Sitting of 20 November 2002

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

    SESSIONAL RETURNS
    Ordered,
    That there be laid before the House Returns for Session 2001–02 of information and statistics relating to—

    (1) Business of the House;

    (2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);

    (3) Sittings of the House;

    (4) Private Bills and Private Business;

    (5) Public Bills;

    (6) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Orders;

    (7) European Legislation, &c.;

    (8) Grand Committees;

    (9) Chairmen's Panel; and

    (10) Select Committees.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Decent Homes
    Mr.Clive Betts: When he will make a statement about the resources necessary to deliver the decent homes standard.
    [81538]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): As promised in the statement to the House on 18 July on sustainable communities, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a further statement at the turn of the year on how we will allocate the resources identified for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the spending review. This statement will cover resources, including decent homes, as my hon. Friend requires,
    Mr. Betts: I am sure that the Minister will be happy to know that tenants in Sheffield are extremely pleased by the doubling of capital expenditure on housing since this Government came to power. They are pleased with the setting of the decent homes target, but they are also
    626
    pleased that the new Labour administration in Sheffield has withdrawn the stock transfer application previously made by the Liberal Democrats, because council tenants are overwhelmingly against the transfer of ownership of their homes.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should put a question.
    Mr. Betts: Can the Minister give an assurance that in conducting this review, he will pay particular attention to authorities such as Sheffield? In those areas, tenants do not want to transfer their homes, but they do want the resources to bring them up to a decent standard by 2010.
    Mr. McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the leader of Sheffield council, Councillor Jan Wilson, on taking this issue seriously enough to meet Lord Rooker to discuss further how Sheffield will reach the decent homes standard. I can confirm that we will consider the outcome and policy options of the PSA-plus review into how to achieve the decent homes standard when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement in January. I can further confirm that if Sheffield comes off the reserved list, it will not be disadvantaged in respect of the consideration of future options and the city's achieving the decent homes target.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: For the Government to meet their decent homes target, there needs to be a strategy for England's largest landlord—Birmingham city council. It is now seven months since tenants turned their backs on stock transfer, and the Government have had plenty of time to consider their position. Birmingham's size and importance has led the Chartered Institute of Housing to warn that stock transfers are in jeopardy. Will the Minister confirm that, in view of Birmingham's importance, its only options—indeed, they are also the only options available to the tenants of Sheffield—are stock transfer, arm's-length, a private finance initiative, or direct management using predictive finance?
    Mr. McNulty: I think that we would prefer the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than the hon. Gentleman, to carry out the policy options review of how to achieve the decent homes standard, given his lack of success in Bradford. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will meet Ann Power next week to discuss the review, which has yet to report on Birmingham, further. We will take no lessons from a party that left us a £19 billion backlog of council house and social housing repairs.
    John Mann: Consultation on slum housing with tenants in Warsop, in my constituency, began in 1968, when George Brown was Deputy Prime Minister. I thank the current Deputy Prime Minister and his team for allocating £30 million to Mansfield, Warsop and Bolsover in respect of housing. Will a Minister visit the relevant constituencies in the near future, so that we can promote the rollout of the Government's housing policy?
    Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that in 1997 we released £5 billion of capital receipts specifically for

    627
    council housing, and that the amount that we spent on that sector, and on social housing, has since trebled. I had a lovely time in Bolsover on a recent visit, and if I can get to North East Derbyshire again I certainly shall.
    Tony Baldry: Will the Minister confirm that for council tenants in Cherwell who are concerned about their future, the alternatives are arm's-length management organisation, the private finance initiative, or large-scale voluntary transfer? If I have got that wrong, may I bring representatives of tenants' organisations to see the Minister, so that he can explain what the other options are?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will just have to be patient. As I have said, there will be a statement in January that will contain, among other things, the outcome of the PSA—public service agreement—review that we are carrying out into policy options to achieve the decent homes standard. Then, and only then, if the hon. Gentleman is still not satisfied—and if he can recognise a council tenant—I might see him.

