet that degree of speculation did not prevent Air Marshal Wratten from concluding beyond any possible doubt whatsoever that the actions of the two pilots amounted to gross negligence.
Since then, as the noble and learned Lord has said, there have been a number of other conclusions reached by various authorities on this matter. First, the fatal accident inquiry in Scotland which conducted a three-week examination of the evidence under Sheriff Sir Stephen Young. That inquiry came to the following conclusion:
"It has not been established to my satisfaction, and on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of the accident was the decision by the crew of ZD576 to overfly the Mull of Kintyre at cruising speed and their selection for that purpose of an inappropriate rate of climb. It may then be asked what was the cause of the accident. For my part I can only say that I do not know".

649
That was the conclusion of Sheriff Young: he did not know what the cause of the accident could be. It is worth noting that he came to that conclusion on the balance of probabilities, a much lower standard of proof than that required of the Air Marshals.
Later the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons examined the matter of the acceptance into service of the Chinook Mk 2 helicopter. It came to the conclusion,
"that the Chinook Mark 2 acceptance process and outcome were flawed",
and that,
"with regard to the Department's preference for their own procedures as constituting unwarrantable arrogance, we simply cannot understand why the Department continue to defend the unsustainable finding of gross negligence and recommend it should be set aside".
The Ministry of Defence ignored that recommendation, as indeed it has ignored or rejected any conclusion which differs from its own.
Next, Lord Murray, a former Lord Advocate of Scotland, examined all the evidence in great detail and came to the following conclusion. He said:
"Without impugning the integrity or sincerity of the senior Royal Air Force reviewing officers, one is constrained to conclude that they misdirected themselves in overruling the original Board of Inquiry and in holding that there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever"
about the cause of the accident. He suggested that the accusations of gross negligence were unsustainable and should be set aside. He said:
"In that event, their verdict could not stand and it should be revoked or suspended pending a reopening of the inquiry".
The inquiry was reopened when your Lordships' House set up its Select Committee.
The next examination of the evidence was conducted by three retired airline captains who are Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society and members of its flight operations group. Although these three gentlemen point out that their conclusions are their own and not those of the Royal Aeronautical Society as a body, they came to the following judgment:
"The history of this episode demonstrates clearly that this was certainly not a case of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. A call to the Secretary of State to initiate further investigation and/or to set aside the accusations of gross negligence would go a long way to redressing a glaring injustice".
Finally, we come to the man who had the final word in accepting the Air Marshals' verdict at the time, the then Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. This is what he says about it now, seven years later. He states:
"If I had been aware of the significant problems that had been experienced with the Chinook, that would have raised considerable doubt in my mind as to the wisdom of accepting the finding of gross negligence against the pilots".
So far then, we have the conclusions of the initial Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry, its two immediate reviewing officers, the civilian fatal accident inquiry, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the conclusions of a former Lord Advocate and of three Fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society all concluding that the air marshals' verdict was unsafe
650
and that it certainly did not fulfil the requirement that it was based on "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". The only two people in this story who reached and insist upon the verdict of gross negligence are two senior Royal Air Force officers who, while they were almost certainly acting in good faith, had no evidence which was not available to the initial board of inquiry. Their verdict was therefore based entirely upon their own judgment. They had no evidence, as I say, that was not available to the original board. It seems to me that this judgment is just not good enough to convict two young Royal Air Force officers of the crime of gross negligence resulting in their own deaths and those of all their crew and passengers. That, indeed, was the opinion of the Select Committee of this House, whose report unanimously concluded,
"the Air Marshals were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots … caused the crash".
This is almost certainly the last chance that your Lordships will have to express an opinion on this matter. Certainly, I have no intention of bringing it back to this House. But I do not believe it right that the executive, or one of its departments of state, should he able summarily to reject the report of a Select Committee of this House on a matter of this importance. I hope that your Lordships agree with me and that you will say so loud and clear.
The Government would be wrong to think that their decision not to accept the conclusion of the Select Committee is an end of the matter. They will not he allowed to rest until this manifest injustice has been erased from the records.
That said, I insist that none of my approach to this whole affair is any form of attack on the present Government, the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Air Force or even the two air marshals at the centre of the case. As a former professional soldier, I recognise the importance of the chain of command and of service discipline. I accept that the air marshals carried out their professional duty with integrity and responsibility. I just happen to believe, like almost everyone who has examined the evidence, that on this occasion their judgment was faulty.
That was the view of the Select Committee of this House. In effect, the two pilots have already been exonerated. My own view is that the two pilots have, in fact, been totally cleared of the accusation of gross negligence, and that the Government's decision not to accept that is fatuous and irrelevant. But the fathers of the pilots insist, understandably, that the verdict should be formally set aside; and it is that which I now call upon the Government to do.
I conclude with the final words of the Select Committee report, at paragraph 176:
"How could it be that a very experienced crew, having planned to fly VFR, having taken when probably visual with the Mull the appropriate steps to alter course, when there was nothing to prevent them flying northwards within sight of the coast, flew into the Mull? It is as Sir John and Sir William speculatively described 'incomprehensible' and 'astonishing'. We shall never know".
We shall never know. Nor will anyone ever know. There was no black box on the aircraft, and the aircraft was almost completely destroyed. There were no

651
survivors and no eyewitnesses. No one will ever know what was the cause of the accident—certainly not beyond any possible doubt. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert "accepts the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576 and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set aside the finding of gross negligence against the two pilots".—(Lord Chalfont.)
8.34 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the Royal Air Force is the youngest of our services, but it quickly excited in all of us an admiration equal to that for the other services. The reason is clear, is it not? In peacetime or in war, air crew risk their lives in a particularly dramatic way. When things go wrong in an aeroplane, sudden death is often the outcome. Air crew, and pilots in particular, who run that risk and suffer death can surely expect two things of their country. The first is that the widow they might leave behind and their children, without a father, should not be left in need. The second is that their reputation should be protected. Those two expectations call for a system that provides a proper basis upon which to assess the presence or absence of negligence when the dead pilot cannot defend himself.
It was surely for that reason that the government of the day agreed that when such negligence might fall to be investigated, the standard of proof should be to the very high standard: "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That is not legally complicated. It can be readily paraphrased: evidence as a result of which there is the conclusion of negligence or otherwise "completely without doubt of any kind". If that is the test, we should remember not only its nature but its objective: to do justice to dead servicemen.
That test is at the heart of this inquiry. It is not legal jargon. It is a concept of fairness and justice. It is with regard to that test that this House should consider our report and the conclusions that it chooses to draw from it.
I turn to the report. The five members of the committee all took the view that this was probably the most onerous committee task that any of us had undertaken in this House. We undertook it in a quasi-judicial manner. We examined all the evidence objectively as it existed at the time of the RAF's conclusion and as it exists now, after our further inquiry.
I stand by our unanimous conclusions. I have carefully considered the Government's response. Being a mere lawyer, and not enjoying the skills of my noble friend Lord Tombs, I am reminded of Mark Twain's response in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:
"The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it".
The facts were limited; the suppositions to be conceived were fragile. Our conclusion reflected that state of affairs; namely, that we were not of the view that the air marshals were justified, on the facts and
652
suppositions that arose, in concluding that there was absolutely no doubt whatever about the negligence of the two pilots.
I propose to say no more about the detail of our report. This debate is surely complementary to it and not in substitution for it. What is significant to me are the concerns which arise, I hope, to fair-minded people from the investigation that we carried out—concerns of whose substance I gave prior notice to my noble friend the Minister. I shall deal with them briefly.
I understand that the investigation process within the RAF does not reflect the practice of the other two services. It was criticised in the Tench report years ago and has not been adequately reformed. It needs reform. It is a process designed to establish truth in so far as that is feasible—to protect the dead and, if necessary, to find negligence if proven. That process demands standards higher than those that I found in the RAF system.
I turn to the search for evidence. Twenty-nine people died in the Chinook crash; it was a terrible disaster. We would expect, first, that simulations would be kept within their proper intellectual limits. Based on thin facts and fragile suppositions, they cannot be any stronger in suggesting what might have happened than the material that circumscribes their value. Secondly, why was the civilian investigating arm in air crashes not fully and completely involved in a military inquiry into an RAF crash in peacetime? I can see no reason why not, but I have formed the view—which, I readily concede, may be mistaken—that the Air Accident Investigation Branch, which is expert in the field, took a subservient role in the investigation by the RAF.
I was also concerned about the range of evidence pursued in the RAF inquiry. As a layman, I could not understand why the investigating officers had not consulted expert flyers who were used to the Chinook helicopter, who had experience of it and who could give their views about what may or may not have happened. One, soldier A, gave us his views. I have the leave of my noble friend Lord Hooson, who is absent, to confirm his view, which I share, that this was a most compelling and convincing witness: a serving soldier experienced with such aircraft who was sure that negligence had not been proven. In my view, the search for evidence was inadequate.
I turn to the role of the manufacturer and supplier. The use of—in this case, the sole reliance on—the expertise of those who provided the equipment that may have been at fault is surely unacceptable. It would not be acceptable in commercial life. There, outside experts would be used. They can and should be used in this form of military inquiry. That they were not may reflect an inevitable and perfectly understandable bureaucratic process within the Ministry of Defence, which is accustomed to long-term and regular dealings with its manufacturers and suppliers. That may be give great benefits, but when 29 people die, something more is required. To argue that there is no practical alternative—as I hope will not be argued—is to demean the aeronautical expertise in this country that produced the jet and radar.

653
I turn to the concept of the chain of command. That concept is essential to military efficiency. I see no basis for its involvement in a system of military justice. It is difficult to accept that, when the original board and the initial reviewing officers found no negligence under the test to be applied, the air marshals could simply reverse that conclusion—with integrity, I accept, and on their honest review of the evidence, but not having heard any of it and unable, presumably because of the weight of their duties, to give it the same degree of attention as had the board itself.
I am reminded that many military men need conclusions,—they look for them—but I remind them of Thomas Huxley's version of scientific rigour. He said:
"My business is to teach my aspirations to confirm themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations".
That is a good lesson.
I turn to the role of the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps it was inevitable, as I fear may have been the case, that after eight years, with Minister after Minister and batteries of civil servants being sucked into the debate, some of them lost objectivity. They became so embroiled in the matter and its political ramifications that a mind set and fixed views may well have set in. Surely, if we are discussing military justice, the Ministry of Defence must deal with matters strictly at arm's length.
Why are all those considerations so important? Because our services depend on the morale of our serving men and on their sense of justice in the military arm of their services. On page 38 of the committee's evidence, soldier A, who is a senior officer, states:
"Those who have read the aircraft accident summary I would consider to feel a sense of injustice and those who have read the full Board of Inquiry most definitely a sense of outrage, and that is the feeling, as far as my perception goes, of the grass-roots level".
We Peers and generals are not today debating a technical matter; we are debating matters that affect the morale of our serving men.
Lastly, I turn to the use of a committee of this kind. I voted against it, but when I was asked to serve on it, I agreed. I voted against it for three reasons. First, I found it difficult to envisage a role for a committee of this House investigating a specific factual problem. I wondered whether that was within our compass and whether we were properly equipped to do that. Secondly, it struck me—this remains so—that it was a semi-judicial exercise. Therefore, thirdly, I was concerned that when we reported, our conclusions should not become the subject of political debate of a level that did not reflect the gravity of the matter. I fear that we may have achieved that result.
It remains my considered view that, should the House consider such a committee to be appropriate in future, it should be in only the most exceptional circumstances, in the most clearly prescribed way and on the basis that the House will treat the conclusions of that committee with the greatest respect, if it has done its work properly.
654
Twenty-nine people died. Every reasonable person thinks to himself that there must be an explanation—either people were negligent or there was aircraft failure or a mixture of the two. We search for a conclusion. However, to the inquiring, objective mind, a doubting investigation and a willingness to indulge in scrutiny ensures a fair result. Such an approach may mean that, because of the state of the facts, we simply cannot say what happened. We cannot find the pilots negligent; we cannot condemn the equipment. I regard that not as a failure of the inquiring mind but as a compliment to its integrity, if the evidence is inadequate to reach a conclusion that meets the test: absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell your Lordships what evidence he has that the air marshals paid less attention to the matter than the original board of inquiry?
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I hoped that it was by the exercise of common sense. The RAF board or inquiry spent weeks investigating witnesses, going to the site and investigating material. I imagine that our air marshals have many serious duties to perform and could not devote the same amount of time. It is, simply, a practical conclusion, not a critical comment.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a wife whose health is such that she cannot be left alone. When I retained my carer's assistance, I had not contemplated for one moment that the debate could go on until midnight. Accordingly, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, whether I could come in before she spoke. Generously, she agreed. I then got the concurrence of the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Redesdale and Lord Chalfont, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and, of course, my Convenor, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I mentioned the matter to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, and he was content for it to be left to the House. So, I ask the House's leave to intervene at this stage. I apologise for having so incompetently overlooked the timing aspect of the debate.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the House gives leave, of course. I am sure that I speak for the House in that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise. Like the Minister and the Secretary of State, I have been obliged to argue the unarguable. The scars take time to heal, but the memory lingers on. More recently, I have had to listen to such arguments, always—I hope—conscious of the wise advice of that great judge, Lord Reid:
"Don't interrupt. You are paid to be irritated".
I adopt everything that the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, recently stated. Had he been addressing the High Court on an application for judicial review of the Minister's decision, he would properly—and forensically, of course—have used the term "perverse"

655
to describe the Minister's decision. We, of course, rarely use such harsh phraseology in your Lordships' House. However, occasionally, we call a spade a spade, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I do so.
I go back a stage before that dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I propose to limit my submissions to your Lordships solely to the legality of the air marshals' decision. Although, like others, I do not, in any way, attack their integrity, I assert strongly and firmly that, whatever they may have thought, their decision was, quite simply, unlawful. I can, as I have done in the past, explain the position shortly and simply.
I shall start with matters that are common ground. First, the air marshals' authority to make a finding of guilt against the deceased pilots was extremely—I underline the word "extremely"—limited. As your Lordships have heard so often, the limitation was to be found in the RAF Flight Safety Manual AP 3207. It provided—I repeat again the vital words—that:
"only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should a deceased airman be found guilty of negligence".
The word "absolutely", placed in front of "doubt", emphasises that the doubt is unqualified and is unrestricted. Doubt is not limited to cases of "reasonable doubt". The word "whatsoever" after the word "doubt" means that there can be no doubt of any kind. The onus of proof that lay on the board of inquiry required certainty. That was in no way surprising, as the inquiry was in private, those acting on behalf of the deceased were not allowed representation and there was no appeal. Hence the present position that the board of inquiry is not permitted to apportion blame where the pilot is dead.
For the air marshals' verdict to be considered valid, two requirements must be met, each of them vital. The air marshals must have concluded, first, that it was a case where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" and, secondly, that there was an adequate amount of material available to support such a decision. It is my contention that the air marshals fell at the first fence, the stage before that dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Their decision would be ultra vires—beyond their powers—and, therefore, a nullity. It would be set aside by any court on the basis of ex debito justitiae—because justice so demands.
Nowhere in their judgments did the air marshals say expressly or imply that it was one of those rare cases where there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". For the nearest that they got to that, I shall quote what Air Chief Marshal Day said on 5th March, 1995. Noble Lords should see the report of the RAF board of inquiry annexed to the Select Committee's report at pages 23 and 24. He said:
"The Board and Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules".
I stress the following words:
"In my judgment none of the possible factors and scenarios is so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight".
656
What has been said, quite simply, is that none of the factors or scenarios is of sufficient strength to provide a likely explanation. That does two things. First, it puts the onus upon the deceased, which is wrong. Secondly, it deals with probabilities. It does not deal with even reasonable doubt, let alone certainties. That is the only statement in which the air marshal vouchsafes his reason for exercising his limited power. His senior officer, Sir William Wratten, adds nothing at all.
What perhaps is far more pertinent is the following statement in the air marshal's judgment.
"Therefore, while aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased air crews I am nevertheless forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree".
"Difficulty", the word used by the air marshal, is a gross understatement of the task that faced him. What faced him was near impossibility, and that is something that he did not address.
The only other part of the judgment which I think is worthy of quoting is:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered higher ground".
I entirely agree with him. It is incomprehensible and that merely shows that it cannot be a situation in which there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
I made those submissions in the debate on the Motion for a Select Committee on 5th March 2001. I repeated them in the following month where a further attempt was made to set up the Select Committee. On neither occasion did the Minister answer my points. I, therefore, at the risk of boring the House, set them out again on 19th June 2002 on a Motion that related to the Army and Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. Again, they were not answered. Nor were they answered by the Minister in his reply to the Select Committee on 22nd July 2002.
Literally, in the last few seconds permitted to question the Statement in this House, I asked two questions. These were, first:
"Nowhere in their judgments did the air marshals recognise the vital limitation on the lawful exercise of their power. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he will identify where it is so stated".
The second question was that it is nowhere stated that there was,
"absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the deceased airmen—or one of them—were guilty of negligence. If the Minister does not agree, will he please identify what was the relevant statement in this regard?".—[Official Report, 22/7/02; col. 24.]
In his reply dated 30th July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, repeated that Sir John did not use the words "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" but claimed that his recognition of the vital limitation on the lawful exercise of his power was to be found in that very sentence which I have quoted to the House on no fewer than three occasions; namely,
"Whilst aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased air crew".

657
He further prayed in aid what the air marshal had said some seven years later to the Select Committee when, of course, everybody was focusing on this very high standard of proof. In substance, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was forced to concede that the contemporary documents were dead against him.
While paying lip service to the obligation not to find the deceased pilot negligent unless there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who basically repeated the former's Statement, were at pains to try to restate the obligation in terms that fitted in with the terms of the air marshal's decision. There are frequent references to plausible "explanations". In col. 15 of Lords Hansard it is there stated:
"It follows from this strict standard of proof that if there is another plausible explanation for what took place other than the one accepted by the board of inquiry, the conclusion cannot be allowed to stand".
That overlooks that the so-called plausible explanation provided by the air marshal is based not on certainty but, as previously stated, on probabilities. Further, it is reversing the onus. Moreover, it proceeds on the basis that there is no room when applying the test for the simple statement:
"We just cannot produce any explanation which involves a certainty".
At col. 16 of Lords Hansard, the entirely undefined phrase "honest doubt" is introduced. No explanation is given for that phrase. Again, at col. 16 is the phrase:
"The only realistic explanation therefore is that found by the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry".
If the obligation is to find a "realistic explanation" only, then it would be a far lower onus than the certainty required by the then regulations.
In col. 697 the Secretary of State states:
"The right way is to look objectively at known facts that can be established beyond any reasonable doubt".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/02; col. 697.]
Yet the Secretary of State had conceded earlier that the test he had to apply was a heavier test than reasonable doubt.
The Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, totally failed to recognise that the air marshal's explanation itself was highly improbable. I should like to end with a quotation from the foot of page 1 of Enclosure 1 in the review of the RAF Chinook accident dated 2nd June, concerning further work undertaken by Boeing. Boeing there states:
"It is rarely known with absolute certainty exactly what all the reasons for an aircraft accident are. One can only determine a most probable cause as many accidents in the past have amply demonstrated, even with cockpit voice and flight data recorders there is always room for doubt. Consistent with our understanding of the RAF Board of Inquiry's charter, as the investigation authority in this case, a determination of probable cause…was made based on a preponderance of evidence".
I trust the House will demonstrate its refusal to accept the undoubtedly perverse decision of the Secretary of State and the noble Lord the Minister in this House by strongly supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Chalfont.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we have a long and distinguished list of speakers and I shall be brief. I have spoken in many earlier debates on the issue in the long battle over the years. It was a tragedy in which I lost friends and a tragedy which is important in human terms both for the reputation of the men involved and for their families, for the honour and integrity of the service to which they belonged, and for other airmen in the future.
Therefore, I shall say only that I agree entirely with the Select Committee's view, reached with so much care, that the verdict of gross negligence was unjustifiable. There was doubt. I shall strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, should lie press the matter to a vote.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, the RAF Board of Inquiry report into the loss of Chinook ZD576 was released eight years ago and for those eight years the contents have been strongly disputed, not least in your Lordships' House. It would be entirely understandable if some of your Lordships were beginning to experience Chinook fatigue.
I must begin by expressing my admiration for those who serve, or who have served, in the Armed Forces. They place their lives at the country's disposal and in return they ask for nothing more than that this country's safeguards, as best it can, their lives and their honour. They of course include many of your Lordships and not least the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who leads the pursuit of justice in this case.
We will never know with certainty the details of the last seconds of the flight of ZD576. However, when your Lordships entrusted the case to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and his distinguished and eminently qualified committee, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his substantial group of supporters made it clear that with the agreement of the families of the deceased pilots they were willing to accept the findings of the Select Committee. They further stated that in the event that the committee supported the findings of the original Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry, they would not pursue the matter further. The Government regrettably gave no such undertaking and have now rejected the unanimous findings of the Select Committee.
Instead, they commissioned Boeing to carry out a second simulation to try to meet some of the criticisms of the Select Committee. This second simulation actually disproved much of the first simulation on which the reviewing officers' verdict so heavily relied. Your Lordships may wonder why the Government did not promptly and graciously concede the case. I will return to that later.
In the past three years, I have spoken in several Chinook debates and never once have I failed to mention that it is certainly possible that the two pilots, Flight Lieutenant Tapper and Flight Lieutenant Cook, were guilty of gross negligence. However, the RAF regulations permit the reviewing officers such a

659
finding only in cases where there is "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". That means no doubt about the objective evidence, not no doubt about the reviewing officers' minds about their own subjective opinion. This standard of proof is higher than that in a criminal court. It equates to absolute certainty of the facts. Obviously, if there is any other reasonable alternative explanation, the standard of proof for negligence is not met.
To understand the difficulty of establishing the cause of the accident, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a case which occurred just two years after the Mull crash. A similar Mk2 Chinook was flying in the United States when in mid air it turned upside down and hurtled towards the ground. The crew wrestled with the controls to try to save the helicopter. Just 200 feet above the ground, the Chinook miraculously righted itself and the helicopter landed safely. The crew were euphoric, as indeed they might have been having just escaped certain death.
The US Army and Boeing had a totally intact helicopter to which they applied all their massive resources. They analysed it piece by piece to try and find the cause of the near-fatal accident. Their conclusions were that they could not establish the cause but they suspected the possibility of contamination in the hydraulic system.
The wreckage on the Mull revealed that the hydraulics system contained slivers of metal and other debris. This may or may not have been the cause of the accident, but it is a valid explanation which cannot be positively eliminated and which, therefore, disallows the certainty which is mandatory for a gross negligence verdict.
The Mk2 Chinook helicopter was put into service only two weeks before the fatal flight. At that time both pilots expressed to their families their deep concern about having to fly the Mk2 Chinook on operations in Northern Ireland when it had not been fully tested and certified. Indeed, Boscombe Down was unable to complete the testing of the FADEC electronic engine control system. The possibility of a transient FADEC failure is consistent with known FADEC problems and with the known facts of the accident. It is yet another valid explanation which cannot be discounted or eliminated.
Engine failure warning signals appeared, lasting on average seven or eight seconds. Group Captain Crawford, then station commander at RAF Odiham, wrote:
"at the time of the accident the cause of this was not understood and such spurious signals would have caused the crew considerable concern, particularly if they were over water with no obvious areas for an emergency landing. Such a warning would have also required an urgent and very careful check of the engines, instruments and the incomplete Flight Reference Cards".
The MoD has always maintained that if others could come up with new evidence it would re-examine the matter, even though there was already a great deal of evidence for several alternative explanations. Your Lordships will have noted that I use the word "explanations", whereas I refer to the reviewing
660
officers' verdict as a "hypothesis". You may agree that a hypothesis is a proposition, the truth of which has not been proved but which is used as a starting point for an inquiry. The examples of other possibilities, such as contamination of hydraulics and FADEC malfunction, are founded upon known facts and I have therefore used the word "explanation".
On what is the AOC's verdict founded? Not evidence in the wreckage; not witness testimony; certainly not in the pilots' distinguished flying records. It is founded on a need to explain the cause of the accident. It hardly deserves to be called a hypothesis. It is the AOC's guess—and it is a bad guess. What is more, the MoD insists that this verdict can be overturned only by the absolute proof of another explanation.
I have demonstrated that there are several alternative explanations, but now I want to deal with the reviewing officers' hypothesis. It was based upon the first simulation carried out by Boeing. Their theory was that the aircraft was not in the correct position just before it reached the Mull and inadvertently went into cloud when it was operating under visual flight rules. This simulation derived data primarily from the physical evidence of the crash and from the Racal Decca TANS navigation system. From these they were able to determine approximately the height of the helicopter and also the speed. The height was 468 feet and from the start of the final manoeuvre the minimum speed was 150 knots. Also, they determined the approximate position of the helicopter. Unfortunately, the helicopter data used for the first simulation were not the Mk2 model and were criticised by the Select Committee.
So the MoD decided to ask Boeing to carry out a second simulation. What did it find? First, the height calculation could have been in error by 200 feet. Secondly, the most likely speed of the helicopter was 135 knots, not 150 knots. Thirdly, the first simulation indicated that the engines were at mid-power, but the second simulation indicated that the engines were at maximum or even emergency power. Fourthly, Boeing also admitted that the simulated climb angle at which the helicopter was supposed to be flying in the last instant before the crash is not consistent with the evidence from the wreckage. Fifthly, Boeing drew attention to the highly unusual position of the left rudder pedal, on which experienced helicopter pilots had already commented. It was not mentioned in the first simulation. Sixthly, perhaps most surprising of all, Boeing was unable to explain a slight turn to the right when the pilots had planned a 12 degree to 15 degree turn to the left when they made their waypoint change.
I am well aware that the Boeing management conclusions on the second simulation do not tie in with those facts. I leave your Lordships to speculate why. Your Lordships will recall that in their appearance before the Select Committee the reviewing officers based the defence of their verdict on the evidence of Boeing's first simulation. Given that Boeing has now exposed the flaws in that simulation, there are

661
excellent grounds for the Government to set aside the verdict without in any way impugning the integrity of the reviewing officers.
As far as the TANS equipment is concerned, this was an essential piece of equipment used by the board to reconstruct the flight path of the helicopter, yet the manufacturers state that the equipment is not designed to provide historic data, but such data may indicate—not prove—the situation at a time earlier in the flight.
As the TANS computer played such an important part in the reconstruction, I must mention an incident that occurred on 13th July 1995, when a Chinook Mk2 helicopter was tasked to perform an over-flight of Flight Lieutenant Jonathan Tapper's memorial. The RNS 252 SuperTANS displayed an error of just 210 feet. yet the crew who were in visual contact with the ground, could see that the TANS was more than two nautical miles in error.
The TANS system believed that it was some 12,000 feet away from its actual position. If that Chinook had crashed and, the air marshals had used the retrieved data as facts to reconstruct the final flight path, their interpretation of events up to the crash would have been displaced from reality by some two nautical miles. If such inaccuracies can occur in this equipment, is it not clear that it cannot be used to establish undisputed facts with "absolutely no doubt whatsoever"?
I turn to the final matter I should like your Lordships to consider. From my first introduction to the subject have been puzzled why the reviewing officers were able to conclude with certainty amid such contradictory evidence that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" as to the cause of the accident. We must remember that the reviewing officers were the judge and jury of the case; that the defendants were deceased and had no legal representation; and that there was no right of appeal. Under that so-called system of justice the pilots were effectively found guilty of manslaughter.
I take your Lordships back to early February 1995, just before the report was considered by the reviewing officers. An edict was issued from on high, which I shall paraphrase as saying that in too many accidents in recent times, pilots who may have been negligent have been allowed to get away with it and it must stop. Here I quote from the edict itself:
"I wish to put this policy into practical effect by ensuring that formal disciplinary action is taken whenever, following Board of Inquiry Investigations, clear evidence emerges of unmitigated indiscipline or negligence. The increasing incidence of such cases suggests that past practice, which has been to shun the disciplinary approach (even in some quite serious cases) is no longer appropriate to the high standards the Royal Air Force is entitled to expect from its aircrew".
Such a strong edict might have influenced, and been intended to influence, those officers reviewing the conclusions of the board of inquiry, which took place in February and March 1995. The edict is indicative of a mindset. It indicates that the command was predisposed to a disciplinary approach to flight safety. The RAF calls this, "flight safety by intimidation". However, such an edict could properly form part of a
662
system of approach to flight safety which reviewed every aspect of flight operations, but such a review was never ordered. The author of that devastating, edict was none other than one of the judges in the case, the reviewing officer Air Marshal Sir William Wratten.
I started by declaring that our servicemen who placed their lives in our hands trust us to afford them the highest standards of justice and to honour the memory of those who die in our service. Let us not fail the pilots of Chinook ZD576.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome and support the Government's response, which counters effectively and convincingly the Select Committee's main points. That is not to say that the committee—and I have great respect for all its members—has not tried hard to comprehend these complex issues. I propose to confine my remarks to some additional points where the committee's approach appears mistaken.
First, it did not follow all the statutory rules and guidance that govern boards of inquiry. Given that, it is perhaps hardly surprising that the committee did not agree with the findings of the reviewing officers who were, of course, bound by those rules. The committee, and others who have not agreed with the air marshals, judged the board's findings by comparison with civil and criminal courts standards of proof.
But a board of inquiry is not a court of law. Members are appointed for their aviation expertise related to the accident, not as lawyers or legal experts. Their duties, the responsibilities of a board, are nevertheless set in statute in Section 135 of the Air Force Act 1955 and the Board of Inquiry (Air Force) Rules. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to just one of several key stipulations in these statutory rules. On evidence, it states:
"A board may receive any evidence which they consider relevant to the matter referred to the board, whether oral or written, and whether or not it would be admissible in a civil court".
To judge the findings of the board against those used in a court of law is as wrong as, say, applying the rules of rugby to decide if a foul was committed in a football match. The findings must be judged by the statutory rules for a board, and using all the detailed explanation and guidance to boards that are given in MoD Publication AP3207. I was taken aback by the Select Committee's departure from this approach.
The statement that,
"only when there is no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent",
was never drafted to be compared with wordings applicable in the courts. The context of the statement was to describe a test which, while very high, had still to be capable of a practical application. Instead, the Select Committee introduced its own yardstick—
"it requires all other plausible explanations for the crash to have been positively excluded",
from which to derive its own opinion. In the context of a fatal aircraft accident, this test is highly unlikely to be ever achievable. The Select Committee moved the goal posts.