    Section 28
    Dr. Evan Harris: If he plans to repeal the restrictions on the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. [81540]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Mr. Nick Raynsford): We remain committed to taking forward the statement in our manifesto.
    Dr. Harris: Does the Minister accept that section 28 is a stain on our statute book that promotes only intolerance and prevents local councils and schools from tackling prejudice and homophobic bullying? Given the Government's failure to abolish section 28 in the last Parliament, should not they have the courage of their convictions and put its abolition in a Government Bill to send a signal to people outside, the Conservatives and the other place that we are intent on abolishing it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Raynsford: We agree with the hon. Gentleman that section 28 does not serve a useful purpose and is offensive to many people. Since the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was introduced, separate measures apply in schools so section 28 does not inhibit proper sex education in schools.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister think that anyone should actively promote homosexuality in schools?
    Mr. Raynsford: It is entirely a matter for individuals what they wish to promote, but we do not believe that any public authority should, and there is no provision that allows that. Section 28 has never been used for the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is offensive because it refers to a certain section of the community as having "pretended…relationships", a disparaging comment that is deeply offensive to gay and lesbian people.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: When he expects to consult the English regions to determine which ones will be first to hold referendums on regional government. [81542]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We will be taking soundings in all regions about the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill when it is before Parliament. The purpose of those soundings will be to determine the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum on whether to establish an elected regional assembly.
    Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he realise that the city of Lancaster is at the geographical and historic heart of the north-west region, and that the good folk of Lancaster desperately need a directly elected regional assembly to match the superb regeneration and investment in the future industry of the city provided by the Northwest Development Agency?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It was said that nobody was interested in regional issues and that they were not controversial. It will be controversial to suggest that Lancaster should be the centre for a regional assembly; no doubt my hon. Friend has started the debate. I have heard similar arguments for Durham in the north-east, but I shall not enter into that argument. My hon. Friend's question shows that many people in the regions do wish to be considered for an elected regional assembly, and the Bill will give them that opportunity.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the views of many in the south-east flow contrary to those expressed by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the "Keep it local" campaign in West Sussex, which commands all-party support? The desire in the area is to keep county council government, which is closest to the people, and not to have a regional assembly.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Polls indicate that in the south-east support for an elected regional assembly is about 49 per cent., which is one of the lowest recorded. We are giving people the chance to make the choice. If the south-east does not want an elected assembly, it will not apply for a referendum. If the referendum does not take place, the south-east can continue with the existing county council structure. It has the choice.
    Mr. David Clelland: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work that he has done on the issue. Is he aware that those of us who will be working hard for a yes vote in the referendum may be at some disadvantage in promoting an assembly whose powers have not yet been established? Will he undertake to publish a draft Bill on the constitution and powers of a regional assembly well in advance of a referendum, so that we can have a more informed debate, with a successful outcome?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that our White Paper spelled out exactly what