663
A finding of human failure in a board of inquiry against a pilot or crew who survived an accident is not the basis for any charge under the Air Force Act. The next stage would be to call for a summary of evidence, and such evidence is taken according to the rules of evidence in court proceedings. Based on that evidence, and not on the board of inquiry, a decision whether to prosecute would be made. So courts martial and summary punishment processes are dealt with separately from a board of inquiry. No finding of manslaughter arises from the Chinook board, as some have claimed.
I was surprised that the committee criticised the appointment of Wing Commander Pulford as board president because he had not previously conducted a board of inquiry. But the Royal Air Force has had few major accidents in recent years. Only one affected the Chinook fleet, and that took place over five years before the Mull accident. Previous board experience of inquiries into fatal accidents is thus extremely limited. Of far greater importance in an inquiry is current knowledge of the operation of the aircraft type in question. On those grounds, Wing Commander Pulford was very highly qualified—one of the most experienced helicopter pilots of his rank in the Royal Air Force. Expert advice was constantly available to him from flight safety and technical staff throughout the inquiry. I believe that the committee's criticism of his selection is both unfair and unwarranted.
The committee questioned, as others have done, the validity of relying on the Boeing work to help to deduce what had been happening in the remaining seconds before the crash. But as Boeing itself states, its work was an analysis tool and should not be considered defective, as the Select Committee thinks. The board was justified in considering that work to help to reach its conclusions.
The air marshals' findings relate to the airmanship displayed on this tragic flight, and the account that the crew took of the forecast and actual weather over and in the vicinity of the Mull. The Select Committee accepted that Mr Holbrook, the yachtsman, was a reliable and convincing witness. What it should have appreciated from his witness statement, and from other witness statements, was that the cloud cover—its base and extent—and forward visibility were in a state of flux. A strong wind of 25 knots would contribute to frequent, possibly rapid, changes in cloud base and local visibility. That was the forecast; it was not unexpected.
The Select Committee seems to have presumed that the crew faced relatively static weather conditions. But, given the forecast, witnesses' descriptions of the conditions at the time of the accident and the strong tail wind, the crew would have had little or no time to make a safe transition from visual flight rules to instrument flight rules if the need to do so proved suddenly to be unavoidable. I do not consider that the Select Committee has alighted on new weather evidence. The evidence available to the board, and its experience, merely support the additional comments of Mr Holbrook.
664
The Select Committee refers to the problem of a distraction, and considers that the crew could have faced a technical problem, for which there is no evidence. If the crew found themselves in Instrument Met Conditions, which they had been warned to expect near the Mull, in continuing to fly below the safety altitude, they failed in their duty of care by not adhering to instrument flight rules in good time. It is no defence to opine that they could have been distracted, or worse, by a technical malfunction. If they had been at, or above, safety altitude, their attention could have been fully devoted to dealing with the problem without any risk of flying into the mountain.
Peacetime flying requires full and unambiguous adherence to this all-important flight safety rule. Even a minor deviation is a serious breach and unprofessional in qualified aviators. The Select Committee also said that if the crew were to be deemed negligent, they,
"ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event".
The MoD rightly responds that this is an unrealistic and inappropriately narrow approach to the question of negligence. The guidance in AP 3207 as a whole must be considered. The quoted words are from one of two questions in the AP that a board must first ask itself in order to distinguish between irregularities that had no direct connection with the cause of the accident and those that had. The crew would know that flight below safety altitude would be dangerous. So it would be right to conclude that human failings must be considered. That was the point of this question. Negligence is defined for the board in AP 3207 as,
"The omission to do something which in the circumstances a reasonable person would do; or the doing of something which in the circumstances a reasonable person would not do or do differently".
The Select Committee does not appear to have applied this test; it used its own.
Good airmanship is a combination of sound judgment and the proper taking of care. The two pilots certainly had the necessary skill and knowledge to maintain safe flight. With passengers on board, their duty to take care was explicit. But, the fact that, by waypoint change, and faced with marginal weather at the Mull, they had not adequately slowed down, turned away or climbed to a safe altitude, regrettably confirms an act of negligence on this particular mission.
I agree with the MoD's reactions to the Select Committee's report, while once again expressing my sincere and profound sympathy to the families of both pilots and all the other victims of this appalling disaster. I hope that, on reflection, and having listened to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will withdraw his amendment, which can do nothing to undo the correct decisions about negligence. I hope, too, that those who criticised the two air marshals in the past will now agree that they discharged their statutory duty and stood by their decisions, in spite of

665
much pressure over a prolonged period, with moral courage and integrity. That does credit to them and to my service
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the noble and gallant Lord sits down, why is a finding of gross negligence which resulted in the death of 29 people not equivalent to a finding of manslaughter?
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, because this is a board of inquiry, not a court of law. Only in a court of law can there be a charge and a finding of manslaughter.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it verges on impertinence for me to say that I agree with every word that has just been said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. It was my sad duty five years ago to make my first remarks in your Lordships' House on the subject of Chinook. It happened to be the first matter that came across my desk when I returned to the Ministry of Defence in 1997. I was therefore interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about Ministers getting sucked into these matters and, from time to time, being faced with inbred ministerial and departmental attitudes and being affected by political considerations. I resent those remarks. I am sure that none of my Conservative predecessors as Ministers was affected by any of those considerations and I am sure that none of my successors who have spoken from the Dispatch Box under this administration has been affected by considerations of that sort. Had I been so affected, it would have been an ideal opportunity for me to demonstrate that I could dissent from my Conservative predecessors. I found myself unable to do so.
With regret, I find it impossible to acquit the two pilots of negligence in this case. I do not wish to go over again any of the things that I have said before in your Lordships' House. There is one point that I ought to make in response to the layman's argument brought up vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, at the end of his remarks. I congratulate the noble Lord on his persistence and courage in bringing this matter once again to your Lordships' attention. I think he was quoting from the last paragraph of the Select Committee report when he asked how one could conceive of two such skilled, able and experienced pilots making such an error. I am afraid it is very easy to conceive of able, experienced people making mistakes. It happens in the air every day. Pilots well know that from time to time, there but for the grace of God go they. Luckily, they make their mistakes in non-life-threatening circumstances.
I realise that I speculate. I am not offering this as a solution to what may have happened in the air, but when there are two pilots on a flight deck it is by no means unknown for confusion to arise suddenly as to who is in control. It may take a little time for that to be sorted out. We are led to believe that there might have been an emergency of some sort on the flight deck. I do not say that that is a normal occurrence, but it is
666
certainly not unprecedented on a flight deck with experienced people. It happens on civilian airliners as well. I regret that I have no option but to reaffirm the conclusion that I first came to as a Minister when considering the case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord has been saying that certain things are possible or probable. The argument is not about possibility or probability. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, talked about the need for absolute proof with no doubt whatsoever. The moment the Minister — sorry, the recently retired Minister—says that the cause could possibly be this or that, he concedes the whole case.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I do nothing whatsoever. I have made it absolutely clear that I regard it as inconceivable that there was any other cause. Various kinds of negligence could have been involved in the case that we are discussing. As I was about to say, I think that the Royal Air Force's language is unfortunate. I do not like the term "gross negligence". I think that "negligence" is quite enough without rubbing salt into people's wounds. I believe that the Royal Air Force has probably set itself too high a hurdle with respect to these matters. However, having said that, I repeat that I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the Government are right to reject the Select Committee's report.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the primary Motion before your Lordships' House is that your Lordships take note of the Select Committee report. That is a serious enough Motion to consider but I find it absolutely extraordinary that we should have an amendment to such a Motion. I believe I am right in saying that that has not occurred for 24 years. Twenty-four years ago the issue concerned a constitutional matter and the amendment was moved by a member of the Select Committee itself. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will withdraw his amendment at the end of the debate.
The Chinook crash is gathering the mythology associated with the "Birkenhead", the "Titanic" or the "Lusitania". That myth must be arrested and the basic known facts considered. We are looking for the facts—facts that can support the verdict that there was no doubt of the pilots' negligence. Sadly, there are no such doubts, however unlikely—as has been said on a number of occasions—it may seem that two such experienced and responsible pilots should have got themselves into such a position. What happened to other aircraft at other times and in other conditions is irrelevant.
What happened in particular in the case that led to the Ministry of Defence suing Textron Lycoming in 1989, or in the RAF board of inquiry in March 1994, is quite a different matter. The FADEC system in the Boscombe Down incident has nothing to do with the matter when seen against the facts of the flight of ZD576 on that day.

667
Noble Lords who know the conditions around the Mull of Kintyre from flying or sailing round it know how treacherous and variable they are. Chinook ZD576 was seen by a yachtsman at approximately 300 feet approaching the Mull in clear visibility. What happened thereafter with regard to the visibility is a matter of doubt and it is not clear whether or not the crew had seen the Mull. But they did fly towards the land without deviating from their track.
If the aircraft had "pulled to the bells"; that is, exercised maximum power, on entering cloud 30 seconds before the eventual impact, it would probably have avoided hitting the Mull, whose maximum height is 1,463 feet. Here flight rules are quite clear. On moving from a state where visual flight rules apply—which is where the aircraft was seen by Mr Holbrook—into cloud where instrument flight rules apply, the pilot has two alternatives. He has to climb to the designated safety altitude, which is a height 1,000 feet above any obstacle within five miles of the track. Alternatively, he should turn through 180 degrees and get out of it. That is what should have happened in the conditions of cloud off the Mull, which is, as I say, a notably treacherous place.
The first alternative—that is, to climb to safety altitude—may not have been possible because of restrictions on the use of the anti-icing equipment. Ice can build up on the engine intake surfaces. Before going into potentially icing cloud, the electrically heated rubber mats on the intake blankets should be switched on. It is understood that there was a flight restriction stating that the anti-icing should not be switched on except under operational conditions.
Although the crash took place in June, it is at least possible that there was icing in the cloud. If there was any doubt, the pilot should have turned through 180 degrees and followed his previous track in reverse. The trouble was that they had an ETA to meet and restrictions on their flying hours. The pilots elected to carry on in the belief that they knew where they were.
As we know, there were two pilots. The duty of one is always to fly the aircraft while the other provides lookout and assists with cockpit management. In cloud, everything goes dark and the pilot must look up to find where the top of the cloud is. When the aircraft nears the ground, the cloud turns green. All the indications are that that is what happened. The aircraft increased height from an estimated 468 feet 18 seconds before impact to 810 feet at the point of impact; that is, the rate of climb was 1,140 feet per minute, which represents a steep but not a maximum rate of climb. The aircraft did not at any stage turn.
The whole point is that the pilots should never have got themselves into cloud in the first place. Once they were there, they should have turned or climbed instantly. It is unlikely that they were turning into icing cloud.
In mitigation, it has to be said that the pilots might have been distracted; but that is not an excuse, particularly with two such experienced pilots, together with their crew. There is no reasonable doubt—
668
possibly a stronger phrase could be used—that they were grossly negligent, however inconceivable such a verdict may be. They were in a hurry and decided to cut a corner, both vertically and horizontally.
JSP (or joint service publication)318, the manual of flying, clearly defines safety altitude and states unambiguously what a pilot must do when he inadvertently enters cloud. He must climb above safety altitude or turn through 180 degrees. The pilots ignored all of that.
It is true that there are a number of questions to be answered. The pilots were navigating by the relatively primitive TANS—tactical air navigation system—which did not at that time have a GPS input. Certainly, the Chinook had no effective radar. which would have enabled the pilots to see their position relative to the Mull. The lighthouse itself was a waypoint, and they must have wanted to overfly it to check their navigation. However, it was—or is presumed to have been—in cloud and they presumably did not see it. I have no knowledge of the quality of their "met" briefing at Aldergrove, which might have defined the extent of the cloud cover.
None of that is any excuse for the pilots' actions. I do not believe that it is quite clear where they were going. Why was their course after the waypoint at the lighthouse considerably to starboard of the track for the next waypoint at Corran? It is not clear why they found it necessary to cut those corners, but there is no doubt that they did. For that reason, the verdict of the air marshals should stand and all the other considerations, although interesting in the context of the Chinook Mk2 in general, have no relevance to the accident. In any case, the argument in favour of the verdict of the air marshals is overwhelming.
Noble Lords are being asked to "take note" of the Select Committee report. I hope that noble Lords will firmly oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, should he choose to press it to a vote, which I hope he will not.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest in that 60 years ago or thereabouts I spent six years in the Royal Air Force and have had an abiding affection for that service ever since.
Of course, I have read our Select Committee's report. I was struck by the fact that the members of the committee spent a great deal of time trying to find obscure faults which could be to blame for the accident. I believe that they were perhaps motivated by the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and that they were there to protect the pilots' reputations. Some of the evidence was most interesting. Witness A from the Special Forces branch and Squadron Leader Burke were both totally puzzled. They knew about these wonderful, complex aircraft. They could not understand it and went into detail about how such an accident might have occurred.