    629
    the functions and powers will be. By next week we will have had an opportunity to debate the referendum Bill, so that the debate can begin.
    David Davis: If we held a general election in the same way as the referendums are to be held—on different dates in different parts of the country to suit the Government's judgment on the likelihood of victory for their point of view—nobody in his right mind would consider that fair or democratic. Why will the Government not hold all the referendums on one day?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a matter for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Listen to the arguments. It is for me to make a decision about whether there is sufficient interest to hold a referendum in an area. Such decisions could be taken at different times. We shall start the consultation at the same time in all areas, but we may get different views at different times. Decisions as to when we hold referendums will depend on that judgment.
    David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister gave the game away when he tried to sidestep the question by saying that there would be different views at different times. He must realise that his answer makes him, and the Government, sound weak and muddled. I shall ask him again: if he really believes in regional government, why does he not have the courage of his convictions and put the question to the whole of England at the same time?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Having a regional question means that the matter will be decided in each region. If a region does not want to have a referendum—in the exchange on the previous question, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made it clear that people in the south-east did not want a vote on the matter—that is a decision for the people who live there. That is fine: they do not have to ask for a referendum. It is a question of choice, something Opposition Members never worry about. The right hon. Gentleman asked us yesterday to trust the electorate. If we are to do that, we must leave the choice and the request to them. I shall listen to people's requests.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Christopher Chope.
    Hon Members: Where is he?
    Mr. Christopher Chope: What discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry on regional assemblies. [81543]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I met the director general of the CBI shortly before the publication of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" in May this year. CBI representatives have also met Ministers and officials at regional events since then. The CBI responded to the White Paper in September.
    Mr. Chope rose—
    Hon. Members: There he is.
    Mr. Chope: I am not used to the speed at which questions are now answered by the Government,
    630
    Mr. Speaker. That was an excellent answer, but will the Deputy Prime Minister accept that British industry considers regional assemblies to be irrelevant to the needs of the economy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that this afternoon is the only time when the hon. Gentleman has been asleep. He must have been asleep for months, during which time the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals. The CBI has been worried about bureaucracy, and its criticism has centred on that. It would prefer not to have bureaucracy in the regions, but it was the previous Administration who established the present bureaucratic regional government structure. We aim to return accountability to the bureaucracy in the regions.
    Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): Is it not a fact that the CBI recognises that the key decisions affecting strategic matters such as transport and communications, which are so crucial for industrial investment in local areas, will, under the Government's proposals, be taken at regional level, and be accountable at that level? Is there not a lot to be gained for business in that? If the CBI examines the proposals in more detail, is not it more likely to support what the Government are trying to achieve?
    The Deputy Prime Minister>: Leaders of the CBI, the regions and various business groups have made it clear in a number of quotations—I shall not use any of them today—that they want more decisions to be made in the regions, and that they support the policy.
    Mr. Edward Davey: When the Deputy Prime Minister listens to the voice of business, will he pay special attention to the voice of business in the region in question? In particular, will he pay attention to business organisations that have polled their members on this matter? The British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Chartered Accountants have done so, and found that their members are in favour of the proposals.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Those organisations have indeed made it clear that they are in favour of the proposals. I certainly want to listen to the regional voices; that is a matter of supreme consideration. Those voices will play an important part in the consultations that will be held. We are also taking account of the assemblies in the regions. In many cases—especially in the south-east—they are Tory councils.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Might I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that a preliminary question should be put on a county-bycounty basis before a referendum is held? That question would ask whether the people of a particular county wanted to be in a designated region, or remain outside it. The people of Lincolnshire do not want to form part of an east midlands region.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would be more impressed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question if the previous Administration had given

    631
    people a referendum on abolishing their counties before doing so. That is exactly what the Tories did to the Greater London council, too. They did not ask the people of London whether they wanted it to be abolished—they simply abolished it. We are prepared to consider the voice of the regions. That will include the county structures in the consideration, and the boundary commission will judge which local authority structures shall prevail within the regional area.

    Planning System
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on the role of parish and town councils in his planned revisions to the planning system. [81544]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): Parish and town councils will continue to have an important role under our proposals for reform of the planning system. Where proposals or policies in a draft local development framework document affect a parish or town, we expect the council to be consulted and its views to be taken into account. Similarly, we shall continue to require local planning authorities to notify town and parish councils of any relevant planning application if requested to do so.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the type of skills and training that might be needed for parish and town councils to give planning work full consideration might demand extra resources? Will the proposals allow for such training and additional resources to be made available to those authorities?
    Mr. McNulty: We are aware that the skills base in the planning profession has been denuded over successive years. We are keen to ensure that parish and town councils remain engaged in local planning and UDP—unitary development plan—processes. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced, for the first year, £50 million for the planning development grant, aimed principally at local planning authorities. Clearly, however, if the skills increase in the local planning authorities, their interface and interaction with the parish and town councils will be all the more efficient, and that is what we want to encourage.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that parish councils are a vital part of democracy in counties such as Norfolk, and that parish councillors do tireless work on behalf of the community? Why, then, are the Government undermining them with the new draconian code of conduct and audit requirements? Why do they not simply leave the parish councillors to get on with the job they do so well?
    Mr. McNulty: In terms of the planning process, which is the subject of the question, that is precisely what we are doing.
    David Taylor: As a sitting parish councillor, I have often been in receipt of
    632
    rather odd decisions from the district level. Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of third-party appeals against permissions in certain circumstances?
    Mr. McNulty: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait for the presentation of the planning and compulsory purchase Bill, which was outlined in the Queen's Speech. I suggest that he also read carefully the substantial responses that we received to the planning Green Paper consultations on third-party planning rights.