669
After reading all the evidence, I asked myself how two experienced pilots—a whole crew who are very dependent on each other with a complex method of control—came to fly into a hill. The explanation given by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, appears to me to be correct. They failed to take action when they should have done and they thought that their rate of climb would clear the Mull straight ahead. It was a bad and fatal decision. They had flown for 20 minutes without trouble. They could have turned and gone round the coast but they chose to go over the Mull. As I said previously, they made a fatal mistake.
Experienced crews do make fatal mistakes. I remember that that was driven home to me in war time by a story, which I shall tell your Lordships, about a Russian woman—a great sniper who had killed 150 Germans. In 1942 she came over on a tour of Britain. An experienced squadron leader—a regular officer who had done a tour of operations—took up a Stirling bomber and "shot up the aerodrome", as we called it, to demonstrate. He made the simple, fatal mistake of flying too low. He crashed the aircraft and killed all the crew. The Russian sniper lady burst into tears and had to be taken away because she was so distressed.
That happened a long time ago but it has happened time and again. Experienced crews can make mistakes. Therefore, I conclude, with regret of course, that the verdict of the air marshals is correct.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, all of us recognise just how sad and tragic this case is. But I do not feel that it is anything like as complex as some have portrayed it to be. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening in your Lordships' House, have asked me to say that they agree, and want to be associated with, what I am about to say.
Early in their response to your Lordships' Select Committee report into this sad and tragic accident, the Government reiterated the statement made repeatedly and consistently by the two air marshals—the officers whose duty it was to review the board of inquiry proceedings. It is that negligence had occurred by the time that the pilots made the waypoint change. If they were in cloud, flight should have been in accordance with instrument flight rules: that is that they should have been at their safety altitude of 2,400 feet. Of course, they were well below that. If they were not in cloud, they had flouted the basic rules of airmanship by flying too fast and too close towards the cloud-covered high ground of the Mull of Kintyre. By definition, if they were flying in such visual conditions, they would have seen what they were doing; they would have known they were mere seconds from the Mull of Kintyre and that by continuing to approach it in that way, they had unnecessarily placed themselves in increasing jeopardy.
In short, the pilots pressed on into the bad weather that they had been warned to expect in the vicinity of rapidly rising, cloud-covered high ground. I believe that it is as simple as that. It is most unfortunate that
670
many, including with respect, the members of your Lordships' Select Committee, have lost sight of that central issue.
In the judgment of the reviewing officers, by flying their aircraft in such a manner, the pilots ignored their pre-eminent duty. They had failed to take care. They had failed to do everything in their power to ensure the safety of their aircraft, passengers and crew. Such a failing in the demanding and unforgiving realm of aviation unquestionably constitutes negligence. Again, in the judgment of the two exceptionally experienced reviewing officers, both of whom I know personally, and whose judgment I have never doubted, that was indeed gross negligence.
Moreover, the evidence rendered such a finding undeniable. There is no evidence to suppose that the pilots were not in control of their aircraft. They possessed the skill and knowledge to adhere to the basic rules of airmanship, but they did not do so. The negligence finding is therefore founded on the fact that they failed to take timely avoiding action on approaching deteriorating weather around the Mull of Kintyre, which they had been warned to expect.
Those who have chosen to reach different conclusions have mounted no convincing argument against this analysis, an analysis repeatedly explained by the reviewing officers. Rather, they have insisted on focusing on any number of what I might call peripheral matters: in particular, the few seconds following waypoint change and immediately before impact—20 seconds or so. That is irrelevant in the context of a negligence finding.
Moreover, the hypothetical emergencies that they claim might have arisen during those fleeting moments are implausible when tested against the known facts. In consequence, critics appear to have continuously changed tack. These peripheral matters have included a suggested failure of engine control system, jamming of the flight controls, contamination of hydraulic fluid, computer malfunctions and even a rushed and improper introduction into service of the Chinook Mk2 fleet in general. There is no convincing evidence to support any of those, as the Government's precise response details.
It is sad that some critics of the finding of negligence—I am certainly not referring to your Lordships' Select Committee—have even stooped to attack the motives of the reviewing officers, suggesting a lack of judgment and even a cover-up behind the loss of their aircraft and 29 lives. A cover-up is a particularly shaming suggestion and discredits only those who make it.
The air marshals determined in the direct pursuit of their duty that it was not permissible to avoid a finding of negligence by recourse to a hypothesis for which there was no evidence and which was revealed as wholly implausible when tested against the known facts. In this determination three successive chiefs of air staff—the heads of the Royal Air Force—endorsed their judgment.

671
This is the honest opinion of experts. Those who admit to being laymen in aviation matters should, I feel, accept it as the right judgment. They might also acknowledge the anguish of the two air marshals who reviewed the case in having to reach the conclusions they did. Their sadness is overshadowed only by the bereavement of the families of those who lost their lives in this disaster.
I am a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House and perhaps more innocent than some of the hardened parliamentarians sitting here. But I should be surprised, and think it unfortunate, if an element of party politics has to come into a case such as this.
The fate of Chinook Zulu Delta 576 is a tragedy for many people. The finding is certainly not, as has been suggested, a manifest injustice. The time has come for this to be recognised. I believe that your Lordships' House should take note of the committee's report.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I voted in favour of the referral of this matter to the Select Committee. I did so because, while I considered that the cause of the crash was the aeroplane being flown at far too low an altitude, there were so many suggestions, hypotheses and different arguments being advanced that I thought it would be appropriate for your Lordships to consider the matter and perhaps to conclude it satisfactorily.
However, I now regret that I voted for the issue to be referred to the Select Committee. I regret it because while I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee for their devotion to effort and for their immersion in detail, I still believe that the cause of the crash was low altitude and not any of the other suggestions that have proliferated. I received one suggestion the other day; that there may have been a margin of error of 150 feet in the assessment of height. Even if there had been, the aircraft would still have crashed. The lives would still have been lost.
Bearing in mind the fundamental reality of the aircraft being flown too low, the reviewing officers, who are experienced and honourable men—and I have met them—were entirely justified in reaching their decision.
One considers the weather. Bearing in mind the information about the weather and the risk of cloud that was given to the pilots before they embarked on their journey, they should have been aware of the conditions that they were likely to encounter en route. Clearly, the aircraft should not have been flown so low. My noble friend Lord Fitt reminded us of this in a previous exchange on the subject. He lives 11 or 12 miles from the Mull in the north of Ireland. He often looks out at the Mull and can see the weather changing dramatically within a 10-minute period. My noble friend agrees with the point that I have just made.
The pilots will have served in conditions that would have led them to understand the nature of the terrain and of the kind of climatic changes that they could experience. Yet they still flew too low.
672
None of the other possible arguments holds water. The fact is that that the aircraft was being flown too low and perhaps too fast. The skill of the pilots is not in doubt; their judgment is. Their skill was revealed by their last-minute attempts to escape from the land that they were rapidly approaching. They did not have the space to move out of danger. But that does not mean that the reviewing officers should have done anything other than their duty. Their duty directed them to make a decision that there was negligence. They have been criticised for being austere.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am heavily involved in the Air Training Corps. We have sent quite a few young people from my squadron into training in the past two years. I do not know what they think of the squadron, but I know what I think and what their parents think—happily seeing their young people entering a fine career. They want the senior officers in the Air Force to set a priority. If it requires them to be austere, then so be it.
We must bear in mind that people like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, like Sir William Wratten and the then Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Gray, did most of their flying during the Cold War, when the Air Force had to involve itself in intensive and demanding training. They saw their friends die, and they do not wish to see people die unnecessarily. That is why, today, the Air Force spends enormous sums of money and devotes greater care to safety. It is not just a question of saving lives. The aircraft flown by Members of this House during the Second World War—the Spitfire, for example—cost about £13,000. Today's aircraft cost more than that figure in millions. Obviously, senior Air Force officers must try to ensure that the culture of safety is properly observed.
That does not mean that we should start casting stones at the two pilots. It does not mean that we cannot share or sense some of the grief that their families, friends and colleagues will have felt; as will the families, friends and colleagues of the distinguished public servants who died as passengers in the crash. At the same time, it does not mean that we should seek to disagree with the responsible decision of Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day that there was negligence. That verdict was justified, and so was the Government's decision clearly to endorse it.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the findings of the Select Committee, of which I was a member, have been fully set out by our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. I thank him for the way in which he led the Select Committee in what was not an easy task. I also add my thanks to our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. He brought his considerable technical expertise to bear on the problem and made it much easier for those of us who are not of a technical turn of mind to understand what had happened.
I rather wish that the last words from the Select Committee had been those of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who summed up the critical issues. There is

673
not a great deal more to say. However, I say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, that there was no question of party politics entering the considerations of the Select Committee. I am sure that that view will be shared by my colleagues from the Select Committee, whether party members or non-party members.
The Select Committee kept strictly to the remit that it was given by this House; namely, to examine the justification for the findings. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we did not set out to find an alternative cause of the accident. I do not think that that is possible. The committee's findings were unanimous.
Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about the quality of the inquiry and the process. I do so not because it was our remit to comment on that, but because it goes to the root of why—or, at least, it is one of the reasons—the Select Committee was able to state unanimously that in its view the finding was not justified.
I draw your Lordships' attention to a few examples. A paragraph on page 9 of the board of inquiry's report states that the board had:
"reviewed the technical malfunctions and air incidents which had occurred with the Chinook HC2 in RAF service and considered whether they could have played a part in the accident".
The report states that the Chinook had experienced a number of unforeseen malfunctions. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by citing them all, but it is relevant to consider the evidence of Squadron Leader Morgan, who gave evidence to the board of inquiry. The witness statements are not contained within the published evidence but are in the public domain because they were put to witnesses at our inquiry. He was asked by the board what unforeseen malfunctions have occurred on the Chinook HC2 since its introduction to service. He answered:
"The unforeseen malfunctions on the Chinook HC2 of a flight-critical nature have mainly been associated with the engine control system, FADEC. They have resulted in undemanded engine shutdown, engine run-up, spurious engine failure captions and misleading and confusing cockpit indications".
He was asked whether the malfunctions were covered by drills in the Chinook flight reference cards. He replied that, no, the Chinook HC2 FRCs,
"were based primarily on the Chinook D model which is not fitted with FADEC…Drills relating to FADEC … were based on the best information available on how the system would respond during certain malfunctions".
The third and final question put to Squadron Leader Morgan was: were there any areas where the Chinook HC2 FRCs valid on 2nd June 1994 were confusing? He said that a number of emergency drills, in particular electrical and hydraulic, were poorly laid out and required the crew to be familiar with the drill to avoid confusion. He said that the shortfall in the Chinook HC2 FRC was discussed with crews during their conversion courses.
I do not put forward those considerations as a reason for the accident. However, it is reasonable to ask, as did the Select Committee, whether further inquiries were made on those issues. It appears that they were not.
674
Further questioning of the squadron leader confirmed that the board of inquiry held not only formal interviews, of which the evidence that I have cited formed part, but informal interviews. Witnesses have said that the boards in effect decide what line they want to follow before they take the formal evidence, and then take only the formal evidence that suits them. I would cite all of the evidence, but it is too late at night to do so, so suffice it to say that it is to be found under question 540 on page 6, relating to Squadron Leader Morgan's evidence.
We also heard evidence from witness A, who would have been available, had the board of inquiry chosen to call him. He gave evidence to the fatal accident inquiry. Talking about the problems of the Chinook, he said:
"They occupied our minds to a great degree, crew room talk was of little else at the time. The crews felt extremely uneasy about the way the aircraft had been introduced into service. This perception was reinforced by a lack of information contained in the aircrew manual, the poor state of repair of the flight reference cards and such like as well".
Again, that is surely something that, had the witness been called and the question asked, would have prompted further inquiries.
The Select Committee has implicitly been criticised for its conclusions about the weather. How much trouble did the board of inquiry go to find out about that critical matter?
Mr Holbrook, who had a brief interview in the first place, gave evidence to Strathclyde Police that there were trawlers, or a trawler, with a St Andrew's cross on the superstructure. When we asked whether anybody had tried to find the fishermen around at the time who could have given evidence about the weather, we were told that inquiries were made by the RUC in Northern Ireland. It seems somewhat unlikely, given that the Scottish saltire was being flown, that that was the most appropriate place in which to make those inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to the role of the Air Accident Investigation Branch. Its findings have been put forward in support of the air marshals' findings, as were the Boeing simulations. However, it is important that we note the evidence of Mr Smart at question 149 in the published evidence. I quote part of what he said:
"The role of the AAIB Inspector in the Board of Inquiry is to advise the President and members of the Board with those aspects that the members of the Board of Inquiry determine are areas they wish the Inspectors to consider. The Board of Inquiry consider the scope and direction of the investigation".
He went on to say:
"We are not the investigating authority in a military accident investigation. We are purely there to support the Board of Inquiry".
Later, he said:
"The scope and direction of the inquiry are determined by the Board of Inquiry. We would only consider those areas they felt we should consider".
In a case of this kind, when the Select Committee finds that such evidence is available and that no further questions have been asked about the issues, it is not unreasonable to suggest that, perhaps, we were not so

675
unjustified in finding that the air marshals were not justified in their findings. I am not saying that any of the matters to which I referred were necessarily the cause of the accident, but, indeed, it is a possibility.
Like other noble Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the reviewing officers in the task that they faced. We should not lightly disregard their findings, but they reviewed only the evidence that the board of inquiry actually had. I have no doubt that they made up their minds honestly believing their findings to be correct. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that several bodies, including the fatal accidents inquiries, have come to an opinion—maybe it is just an opinion—different from that of the air marshals. I would have hoped that the Government and the Ministry of Defence would have been able, in the circumstances of the Select Committee report and in the light of the points highlighted at paragraph 176 of the report, to accept that there was, in retrospect, a sufficient element of doubt to call into question the correctness of the findings. That would have been recognised as a sign not of weakness but of strength.
10.18 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, as the former Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate considering the report of the Select Committee on the Chinook helicopter crash. The crash occurred on the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency on that fateful day, 2nd June 1994. Although none of those who died was my constituent, I was involved at the very beginning with the local authority and the emergency services. Once again I take the opportunity to pay tribute to them both for their swift and professional response to the catastrophe.
I pursued the matter in another place and took it up personally with the Prime Minister. I did so on behalf of my constituents, who were—still are—deeply concerned, as I am, that a verdict of gross negligence should be passed on the two pilots against a required standard of proof of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
I am no legal or technical expert and do not intend to rehearse all the arguments surrounding the disaster. That has already been done by many of your Lordships today. In fact, everybody who has already spoken seems to be an expert.
However, it seems to me, as a mere lay person, that this is now a question of facing up to the truth. The truth is that we do not know and we shall never know the precise cause, or causes, of the crash. That is surely the only honest answer. It remains a matter of grave concern to me that the Ministry of Defence continues to reject, in particular, the conclusions of the fatal accident inquiry conducted in meticulous fashion by the Sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, in Scotland, and, indeed, the conclusions of your Lordships' Select Committee that:
"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".
676
Something you often hear said is that it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. Sincerity is, of course, vitally important, but history is littered with examples of sincerely held beliefs which have subsequently proved to be wrong. I have no doubt that the reviewing officers who carried out their painstaking task sincerely believe that their verdict of gross negligence was right. But they could be wrong. Surely it is impossible to reach such a conclusion which demands a high standard of proof. I respect the expertise of the senior reviewing officers and I understand their need to come up with an explanation, but even they do not know with absolute certainty what happened.
To see if I could draw any parallels or find similarities, I recently reread the reports of another quite appalling tragedy which happened on the west coast of Scotland to compare the conclusions and judgements of the subsequent inquiries. It occurred early on Wednesday, 1st January 1919. The "HMS Iolaire"—pronounced lolaire in Gaelic, meaning "Eagle"—sank at the mouth of Stornoway harbour on the Island of Lewis. There were 284 on board. The ship had a crew of 24 and was carrying 260 naval ratings returning home from the Great War.
On that dark night, with squally showers and heavy seas running, the "Iolaire" struck the rocks known as the Beasts of Holm at the entrance to Stornoway harbour. In total, 205 perished, including all the officers and most of the crew. Only 79 people survived. A public inquiry was convened in Stornoway presided over by Sheriff Principal Macintosh, with a jury of seven. Questions were raised about the failure to alter course and reduce speed at the appropriate time. While there were many criticisms and recommendations and, indeed, a call made by lawyers representing the bereaved relatives for a verdict of gross negligence, because the jury could not know the absolute truth about what had happened, no blame was attached to the officers and crew.
I appreciate that the practices in the three different services may not be the same, but a naval inquiry ruled that there was no evidence properly to explain the reasons for the accident as the ship's log was lost and none of the officers had survived. Consequently, the Admiralty concluded that,
"No opinion can be given as to whether blame is attributable to anyone in the matter".
Only the "Titanic" exceeds as Britain's worst disaster at sea during the last century, yet beyond the Minch few have every heard of the "Iolaire".
Earlier this year I visited again the site of the Chinook crash where stands the simple monument; a cairn constructed with stones from around the area. The purple heather has grown again hiding most of the scars on the hillside. But it will not hide the scars of the bereaved families. It was a beautiful spring afternoon and the sun glinted on the simple plaque depicting the names of all those who lost their lives on that tragic day. The view across to Rathlin Island was stunning, but within minutes the sun had gone and we were enveloped in mist as a squally shower swiftly came and went.

677
I promised my former constituents who were there with me that day that I would try again to persuade the Ministry of Defence that in the interests of natural justice the verdict of gross negligence should be set aside and the matter finally laid to rest. I believe that that verdict will eventually be set aside—perhaps not by this Government, which is sad. I believe that it will be set aside and I therefore support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I intend to speak from a different angle about this tragic accident: from my own knowledge, such as it is. I know the Mull of Kintyre well. I have sailed up and down it many times in different weather conditions. Sometimes it is clear and sometimes there are days similar to the one in question, with cloud formed over the Mull and a considerable amount of wind. I noticed that the wind was turbulent; that the clouds were constantly varying. At one moment one could see; the next moment one could not. The thickness of the clouds also varied. It was very changeable.
When I later saw the position of waypoint A, I was astonished that that was where they intended to fly on a day on which they had been given such a weather forecast. Waypoint A was almost, if not completely, in cloud. There was no business to be there at all. Who, I wondered, set that waypoint. I presume that the pilots set it beforehand. They should, in my view, have set the waypoint a mile or two miles short so that they had time to see conditions on the Mull and to take action to move safely away. As it was, no matter how they performed when they reached waypoint A, they could have had very few seconds before hitting the rock, as they did.
It happens also that I have spent many hours flying as a passenger in helicopters around the coasts of Ireland—north, south, east and west—in order to inspect lighthouses as that was the job of the Commissioners of Irish Lights of which at that time I was chairman. We flew in different conditions—we had to—and it was not uncommon for headlands ahead to be covered in cloud. This happened several times, but each time the pilot made his change of course several miles before getting to the cloud in order to be either above it or below it. When he went below it, I noticed that he was able to follow the line of surf, which could be seen because it was startlingly bright, round the edge of the headland. I am glad to say that we never had any problems. The pilots told me that they regarded being in such fog as a disaster because of being unable to judge how thick it was.
That reinforces my view that waypoint A should have been fetched up perhaps two or three miles short so that the pilots had plenty of time to make up their minds whether to fly round the Mull to the north or over the top. In fact, it would have been quite easy to turn to the left and fly round the Mull up the Sound of Jura. I am astonished that they did not do so. In my view, the pilots took an extraordinary risk in flying as close to the Mull as they did. I draw the conclusion that they must have displayed an extraordinary amount of
678
carelessness or thoughtlessness to have gone as close as they did and to be in a danger that they should never have been in.
10.32 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I should like to say right away that I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords who were the members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. But I have also to say that I do not believe that there should have been a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on this issue, and I viewed the decision of the House in April 2001 with deep unease for all the reasons that were well rehearsed then and some of which my noble friend Lord Brennan referred to today. I shall not repeat them here now. I think that a highly undesirable precedent has been set which I sincerely hope will not be one which is followed again. However, the House decided on the Select Committee and we are now taking note of its report.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with great respect, that I find his tabled amendment a highly unusual device to say the least in a debate to take note of a Select Committee report, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said about that. I believe that it would lead this House down a wholly inappropriate and wrong path, so I sincerely hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is rejected if it is not withdrawn.
As I told the House in July of this year when we heard the Government's response to the Select Committee report, I speak as someone who had a personal interest in this tragic crash, and who has followed in some detail all that has transpired since June 1994.
We owe it to the families of all those affected by this tragic accident to find out what caused this crash. I believe that the only realistic explanation is that found by the reviewing officers, which continues to withstand the most rigorous tests applied to it. The standard of proof is high, but the reviewing officers were convinced that they could be and had been satisfied that the criteria of "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" had been met.
With the greatest respect to the Select Committee, I, unlike the noble Lords who were members of that committee, see no reason to, nor am I prepared to, second guess the two reviewing officers, the two air marshals, who, in addition to all the available expert information at their disposal, had their own considerable professional knowledge and experience of military flying. Evidence from the crash site, from the wreckage and from air traffic control, as well as eye witness testimony, all clearly indicate that this aircraft carried out a fast, low level transit and that the aircraft was under control up to and indeed at the time of the crash.
Air accident investigations are difficult procedures, often having to put together an incomplete jigsaw based on those facts that can be established, and I have to add that it is wrong to suggest that one has to

679
disprove positively any and all theories put forward even if there is no evidence to support these hypotheses.
As I said in July, this is an issue of enormous pain for all the families of the victims of the crash. I want to make crystal clear that nothing I have ever said or ever shall say should imply other than that I have the deepest sympathy with the families of the two pilots, and complete understanding for all their actions. But I put it again to this House as I did in July that the time has come when a line should be drawn and the wounds of bereavement, which have been opened again and again since 1994, for all the families affected should be allowed to start to heal.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she is seriously suggesting that because of the hurt brought to the families of those killed we should cease to look for the truth in the matter? Would she mind telling me how many of those families she has talked to and whether she has received any information from them as to the course they would like to take?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not think that we should discuss how many families we know who have been involved and what they have said to us. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may do so if he wishes, but I certainly do not wish to. I am satisfied that the truth has been found by the two reviewing officers, so I do not think there is a question of having to go on to find the truth.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is with a degree of reluctance that I take part in the debate. I have followed closely the history and substance of the various inquiries that have taken place to establish the cause of this tragic accident. Like other noble Lords, I feel desperately sorry for all those who, eight years on, are still affected by the uncertainty engendered by the continuing debate on what really happened and how any blame might be attributed.
I refer not only to the families of the helicopter crew but also to the families of passengers in the aircraft and to all those who have had the unenviable task of pulling together in colossal detail the facts as they see them and reaching conclusions about why it occurred, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, said, their duty required of them.
I have had considerable practical experience in the helicopter world. It might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to explain that. I have been a helicopter pilot since 1968. I have flown with the Army for five years and, latterly between 1976 and 1982, with what was then British Airways Helicopters. I have in excess of 4,000 hours' flying time mixed roughly half-and-half between light military helicopters and large commercial helicopters, and I have held an instrument rating. I also have a few hundred hours' fixed wing experience.
680
My licences are not now current, but I have been for the past 10 years chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board, which is the trade association for all the commercial helicopter operators in the United Kingdom, and, through that, chairman for six years of the European Helicopter Association which is a grouping of associations throughout Europe similar to the British Helicopter Advisory Board. For several years I have also been chairman of the International Federation of Helicopter Associations, which deals with international regulatory issues and has observer status at the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I am also a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, on the Council of the Air League, and a Liveryman of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators. So, in a sense, the practical operation of helicopters has formed a very large part of my working life.
I appreciate that the responsibilities that I have described are primarily concerned with civilian helicopter operations, but there is one concept that goes above and beyond any differentiation between the two types of flying and is common to both. I refer to the concept of airmanship, to which I shall return later.
Most experienced aviators agree that it is not one single factor which causes an accident, but a combination of factors. It would be possible to give examples, but, in the case of the Chinook accident, poor weather, low flying, a time factor, and, for whatever reason, a degree of uncertainty about precise position, were all factors conspiring against the crew; a combination of hazards from which perfectly clear rules were there to protect them.
I have had considerable experience of flying in command of helicopters on the North Sea. I have not flown the Chinook, although it was introduced on to the North Sea in its civil version—the Boeing Vertol 234—during my time. I flew the Sikorsky S61 N, which is capable of carrying in excess of 20 passengers with a fairly sophisticated instrument fit. It was equipped with an automatic flight control system, but not with an automatic pilot. So it was broadly similar to the equipment in the Chinook accident in question.
We used cloud-break procedures down to a very low level of about 200 feet in order to make an approach to oil platforms. Unlike military Chinooks, we were equipped with weather radar, which enabled us to have a clear picture of the platform that we were approaching. However, all of us became very used to appreciating the marked difference in forward visibility between, for example, a height of 300 feet, where visibility might be extremely limited, and perhaps 200 feet where there was substantial forward visibility—a set of circumstances not dissimilar to the experience of the yachtsman near the Mull of Kintyre at the time of the accident. The same was also true of approaches towards land in the event of bad weather where it was not possible to climb—for example, because of a freezing level near the surface in the winter—or for other weather reasons that required us to follow the coast back towards the airfield at low level.

681
I have read the board of inquiry's report, the written evidence given to your Lordships' Select Committee, the Government's response to that report, and almost every other piece that has been written about the accident. I have also had conversations with many experts in the field. From all that has been said and written, it is perfectly clear that there is no evidence whatsoever of any technical failure that is likely to have caused, or contributed to, the accident. I am the first to appreciate that there have been a number of instances involving aspects of the Chinook Mk 2's introduction into service which at one point or another in the process of release to the service might have given rise to anxiety. But it is my clear opinion, as it is also of the air marshals, that none of them is strictly relevant to this accident.
This is where I turn to the matter of airmanship, which was also referred to my the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and, in particular, its relevance to the rules that govern safe flight under visual meteorological conditions. Those rules were clearly set out on slides shown to the Select Committee by Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day, and are shown on page 115 of the Select Committee's examination of witnesses document. Such rules are clear and unequivocal. They are not guidance; they are not woolly advice that a military pilot might, or might not, choose to follow. They are an instruction, and they are there to prevent inadvertent collision between either the subject aircraft and another one, the surface, or anything in the aircraft's path by allowing opportunity for avoiding action.
Those rules allow for the possibility that the pilot of an aircraft becomes unsure of his exact position—something which can happen to any pilot, irrespective of the quality or complexity of the navigation equipment that he has on board. They are the only guarantee by which a pilot flying under those conditions can be certain of avoiding imperilling himself and his aircraft.
Those rules cater for different speeds. Strict adherence to them ensures that the pilot of an aircraft could take whatever action is necessary under any circumstances to avoid hitting either the surface or anything in his way. Any failure of equipment, change in handling characteristics or other untoward event would, if strict visual meteorological conditions had been maintained, allow the pilot either to climb at once to his minimum safe altitude, to turn away or, most likely, a combination of both, particularly if inadvertently he had entered cloud or breached the minima for visual flight close to a known obstacle.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, I have to say that it is wholly incredible to suppose that, just because the pilots were very experienced and considered highly efficient, they might not have breached those strict rules. I fear that most of us with considerable flying experience have probably stretched the limits of visual flight rules at limes and got away with it. I plead guilty to stupidity and to breaching these rules as a young Army pilot. Once, when rated of above-average ability, I allowed my judgment to slip, entered cloud deliberately and very nearly hit the ground, when
682
undoubtedly I would have killed myself. I was the only person on board the aircraft at the time, but that momentary lack of judgment and over-confidence was a terrifying lesson on why such stringent rules exist.
When we talk about military aircraft, it is important always to remember that we are concerned with disciplined services, where rules are absolute and to be obeyed unless there is a very good operational reason for doing otherwise. By no stretch of the imagination can I, or very many others to whom I have spoken, conceive of any reason for flying a large helicopter, with or without passengers, at speed and at low level into doubtful visual meteorological conditions, probably breaching them, and entering cloud while approaching land from the sea, below the minimum safe altitude. It is, frankly, incredible; it exhibits a lack of attention to the concept of airmanship which is, or should be, dinned into the minds of all military and civil pilots throughout their flying careers, and which may be difficult for people not so familiar with flying to comprehend fully.
More than that, within a disciplined military ethos, those who determine causes of, and review, accidents are charged with a very real responsibility. As we heard, a board of inquiry is not a court of law. Its review by senior officers is a crucial element in the process and cannot be tackled with undue sensitivity. I cannot believe that it was with anything other than enormous regret that Air Marshals Wratten and Day reached their conclusions. There was no credible alternative. They had a duty to report as they saw fit, within the existing range of options open to them, using their very best experience and that of those around them. To my mind, it is not only perfectly justifiable, but it is only proper, that such a serious breach of the rules for visual flight should be regarded as negligent, and, under the terms of such a report being produced at that time, considered grossly negligent. If those rules had not been breached, there is no doubt that the accident would not have happened.
It gives me no pleasure whatever to disagree so strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for whom I have had enormous admiration over the years, and in part to cause further distress to the families of everyone concerned. But I have been closely involved with flying helicopters almost continuously for 34 years and I support 100 per cent the conclusions that the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, have reached in response to the Select Committee report. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will not divide the House on his amendment. I cannot see that, even if the House votes for the amendment, it is likely to change the way things are. It is likely to cause further prolonged grief, uncertainty and anguish for all concerned, and that would be a step that I, for one, would most heartily regret.
Vast amounts of time have been spent examining this accident, not least by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Its report was very thorough, but, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, it concentrated on a series of supplementary issues that were incidental to the fundamental breach of airmanship and the strict

683
rules governing visual flight at low level, which, I am afraid, was the ultimate cause of the accident and, thereby, the inevitable and proper verdict of the air marshals.
When I was commanding a squadron of Army helicopters, I had framed on the wall opposite my desk the saying:
"Aviation is not, of itself, inherently dangerous but to an even greater degree than the sea is very unforgiving of any incapacity, carelessness or neglect".
I am sad to say that this tragic accident falls clearly within the ambit of those words.
10.50 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I feel ashamed of having added my name to the long list of speakers tonight and of following the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, whose expertise would put anybody to shame. However, I should like to make two points. First, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that this was probably a bad occasion on which to set up a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I yield to no one in my admiration for Select Committees. They work hard and dispassionately, they take evidence and, in my experience, they never go beyond what the evidence allows in drawing their conclusions. However, this was a difficult case because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has already said, the committee amounted to a court of law, finding people guilty or deciding that there was not sufficient evidence to deem them guilty.
Nevertheless, the Select Committee obviously worked hard. Like others who have spoken this evening, I read the report with enormous attention and interest. It is extraordinary and regrettable that your Lordships' House should find it necessary to refuse to accept the conclusions of the Select Committee, ill-advised though it may have been to set it up in the first place.
My second point goes back to the standard of proof required before the finding of negligence could be established. That is starting point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Those noble Lords who wish to assert the propriety of the finding of negligence have not explained how that extremely strict standard of proof can be set aside. As we have heard many times, the standard is that there should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the verdict. There is no doubt in my mind that some of your Lordships who are confident of the propriety of the verdict of gross negligence have recounted the story of what happened as a narrative, telling us what the pilots did and where they went wrong and asserting that they were rash, that they did not take the weather into account and that they were flying too fast and too low. Like many narratives, it is delivered with great conviction. The people who have told it have frequently said that it is the only realistic or credible explanation. That is the power of the good story teller, who proceeds on the assumption that they know how it must have been and then we all believe it.
684
As regards the standard of proof and there being no doubt whatsoever of the propriety of the verdict, one must begin to doubt—as, indeed, people, including the unanimous body of the Select Committee, did doubt—that that standard had been reached. One may argue that it is an impossibly high standard and that there can be no past events for which it is proper to say that there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards what happened. Nevertheless, those are the relevant words.
I refer to the doubts, which I certainly do experience, for example, as regards the aircraft remaining under control right up until the end, as has been assumed in the stories that we have been told; that is, that the pilots did something wrong. But what if there had been a fault? It has to be remembered that the helicopter was virtually destroyed by fire. If there had been a computer fault, for example, there could have been no evidence left to find. Everyone agrees that the evidence was extremely thin. That fact alone seems to me to justify experiencing doubt. If doubt is experienced, according to the standard set there should have been no assignment of blame and no establishment of gross negligence on the part of the pilots. The evidence gained from simulation is not real evidence. The evidence left on the ground was negligible. I cannot see how doubt can possibly be precluded. Therefore, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, brought his amendment forward.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I must confess to being a little dismayed by the observations that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. There was an air of complete certainty about them. To my mind he seemed to be in no doubt as to exactly what occurred and of the consequences.
I must say that I remain still very uneasy. I have no experience in aircraft other than as an occasional passenger during the war courtesy of the then Royal Artillery. But I still remain uneasy and I am still trying to find out why. There is no doubt in my mind that those of your Lordships who have taken the trouble to be here and to speak on this subject are deeply sincere in their own beliefs. I am quite willing to concede that their sincerity matches mine. It is just after all these inquiries that the matter is now shelved. I therefore have to give the House notice—not that it will shudder at it in any way—that I intend to pursue the matter further until I am satisfied, because at the moment I am profoundly uneasy.
My feelings are set out roughly in the report produced by the committee. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 174 in which the committee sets out its final views on the subject. I do not know whether there were any skilful pilots on the Select Committee or how many expert pilots there are in the Ministry of Defence. It appears that paragraph 174 requires an answer. I have listened this afternoon to some very erudite observations but I remain unsatisfied. Without in any way being portentous, I seek to attribute enormous and solemn dignity to the report's paragraphs.
Paragraph 174 states:

685
"In carrying out our terms of reference, we have considered the justification for the Air Marshals' finding of negligence against the pilots of ZD 576 against the applicable standard of proof, which required 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".
The Select Committee continues in paragraph 175:
"We consider it appropriate to identify those matters to which we have had regard which were not before the Air Marshals when they considered the investigating board's report:

(a) the more detailed evidence of Mr Holbrook as to the weather conditions at sea, and the probability that the crew would have seen the land mass from some distance offshore;

(b) the evidence of Mr Perks, Witness A and Squadron Leader Burke;

(c) the deficiencies in the Boeing simulation with particular reference to the facts that…it did not take account of FADEC".

I should explain that FADEC stands for "full authority digital engine control system". It is a piece of apparatus of some significance. It consists of a number of components, the two major ones being a digital engine control unit, or DECU, and a hydromechanical assembly for each of the two engines. The purpose of FADEC is to control the fuel supply to maintain approximately 100 per cent rotor speed in all conditions and to match engine torque between the two engines.
Paragraph 175 goes on to state that deficiencies in the Boeing simulation include the fact that,
"it used the postulated speed and ROC which have been shown to be incompatible".
It also states that the committee had regard for,
"the possible effect of contamination in the hydraulic fluid in the integrated lower control actuators, as referred to in the US Army report of June 1997".
Those points are fairly concisely put, considering that they emanate from a committee. In my view, they are unequivocal. The report of the committee concludes:
"How could it be that a very experienced crew, having planned to fly VFR, having taken when probably visual with the Mull the appropriate steps to alter course, when there was nothing to prevent them flying northwards within sight of the coast, flew into the Mull? It is as Sir John and Sir William speculatively described 'incomprehensible'…and 'astonishing'…We shall never know".
It has to be remembered that there is one overshadowing factor throughout the entire episode: there had to be no doubt as to the cause of the accident itself. The noble Lord referred to the RAF Manual of Flight Safety AP 3207, published by the Inspectorate of Flight Safety and in force at the time of the accident. Paragraph 9 of Annex G to Chapter 8 of the manual provided that only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatever should deceased crew be found negligent.
Within the welter of evidence and speculation that has attended this dire episode in both Houses, I ask myself: how can there be anything that removes a doubt in this 'matter? I do not know and have not made inquiries as to what hinges on the personal negligence finding against the pilots or the pilots' families. In the event of them being found "guilty", do their families suffer any financial penalty as a result, or does the
686
finding that there is no doubt whatever mean that some financial burden is borne by someone? Is it, for example, a fact—I do not know and make no imputation whatever that—if they are found to be negligent, that will have some influence on the pensions that their families may receive'? I have not been told and do not know. Perhaps we can he told.
In all, reading through all the correspondence as an outsider, I still have a nagging doubt as to the correctness of the line that has been taken by the ministry. If widespread, that doubt is fatal to any indictment or blame attached to the pilots precisely, unfortunately, because they are dead. In those circumstances, in the absence of any doubt whatever, this whole business would never have begun. For my part, until I have no more doubts about the matter, the battle will continue.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a member of the Select Committee, spoke wisely when he said at question 420 on page 146 of the oral evidence that intelligent people can look at the same set of circumstances and genuinely reach totally different conclusions.
In this tragic case such differences in conclusions have been reached, possibly because people have not looked at precisely the same set of circumstances in the same way. That was pointed out in powerful speeches by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, also made an extremely powerful speech.
I am not persuaded by the conclusions reached by the Select Committee. This was a routine, civil flight, with no pressures on the crew to fly with anything other than the maximum degree of care and caution. The pilots had received meteorological information warning them of poor weather conditions in the vicinity of the mull. As they approached the land, the pilots must have been aware that their visibility could be reduced significantly, as indeed it was. Had they been flying within the minimum visibility allowed for visual flight, they would have recognised the seriousness of their situation and they should have taken appropriate and prompt action to turn away or to fly higher.
I found the oral evidence of Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten convincing on those points and on the conclusions that he drew from them. Even if, in the event, a tragic accident and deaths had not occurred, that would not have taken away the fact that the pilots behaved negligently.
In paragraph 147, the Select Committee posed the following criteria, which I found extraordinary:
"In the context of the Air Marshal's conclusions that the pilots were grossly negligent in placing the aircraft in the position in which it was…the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event".
I found that an extraordinary proposition. If I were in a civil airliner approaching a runway in varying fog with no radar and poor visibility and I expected the

687
pilot to land if he was less than absolutely convinced he would not crash, I would regard those as extremely poor criteria. I would expect the pilot not to attempt to land unless there was absolutely no chance of crashing quite the opposite to that posed by the noble Lords on the Select Committee.
Nothing in the committee report convinces me that the original conclusions of the two air marshals, following the due inquiry process, were invalid or incorrect. Bearing in mind the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. As the incoming Secretary of State for Defence in 1997, he and his three ministerial colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, referred to this point—reviewed the incident with an open mind. To my good friend Lord Brennan I say that if he believes that George Robertson, John Gilbert, John Spellar and John Reid were all incoming Ministers who were soft touches for the military, he does not know them as well as I do.
Ten Ministers from different political parties all had the opportunity to review the evidence and all reached the same conclusion. In my conversation with him the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, went on to add—he agreed to me communicating this to the House in his absence—that he had read and considered the present report of the Select Committee and all the documentation and that he sees no reason to change his conclusion.
I believe that the decision of the two air marshals all those years ago remains justified and correct and is not diminished simply by the passage of time. I regret that I am unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
11.14 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first I—and I think the whole of your Lordships' House—thank and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and his Select Committee for the work that they have done. I have read the report and I am very interested in it.
First, I declare a mild interest. Among the passengers lost, one was my private secretary from my first job in Northern Ireland. The second was an extremely kind official in the Northern Ireland Office, who was more than kind to me on several evenings. That sense of loss, as well as that of the crew, will be felt by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. I am sure he will have known many more who were lost. The passengers would have known me and many of your Lordships from our duties here and elsewhere.
The horror of the event in 1994 is still with me. It is revisited every time we have debates or discussions on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will remember that I set up a meeting across the road in Abbey Gardens when I heard a full rundown on the FADEC, the Wilmington affair and all the aspects of mechanical and other possibilities—plausible possibilities—regarding the Chinook. Also, I had the luck to attend a briefing by the two air marshals. So I hope that I have had a fairly balanced briefing on all
688
these matters. If there is a tinge of sadness in my remarks in what has been a fascinating debate, it is that I am slightly sad that the law and legal definitions have muddied a very difficult case.
Once again I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He shares with me the profession of accountant. It is a trait of the accountancy profession that we do not dabble in the law or in definitions. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was attempting to put his little toe into legal definitions. Certainly, we shall hear more about the matter from him.
It was set out in all the reports, as well as in the fatal accident inquiry, which has been mentioned, certainly by the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, that the entire four-man crew were the creme de la creme. It is in the report and witness A stated that they served with special forces. So they were probably one of the best crews in helicopter flying and in the Royal Air Force.
It is amazing to me that they were active in and around Northern Ireland during their duties with this aircraft. I find it hard to believe that the Royal Air Force would permit, or indeed tolerate, this distinguished creme de la creme crew to fly an aircraft, the Chinook Mk 2, that was in any way unsafe or unfit for duty, especially on special forces duty.
Curious evidence appears in the fatal accident inquiry and it has also been mentioned in other evidence that I have seen. On the day when the crew planned with great care this mission from Aldergrove to Fort George and back, they spent—it has been admitted—from 9.45 until 15.25 carrying out other duties in Northern Ireland. That seems to me to raise a question.
I agree that the lawyers, every fatal accident inquiry and all the discussions that have taken place in your Lordships' House and elsewhere have concentrated on what is in absolutely no doubt. But the motto of my institute of chartered accountants is "Seek the truth". I ask this question and I am sure that the Minister will not be able to answer, but some explanation will come out. Probably—it is perhaps not my business—it is operational requirements. But I find it curious that it has been admitted that the crew spent six hours of their permitted hours, when they were supposed to be flying to Fort George and back, in Northern Ireland.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, and I admire the comments made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Guthrie. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—who, alas, is not in his place—put the case beautifully. He indicated that "gross negligence" was possibly something of an overreaction, but that there had to be some description of pilot error. So far as concerns airmanship, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has described it beautifully. I have personal experience of my noble friend flying with an instructor in a fixed-wing aircraft, in particularly difficult conditions, over my home. I was impressed then, and I have been impressed by his remarks in this debate. I have seen those qualities. I know him to be a practical man, and we have heard the points that he has made.

689
I have listened to everything that has been said on this matter over the years. I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, if he presses his amendment to a Division. I shall support the Minister because I strongly agree with the Government's conclusions.
11.21 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I find this the least welcome debate in which I have participated in my six years in this House. As a former Chief of the Defence Staff, I am keenly aware of the scale and nature of this tragedy and of the strong feelings and concerns that it has aroused. Not least, I realise the lasting effect that it will have on the relatives and friends of those who died. In the case of the two pilots who were killed, I understand the added horror and grief that must have resulted from a posthumous finding that they were "grossly negligent".
For the record, I should add that by the time of this accident I had relinquished my appointment as Chief of the Defence Staff and had been serving in NATO for well over a year. I therefore had no formal involvement with t his matter at all. But my earlier service experience has given me a clear understanding of the statutory duty and the heavy weight of responsibility that falls on those who have to review formally the findings of such boards of inquiry. Of course, their primary and overriding duty is to ensure that their judgments rest on convincing evidence which must satisfy fully the burden of proof required, as defined in this case in Air Publication 3207. But after meeting that requirement as an essential pre-requisite to their findings, they must also take account of the relevant lessons learnt from such inquiries, so that the risk of such accidents, whatever their causes, is minimised in future. Indeed, to fail to do that honestly and objectively could send a highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous message about acceptable flying standards to current and future generations of service aircrew.
Against that background, I have read very carefully the Select Committee's report and the Government's response to it. In this regard, I have to note that none of the current Ministers serving in defence appointments today, including the Secretary of State himself, had any formal involvement with this board of inquiry and its immediate aftermath. They have, therefore, had an unfettered opportunity to form their own judgment on it before formulating their response.
For me, one key issue emerges regarding the finding of "gross negligence", and this stems from a series of facts arising from both the report of the Select Committee and the Government's response to it.
The first is that the Chinook's SuperTANS navigation system, which was subsequently found to be performing normally at power-down (impact), showed the aircraft to be less than one nautical mile (0.81) from the Mull lighthouse and only some 600 metres from the cliffs ahead when the second waypoint was selected. That conscious change of waypoint also shows that the pilots were clearly in control of the aircraft at that time. Secondly, by the time at which
690
that new waypoint was selected, the pilots should have been aware of their position relative to the high ground ahead, given that flying under visual flight rules demands at least 1,000 metres visibility. By that time, they were so in breach of visual flight rules that not only were they too late to conduct a cruise climb to the safety altitude of 2,400 feet that applied in this case, they were also too late to make an emergency climb to that altitude.
So my firm personal conclusion is that negligence had occurred because the aircraft was being flown in clear breach of visual flight rules by the time that the waypoint change took place, and that that was placing in increasing hazard the safety of the aircraft and those in it. It follows that the various hypotheses about subsequent possible systems malfunctions are irrelevant to that basic finding.
For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. With great respect, I hope that he will now consider withdrawing it.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, described where the crash took place. I have a little cottage there from which I can see the site; I have visited it on many occasions. I have previously explained in your Lordships' House how cloud variations there could quite possibly lead to an accident.
This evening, my noble friend Lord Brennan made the most persuasive speech on any subject that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. Anyone who reads that speech will be in no doubt as to what actually happened and what brought about the Select Committee's conclusion.
I felt like interjecting earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked a question, because the more that I listened to the various accounts of what happened, the more I wondered about this question. Are the two pilots in charge of the helicopter at any given time, or is one pilot steering the helicopter, while the other sits beside him, willing to take over if he gives up? If one pilot is guilty of driving the aircraft into the mountain and the pilot beside him is not, why blame the two pilots? It is quite possible that one of them had no part to play in the crash.
The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, said, and I repeat—I have used these words in previous debates—that this subject will not go away. At some time in future, whatever government is then in power will reverse the decision.
Only last week, we all watched the Channel 4 television programme that set out to discredit and make fools of your Lordships. I admit that I was very annoyed about it. Your Lordships decided to set up a committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the Chinook crash. It has issued a report, and we are now asked to say, "We set up the committee; it held an inquiry; it arrived at a different conclusion; but let us just forget about it". That would be a derogation of the responsibility of your Lordships' House. If the House

691
sets up a committee to inquire into something, we should be prepared to carry it to its ultimate conclusion.
I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, not to be beaten off track by people saying, "There are regulations; this has never been done before and we should not break with tradition". The five Members of your Lordships' House went into every aspect of the Chinook crash in great detail. The House should be asked tonight to give an opinion, to see how that opinion is received in the country. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people to whom I have spoken would fully support the exoneration of the two young pilots.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I apologise for getting up to speak in the gap. I had withdrawn my name from the list for personal reasons that are known to the powers that he. However, on returning via the House of Lords, I discovered that your Lordships were still discussing the matter. As the fifth member of the Committee, I should say how much I appreciated my four colleagues and the thought and the care that they gave to hearing the evidence that came before us.
When we started off, we all had different views. I do not share a room with my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie for nothing. Properly, I had it drilled into me that I should always remember the test of good airmanship. I did, and so did the other members of the Committee. However, having heard all the evidence—much of which was extremely impressive—on both sides of the argument, including that of the air marshals, we were unanimously of the opinion that no court in the country could say that it was negligence, established to the standard required for the case by the directive from the Ministry of Defence itself.
I remind your Lordships of one thing—in fact, it is more than one thing. Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day told the Committee that it was,
"incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should…have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground".
I can readily understand why he said that. However, one reason for the accident could have been that there were two fallible pilots and both happened, extraordinarily, to be of the same mind at the same time. In fact, I suggested in questioning that, given their knowledge and background, the pilots must have been on a suicidal mission to do what they did. The air marshal—whichever one it was I put that to—objected to the suggestion. The other possibility is that there was a fallible machine. In the end, do we say that the two pilots who were killed cannot speak for themselves? There are no records of what they were doing at that time, and there are two different views from other air officers with, I respectfully suggest, knowledge equal to that of the air marshals. However, another possibility is that, at some stage, there was a problem with the machine that caused the crash.
692
Afterwards, as we know, the evidence from which conclusions could be drawn was, as the chief investigator pointed out, very thin, due to the damage to the aircraft. Air Commodore Crawford—now retired—rejected the investigating board's conclusion that the most probable cause of the accident was selection of an inappropriate rate of climb. He gave his reasons, which I do not intend to go into. None the less, he pointed out that the change of WP to go for Corran, which was selected late on, was explicable only if they were going to go along the coast.
I need not go into detail, but I will say that we had a string of impressive witnesses, of whom the most impressive, to my mind, was the witness called A. He was a highly decorated and experienced pilot, who came back from Afghanistan to give evidence. He said exactly the same—at least, he held the same view—as Air Commodore Crawford. He had been working with both those pilots. He knew the area backwards and he described what he thought that the two pilots were doing at the time. It was not in accord with the thoughts of the air marshals, but this was an officer who had worked on special duties in Northern Ireland and knew the ground backwards and he had as much intimate knowledge as any of the air marshals. He was a very impressive witness.
In conclusion, I do not believe that any court in the country who had heard the evidence that we heard could possibly have concluded that it was proven beyond absolutely no doubt that those two pilots were guilty of negligence.
11.36 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we have had a debate today which has exhibited rare passion in this House. That is probably because it is such a tragedy that 29 people lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Michie gave a moving account of the crash site today. That was the first time I heard that Members of this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—lost friends in the accident.
There has been much speculation in the press and on the Internet that the crash and the resultant cover-up is part of a conspiracy. I do not believe that for one second. The crash was either mechanical error or pilot error. One of the problems that I believe goes to the crux of why we are debating the issue today is that if it was pilot error, the phrase "gross negligence" is associated with that. I should like to echo my distaste for that phrase, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. One of the difficulties with such a phrase is that it has such unfortunate connotations.
This is the second time that I have spoken in the debate—I am a relative novice to many in this Chamber—and I commend the assiduous work of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in following the issue. It has been a tortuous process over many debates and there has been a real result from the work that he has undertaken. The conclusion of the board of inquiry could not have been arrived at if the board of inquiry had been held today. The charge of "gross negligence" could not have been placed at the door of the pilots. That is a real achievement.

693
However. the other aspect that has to be looked at and which has been the subject of most speeches is that of onus of proof. There appears to be a fundamental difference between a board of inquiry and a court of law. That is perhaps why there is such an even spread of opinion—I noted that while writing against noble Lords' names whether they were for or against. It goes to the heart of whether one believes that a board of inquiry was what was being undertaken—that was eruditely explained to us by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—or whether one was discussing the criteria that would have to be met by a court of law, a point so ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan.
Like many noble Lords, I have to admit that on reading the evidence I have vacillated over which side I should come down on. It is an extremely complicated issue. To begin with I believed that the case was clear cut; that because there must be doubt in people's minds, the air marshals must have overcome that hurdle.
I then thought of some of the personal experiences I have had living next to a training area. My house is on the flight path of helicopters and I have seen large numbers of them. Unfortunately, I have also seen a large number breaking height restrictions on a fairly regular basis. It happens and one notices it when one lives underneath their flight path. Therefore, I do not see it as incomprehensible that pilot error was to blame, as my noble friend Lord Hooson pointed out. It is extremely unfortunate if that were the case and I would not like to put forward the charge of gross negligence. The pilots had a short period of time in which to make decisions and unfortunately there were tragic consequences.
It is a question of whether noble Lords believe that the onus of proof has been met on pilot error or an unexplained mechanical error. I accept the conclusions of the committee, which has come forward with a considered report. However, I have also been swayed by the arguments put forward by many noble Lords who have practical flying experience and have dealt with helicopters. It is interesting to note that helicopters have one of the highest insurance ratings of any form of transport.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will not press his amendment. The committee has put its report before the House and I believe that the House has accepted it. But the Government have also replied and they have rejected to a degree the findings of the committee. I hope that it is left at that because I believe that the noble Lord's amendment will go a great deal further and perhaps detract from the excellent work undertaken by the committee. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pushes the matter to a vote, it is for each individual Member to make up his own mind and to use his judgment.
11.42 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and his extremely strong Select Committee for answering a
694
question that I was unable to decide myself. I remind the House of my somewhat peripheral interest. A few noble Lords mentioned party politics. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter for the House and my noble friends behind me can vote and speak as they feel appropriate.
For me, this has been far and away the most difficult issue to deal with in my short time in your Lordships' House. For obvious reasons, it is most sensitive and complex and technical legal issues are involved. I am also acutely aware that we are interfering with military discipline and opinions are sharply divided across the House. Some noble Lords may believe that pensions and compensation are an underlying issue. Can the Minister confirm that all the families of the aircrew and passengers are appropriately provided for and that changing the findings will not alter those arrangements?
It is important to recognise that at one time the RAF had an unnecessarily high accident rate. It must be the objective of the air staff to maintain a low accident. rate by having robust procedures for dealing with accidents. However, that objective will not be achieved if there is any perception of unfairness or unreliability in the proceedings.
Some noble Lords questioned the wisdom of setting up a Select Committee. I believe that it was the right course of action. The matters are certainly too complex for me to decide and I know that other noble Lords have the same problem. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for acquiescing to the setting up of the Select Committee.
I do not believe that the Select Committee has set a dangerous precedent. Only a noble Lord of the standing of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, could succeed in persuading the House to set up a Select Committee and it will certainly remain an extremely unusual procedure. The real nightmare would be a judicial review of ministerial decisions when they support the chain of command.
One overriding advantage of the Select Committee is that it brings the matter to a conclusion. I cannot speak for the usual channels, but I would he surprised if they allocated more time to this matter.
I do not intend to cover the arguments for and against the pilots. I voted for the Select Committee to do that and your Lordships have debated the issue in detail today. It is entirely proper that we should have had this full debate, which has been well informed throughout.
Some noble Lords raised the issue of cockpit voice recorders. It was extremely unfortunate, to say the least, that CVR was not included in the mid-life upgrade of the Chinook.
It is worth examining how we have got to where we are now. I am certain that the board of inquiry was composed of officers of the highest calibre. They will have hoped privately that they could find no human failing in anyone. They will have done their utmost to

695
find the real cause of this terrible accident. They will not have enjoyed their task, stimulating though it may have been.
Like many noble Lords, I was confident that the RAF had an extremely good air accident investigation procedure. I assumed that it was at least as good as the civil procedure—that was until I read the Tench report of 1987, which covers the investigation of aircraft accidents in the services. Can the Minister tell the House whether he has read the Tench report? It can be easily found in the Library if noble Lords are interested.
The background is that in 1986 my noble friend Lord Trefgarne commissioned Mr William Tench, who was the recently retired chief investigator of the Air Accident Investigation Branch at the Department of Transport, to produce the report. My noble friend apparently encountered a certain amount of resistance from the Air Staff.
Tench reported in January 1987. His analysis of the problem covers 17 pages. He tries to be diplomatic and tactful, but nevertheless it is an extremely interesting report. For example, on page 2 he states:
"I have seen no record of the appointment of any person expert in the techniques of accident investigation or the analysis of flight recorded data being appointed as members of the Board".
On the same page he continues:
"The members of the Board receive no formal training in aircraft accident investigation and seldom have any previous experience of this type of work; at best a member may have served on one previous Board of Inquiry".
On page 9 he states:
"A disturbing feature is the influence which senior officers seek to exert on the investigation process, particularly in the RAF. Presidents of Boards are conscious of a 'hovering presence' in the background which in reality is nothing more sinister than an anxiety to implement corrective measures as soon as they are identified".
In his summing up of the current situation he states:
"The reason for this poor performance is that the Board of Inquiry system, by its very nature, ensures that in all but the unusual cases when an officer is appointed to a Board on more than one occasion in his career, the investigation is conducted by complete novices. There is no opportunity to accumulate knowledge in the techniques of accident investigation, nor is there any continuity of effort".
Noble Lords will be aware that the AIB has an important role in helping the board and that it is highly regarded abroad. However, my noble friend Lord Bowness referred to the caveats of Mr Ken Smart of the AIB. I believe that Mr Smart's caution was wise.
Noble Lords will have expected some improvement in the intervening years between the Tench report and the board of inquiry for this accident. Sadly, it still appears, as we have discussed, that no member of the board had previously sat on a similar board; and no member of the board had attended even a basic course in air accident investigation. My understanding is that the engineer member of the board, while extremely experienced, a specialist on Chinook and highly-qualified to do his normal duties, whose character and integrity are beyond question, was not a professional engineer. He was not a chartered engineer or anything
696
equivalent. However, his duties as a member of the board were to ask penetrating questions of people who were professional engineers.
I again emphasise that I am not calling into question the personal qualities of members of boards of inquiries. I am questioning whether they have the training and expertise to undertake their task. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, let the cat out of the bag when he said that boards of inquiry are appointed for their aviation expertise. He also explained that the RAF mercifully has experienced few accidents recently. However, that means that the RAF collectively has correspondingly even less experience in accident investigation.
Will the Minister say whether he has complete confidence in the current service air accident investigation procedures, or will he instigate a review? Noble Lords will question whether any weaknesses identified by Tench impinge on this matter. I believe that they do. For instance, my noble friend Lord Bowness referred to the rather less than thorough interviewing of Mr Holbrook. Another difficulty is the non-FADEC simulation of a Mk 2 Chinook, a problem not originally recognised by the board.
The air marshals properly relied on the board of inquiry in coming to their conclusions, but I do not find the board findings reliable; not for a lack of personal qualities, experience or dedication in its members, but because they are not air accident investigators. If the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, presses his amendment he may not achieve his objective, but I shall support him.
I am sure the whole House will join me in offering our sincere condolences to all those so painfully affected by this tragedy. We also need to thank those who had the difficult task of dealing with the physical aspects of the accident. We also sympathise with those who had the unenviable task of carrying out the investigation.
11.53 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It is very late and I do not intend to take up any more of the House's time than is necessary. The standard of speeches on both sides has been superb. It is rather invidious, but I should like to pick out the speech on the one side of this argument of my noble friend Lord Brennan and on the other of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. Both speeches were outstanding.
I too begin by extending my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of all those who lost loved ones in the crash. There is no doubt that the events of that June evening nearly eight and a half years ago were a tragedy and that the sad consequences of the accident will remain with all those involved. I am conscious, as everyone must be, that the constant revisiting and questioning of the circumstances of the accident can only add to the heartache of all 29 of the bereaved families. We should not forget any of them.
Before reflecting on the points raised during our debate, I want to echo the many words of appreciation and thanks that we have heard this evening for the

697
work of the Select Committee. I am delighted that all members of the committee have spoken in tonight's debate. I thank them for staying so late in order to do so. It was, of course, a highly unusual step to set up the committee in the first place. Indeed, the House will recall that it chose to do so against the advice of the Liaison Committee.
One of the reasons given by the Liaison Committee for issuing what was, perhaps, prescient advice against the establishment of the committee speaks for itself:
"Select Committees are a good vehicle for the examination of public policy issues but are not equipped to replicate the function of the higher courts in addressing alleged miscarriages of justice".
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and the rest of the Select Committee did everything that they possibly could to get into the bowels of this particular problem. The House is grateful to them for their efforts and diligence in reviewing the justification for the finding of negligence, which was not an easy task. Your Lordships know very well the Government's response to the Select Committee report, published some three-and-half months ago. Indeed, a variety of views and opinions on our position have been expressed in this debate.
But there was, and is, simply no reason why two highly regarded and well-trained special forces pilots should have flown at speed so close to the Mull, into poor weather that they had been warned to expect. As has been said, this was contrary to all their training. The inquiry's two senior reviewing officers concluded that the failure to take action before the waypoint change to avoid the high ground ahead amounted to gross negligence.
Some may think that that was an easy decision for those air marshals to have taken; but it was the opposite. It was not taken—indeed, could not have been taken—lightly. Sir John Day, one of the reviewing officers, summed up his feelings in evidence to the committee by saying that it was the "hardest decision" of his career, and one that was taken only after the fullest consideration of all the evidence. Without doubt, it has been one of the hardest duties that defence Ministers have had to perform, and consider, over many years. I rather share the resentment of my noble friend Lord Gilbert at the comment of my noble friend Lord Brennan that Ministers have been sucked in by the Ministry of Defence, and that, somehow, political considerations would have been of some importance. My goodness! The political considerations would have been to give way, and to do so a long time ago. However, to the credit of defence Ministers, both in the previous Government, and, I hope, also in this Government, they have not done so. That easy course has not been taken. It seems to me that that particular remark in an otherwise superb speech was slightly unfair.
The material in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, has been studied in great depth. We have looked at the matter from every possible angle. and published our findings to allow others to scrutinise them. I can understand that many would have wished us to reach a different conclusion from
698
that of the reviewing officers, and that would certainly have been the easy way out. But just because it would have been easy would not have made it right.
Those who have campaigned for the finding of negligence to be overturned have questioned how two well-regarded and highly trained pilots could have conducted this flight in the way that they did. The simple answer is that we do not know; and we probably never will. But, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, clearly and most thoroughly explained, pilots are human. They can and do make mistakes—even the very best of them. Indeed, I have spoken to very experienced pilots who have told me that they have come within a whisker of disaster through their own actions, or inactions. All of us have heard about such experiences tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told us the story of the close brush that he had with death.
I turn to the findings of the committee, which commented in particular on the original simulations that Boeing carried out to assist the board of inquiry. It was only right that those comments should be brought to Boeing's attention. We also wanted to get to the bottom of any possible ambiguity. So we commissioned further work, which used a more advanced model fully reflecting FADEC technical parameters and flight performance. I remind noble Lords that Boeing is the aircraft manufacturer and the design authority, which renders it uniquely qualified to comment on the aircraft's capabilities. We have published its full report and the supporting detailed documentation. Some Members, including the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, have suggested that the results of this further work constitute new evidence and provide an opportunity to revisit the board of inquiry finding. But Boeing's latest work, which considered its previous work in great detail, has shown that the original results for airspeed shortly before impact were on the high side. However, it also confirms that the average airspeed, which was fairly constant, was high.
As noble Lords who studied our formal written response to the committee's report will know, all this information has enabled us to determine a clear picture of the final flight path. Of course no simulation can tell us precisely what happened, but Boeing's work has clarified further the capabilities and constraints of the aircraft, enabling us to dispel finally the hypotheses relating to technical malfunctions that have been raised in an endeavour to explain or cast doubt on the cause of the accident.
I do not intend to dwell on technical matters related to the flight, because there is not enough time. However, they warrant detailed attention, and I direct noble Lords to our full written response on the matters should they wish to pursue them further. It is appropriate to remind the House that there has been much speculation regarding the last 20 seconds or so of the flight. The committee accepts that it is highly unlikely that the crew would have made a waypoint change if they had thought they were not in control. Unless I misread paragraph 163 of the report, the committee accepts that the crew were in control at the waypoint change. In any case, the reviewing officers'

699
determination was not predicated on what may or may not have happened in the final seconds, although we remain convinced that the aircraft remained fully serviceable and under pilot control until impact. There is simply no evidence to the contrary.
Some still doubt whether the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever" test could be met. We recognise that this is a very high standard of proof. But the unique work of the RAF necessarily demands that the highest standards be set. The MoD and the RAF rightly demand the very highest standards of airmanship, about which we have heard lots from people who know about it. The responsibility to take a very high degree of care is rightly imposed upon a pilot flying an aircraft or responsible for its maintenance or control. A finding of negligence amounts to severe criticism, but it is the standard that was set. I emphasise that this standard was a practical test and was capable of being met.
As I made clear in my Statement to the House in July, the reviewing officers were required to be in no doubt that the pilots' negligence was a cause—although not necessarily the sole cause—of the accident. Negligence can itself be the cause of an accident, or it can be one of a number of causative factors. The reviewing officers were charged with considering all the evidence as a whole. They were entitled to call on their own knowledge and experience of military flying and to take proper recognition of the very high standard of airmanship that is required of RAF pilots. That is precisely what they did.
We have discussed the definition of negligence that prevailed. The Guide to the Consideration of Human Failings, which was referred to, could not make the definition clearer. According to paragraph 4 of the document, negligence may be defined as:
"(a) The omission to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would do or,
(b) The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently".
I cannot see why that definition was not referred to in the Select Committee's report.
The document continues:
"When related to flying aircraft or to aircraft maintenance, neglect means a breach of duty to take care, or in other words, carelessness in a matter where care is demanded. The duty to take care varies according to the operation being performed and a duty to take a very high degree of care is rightly imposed upon a person flying an aircraft or responsible for the maintenance of its controls".
Then come these words:
"In such circumstances, what might be trivial in other fields may, when associated with aircraft operations, amount to negligence which justifies severe criticism".
Those were the guidelines under which the air marshals had to work.
Others have argued that this is not really a legal matter, but one of natural justice. It is true that this is a sensitive and emotive case. As I have said, many people would like a different conclusion from the one we have reached. We understand that view. However, where human factors were judged to have contributed
700
to the accident, the RAF rules at the time required the reviewing officers to reach a view on the culpability of the air crew concerned. It was their duty to make such a judgment and they could not avoid it. The same principle applies now to our consideration of the various reports into the accident. It would be very tempting for us to take an easy, politically attractive and no doubt popular move by acceding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but it would be wrong to do so.
Others have taken the view that changing our rules to no longer find blame shows how unjust it was to find the Chinook pilots negligent. This is a matter of general principle. We cannot turn back the clock. The board was properly convened and conducted in accordance with the procedures that existed then. The suggestion that we should disturb the rules of the day because they have subsequently been altered is clearly misconceived. The primary purpose of any such board of inquiry is to determine the cause of the accident. That is what was done. The Government do not believe that the reviewing officer's judgment was incorrect.
I assure noble Lords that we have every faith in the board of inquiry procedure and those who contribute to it—both then and now—to do so on the basis of their specialist skills and experience.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the Tench report. The report was commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in 1986, when he held the job that I hold now, and was drawn up by Mr Tench. The report was carefully considered at the time, but was not accepted. It made recommendations for improving service accident investigation procedures. It included proposals for establishing a tri-service accident investigation unit and other matters. There was much in the Tench report that was ahead of its time and has subsequently been taken into government policy, but we cannot turn back the clock. There is nothing in the report that undermines the findings of the board of inquiry, which was properly constituted and carried out in accordance with the rules that applied in 1994.
This was obviously a tragic accident. It is entirely understandable that the families of the deceased pilots continue to fight to absolve them of any blame. I acknowledge and respect the unstinting work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in support of the families and the tireless efforts of his campaign group in their genuine belief that a wrong needs to be corrected. In that regard, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have been pleased to meet the noble Lord and others on a number of occasions, the last of which was very recently, in our endeavours to resolve the issue.
However—and this is the most important thing that I shall say tonight—I strongly believe that it is now time to move on. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has moved an amendment to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, that the House take note of the Select Committee's report. This is a highly unusual step. Regardless of the merits, from a House of Lords viewpoint it is a backward step. House of

701
Lords Select Committees deservedly have a high reputation gained over many years. An important part of that reputation is the way in which their reports are dealt with on the Floor of the House. The chairman invites the House to take note, and a full debate ensues, just as has happened tonight, with sincerely held and different points of view expressed cogently and with passion. The take note Motion is then carried.
There is no precedent, save one in very different circumstances 24 years ago, for the course that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, proposes. If he puts this to the vote, it will set an extremely unfortunate precedent. It is often said that the conventions of this House are there for a purpose and it is unfortunate to breach them, however genuine and heartfelt the cause may be. Even at this late hour I urge the noble Lord when he replies to consider not just what I have said but what other noble Lords right across the House have said and to withdraw his amendment.
I repeat that although many and varied hypotheses have been put forward to explain the accident, the only realistic explanation is that found by the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry. However, I make the pledge, as has been made by my right honourable friend on many occasions, that the Government will of course look again at any new material should it arise.
I agree very much with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said; namely, that the explanation for this accident is basically not complicated. It is difficult, but not complicated. Indeed, I strongly agree with what the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Guthrie, Lord Vincent and Lord Craig, the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Gilbert, and others have said on this matter.
As they approached land, it seems that the pilots would have been aware that their visibility was about to reduce significantly. Had they been flying with the minimum visibility allowed for visual flight rules, before the waypoint change they would have seen the land mass of the Mull 1,000 metres away and would have recognised their perilous position. They should have taken prompt action either by flying higher or by turning away. If they were in fact already in cloud, then by definition they were in breach of visual flight rules, and should have converted to instrument flight rules and immediately climbed to safety altitude. The finding of negligence is underpinned by the fact that they failed to take either of those avoiding actions. That is our case. I am afraid that nothing I have heard tonight makes me doubt that case.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether appropriate provision had been made for the dependants of the two pilots and, indeed, for all others on board. I confirm that that is so. I remind the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the question was posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in a letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before his committee first met. I say for the benefit of the House that it is published at page 83 of the written evidence which states:
"Full and final settlement of the claims for compensation for the dependants of the two deceased pilots was reached on the basis of 50 per cent contributory negligence and with both parties
702
acknowledging (although not necessarily agreeing) the basis on which the settlement was reached. The families of the deceased pilots have not admitted liability".
Both families are being paid abated pensions taking into account the compensation they received. I hope that that gives the noble and learned Lord the answer that he was looking for.
I end by saying that the Government's position will be unwelcome to those campaigning against the decision. No one has benefited from the protracted discussions that have been played out in the media with regard to this tragic flight, least of all the relatives of those who died. But we believe that the reviewing officers' findings continue to withstand the most rigorous scrutiny. In those circumstances it would he wrong to interfere. I suggest that the time has now come for us to move on. I very much hope that the House will pass the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, at this late hour I have very little to say. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, was somewhat incredulous when I said that the first waypoint was the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse. In doing so, I relied on the report of the board of inquiry. The noble Lord will find the relevant reference on page 11 at subparagraph (2).
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, criticised our guidelines on the standard of proof. They involved the phrase, "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". We had to find some definition for that. It is not a standard known to the law and it is clearly higher than the highest standard of proof in the criminal law. We therefore thought it incumbent to establish what would be appropriate. That explains our approach.
On the suggestion that our criticism of the appointment of Wing Commander Pulford was unfair, we simply had in mind the fact that one of the air marshals pointed out that this was the worst tragedy that the Royal Air Force had suffered since the war. Having regard to some of the fairly light questioning by the board, we thought that it might be advantageous to have an officer with more experience of conducting a board of inquiry.
I do not propose to deal with the comments of other noble Lords, who clearly did not approve of our conclusions. I make one general observation. Many noble Lords referred to the fact that there was no evidence for this or for that; however, given the high and totally unusual standard of proof, the test was not whether evidence could be found but whether there were possible or plausible explanations that had not been disposed of. There is no doubt in this regard that the aircraft flew low and at speed into cloud and then into the Mull. Stopping there, the answer is, as we say in the law, res ipsa loquitur: the pilots were to blame, and that is the end of the matter; we need not go any further. However, one must bear in mind that the pilots made the waypoint change, which was clearly designed to give them a course for waypoint B at Corran. They indicated their intention to fly VFR the whole way. Those two matters created doubt in our

703
mind about what had happened and whether the aircraft was under control throughout the passage from there to the crash site.
I question the Minister's observation that the new Boeing simulation threw light on possible malfunctions. It did not do so at all. It produced findings about the possible speed and rate of climb beforehand but, as I understand it, it certainly did not confirm or dispose of any possible mechanical malfunctions. I notice that my noble friend Lord Tombs is nodding his head.
When the fact of making the waypoint change and the declared intention to fly IFR are taken together with possible defects that could not be excluded by the board or Cable, the senior air investigator, one is driven to wonder why the pilots chose to fly on into conditions that they could see and which necessarily involved VFR. It is that which, in the view of the committee, raised doubts as to whether the aircraft was under control at the critical time.
So far as arguing that the aircraft was in danger at the waypoint change, I suggest that that presupposes that the aircraft was going to continue its course and speed and that it was not necessarily in danger. Had it slowed down and altered course to Corran, that would have reduced the radius of turn. We do not know what the intentions were. But if that had been the intention and the pilots were thwarted, I very much doubt whether the pilots could have been said to be negligent in having brought the aircraft to that position. I have nothing further to add.
12.21 a.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, there has been a certain amount of talk about the wisdom or rectitude of a House of Lords Select Committee considering this problem. I find that an extraordinary argument. This is part of the Parliament of this country. If Parliament is not able to scrutinise the activities of the executive in a Select Committee or in any other way, I believe that we shall get into very dangerous waters. There has also been talk of setting a precedent. I must confess that I am not terribly frightened about setting precedents. If setting a precedent will correct manifest injustice, I shall be proud of doing so and not ashamed.
I have heard some very strange statements tonight about this accident and about the verdict of the air marshals and the Select Committee. I can only say that, in listening to some of the contributions, I have been reminded of the statesman who once said, "I wish I could be as certain of anything as he is of everything".
There has been much talk of the need for us poor, ignorant lay people to defer to the views of aviation experts. This is not a question for aviation experts. Any suggestion that it is is probably what has been wrong throughout the whole of this long, seven-year business. It is aviation experts who have produced the briefs for Ministers year after year. The same brief for every Minister and the same words have been produced every time the subject has come up.
704
Airmanship may be a very sacred concept in aviation, but aviation has absolutely nothing to do with what we are supposed to be discussing tonight. This is a question of natural justice and of putting right a terrible miscarriage of justice. It is nothing to do with airmanship. As I said, airmanship may be an extraordinarily useful concept in aviation when one is flying an aeroplane or when the Royal Air Force is engaged in operations. But this is a question of natural justice and law—not airmanship.
I wish that, in approaching this problem, we had been able to concentrate a little more on the words that I used at the beginning of my earlier speech: "no possible doubt whatsoever". Very few times have I heard those on the other side of this argument refer to that standard of proof. What I have heard seems to suggest that there is now some disposition to accept a different definition of what "no possible doubt whatsoever" means and what it refers to. I must confess that there is no doubt in my mind as to what it means; nor, I should have thought, would there be any such doubt in the mind of anyone who speaks English. That is what the standard of proof is and what is required in these cases.
I have heard nothing to challenge the finding of the Select Committee. In my amendment all I ask is that the House should accept it and not, as the Government have done, reject it.
In the course of the debate we have heard the views of some noble and gallant Lords. In case people feel that there is a general consensus among noble and gallant Lords, perhaps I may read two sentences from a letter that arrived in my post this morning from a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a Member of this House who is not able to be present this evening. He has given me permission to quote from his letter. He states:
"I have no personal doubt whatsoever and never have had since the day of the crash that the two air marshals, as you call them, were wrong".
He underlines the word "wrong" several times. At the end he asks this question:
"I wonder exactly who in the MOD is behind this dogged refusal to let the truth prevail and, more to the point, what drives him?"
That is the question asked by a former Chief of the Defence Staff, not by me.
It has been suggested that I should withdraw my amendment. I have no intention of doing so. We have had a long debate and I believe that it would be discourteous at the end of such a long debate not to test the opinion of the House and I intend to do so.
12.27 a.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lane, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Bowness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brightman, L.

Methuen, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Chalfont, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fitt, L.

Onslow, E.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hooson, L.

Slim, V.

Jacobs, L. [Teller]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kingsland, L.

Tombs, L.

Laird, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassani of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burnham, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Lyell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Roper, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gilbert, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Vincent of Coleshill, L.

Goudie, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Whitaker, B.

Grenfell, L.

Whitty, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 31st October.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 31st October.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before one o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Scotland and England: 400th Anniversary of the Union of the Crowns
  Scotland and England: 400th Anniversary of the Union of the Crowns
  North-South Ministerial Council: EU Programmes Sector Meeting, 9 October 2002
  North-South Ministerial Council: EU Programmes Sector Meeting, 9 October 2002
  North Down and Ards Area Draft Plan
  North Down and Ards Area Draft Plan
  European Elections 2004
  European Elections 2004
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
  Police Negotiating Board
  Police Negotiating Board
  Emergency Fire Cover: Cost of Using "Green Goddesses"
  Emergency Fire Cover: Cost of Using "Green Goddesses"
  Mortgage Equity Withdrawal
  Mortgage Equity Withdrawal
  GLA Election Rules
  GLA Election Rules
  Assets Recovery
  Assets Recovery
  Tourist Signs on M6: Southport
  Tourist Signs on M6: Southport
  Road Congestion
  Road Congestion
  Reading Station: Congestion
  Reading Station: Congestion
  Trains: Emissions
  Trains: Emissions
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Bus Lanes: Camera Enforcement
  Bus Lanes: Camera Enforcement
  Drivers' Hours Regulations: Historic Vehicles
  Drivers' Hours Regulations: Historic Vehicles
  Lighthouses
  Lighthouses
  London Underground
  London Underground
  RAF Northolt
  RAF Northolt
  CFS/ME: Causation and Treatment
  CFS/ME: Causation and Treatment
  Embryo Research Applications
  Embryo Research Applications
  Accommodation Centres
  Accommodation Centres
  School Exclusions
  School Exclusions
  Income of People of Retirement Age
  Income of People of Retirement Age
  Water Policy
  Water Policy
  Private Finance Initiatives and Public/Private Partnerships
  Private Finance Initiatives and Public/Private Partnerships