    Equality Commission
    Julie Morgan: What representations he has received about the Government's proposal to establish a single equality commission. [81545]
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I have received many representations on the priorities and structure of equality institutions in Great Britain since I announced on 15 May the start of the project looking at these issues. On 23 October I published a consultation paper, and I am planning to make a series of visits beginning next week to hear views at first hand about these matters.
    Julie Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Welsh Assembly has a statutory duty to promote equal opportunities as part of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Does she agree that a similar duty for the public sector would be a useful tool for any new commission?
    Mrs. Roche: We are certainly looking at the experience of the various remote duties that we have introduced in recent years—it makes sense to learn from them before going further. I am looking forward to the visit that I hope to make to Swansea in January.
    Peter Bottomley: The politically correct aim should be to achieve fairness, and the system needs to be effective. Will the Minister assure the House that she will learn the lessons of Northern Ireland, as some of us think that having a single body there was a bit premature?
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about such matters; I know that he has a longstanding interest in them. I have visited the commission in Northern Ireland where experience has been positive. I have also spoken to people with many different views, and we shall certainly learn the lessons.
    Linda Perham: Will the Minister recognise the positive contribution made by—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy; it is unfair to hon. Members.
    Linda Perham: Will the Minister recognise the positive contribution made by the "Equal rights on age"

    633
    group towards the single equality commission that she is trying to set up, and the group's campaigning work against age discrimination?
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to the age advisory forum, which I chair and which is made up of members from the voluntary sector, trade unions and employers. It has made a real contribution to the process.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on his policy on assessing local readiness for referendums on regional elected assemblies. [81546]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) only moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for his right hon. Friend's answer. Does the Minister think that my constituents have more in common with Christchurch and Corfe Castle, or with Milton Keynes and Margate? If he is not sure, would he like to come to my constituency and find out?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a view on that, but ultimately the matter is for his constituents, and if they choose to express their view in a referendum they will be able to do so.
    Matthew Green: Does the Minister accept that if we are looking to win referendums, we need to hold them in areas where they are most likely to be won? Why does he accept the boundaries put in place by the Conservatives, instead of setting up a review on which areas want to be in which regions?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, boundary issues can be extremely time consuming, and can divert attention from priorities. Our view is that it is better to work with the existing building blocks of existing regions to ensure that progress can be made quickly—which is, I understand, his party's policy.

    Telecommunications Masts
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the siting of mobile phone masts. [81547]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): Planning controls on telecommunications development are aimed at facilitating the provision of a modern telecommunications network while protecting the environment.
    A code of practice encouraging greater consultation between mobile phone operators and local authorities was published on 11 November. The code is a guide to
    634
    the siting of mobile phone masts produced jointly by representatives of central and local government and the mobile phone industry.
    Mr. Chapman: Although the code of best practice is certainly a step in the right direction, does my hon. Friend agree that, rightly or otherwise, there is still considerable public misgiving about the health risks associated with the siting of masts? Does he agree that those perceptions need to be addressed, however misguided they may or may not be, and that operators and communities need to consult more, and more openly, about the siting of masts in future?
    Mr. McNulty: I am certainly aware of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. He knows that, among other changes, we have strengthened public consultation requirements on proposals for masts 15 m or less high, so that they are the same as those for planning applications. We have also increased the time for an authority to deal with prior-approval applications to 56 days, increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation, and underlined the fact that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college. We have no immediate plans to amend the planning arrangements further, but we keep things constantly under review.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of maximising the effectiveness of mobile phone use, and simultaneously, of minimising the inconvenience of mast locations, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what assessment he has made of the potential effectiveness of cross-network roaming?
    Mr. McNulty: The short answer is no, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman—but I shall be more than happy to write to him. I simply repeat that we have no plans to go beyond the amendments that we have already made to the regulation framework, although the matter is kept constantly under review. We have taken full cognisance of the Stewart report, but as for cross-network roaming, we will have a cup of tea later.

    Fire Dispute
    Adam Price: What discussions he had with local authorities in England and Wales prior to the firefighters' strike as regards local emergency contingency plans. [81548]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Local Government Association has been closely involved in detailed contingency planning. Guidance has been issued to local authorities in England and Wales regarding the firefighters' strike.
    Adam Price: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he confirm whether the Government have an emergency contingency plan to meet any pay agreement? Will he

    635
    comment on reports that any pay deal will be self-financing, which will, of course, involve a cut in level and quality of service to meet any pay demand?
    Mr. Leslie: The whole House will accept the fact that we all want the talks that might be under way between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers to succeed. We hope that those talks will be constructive and will lead to the strikes being called off.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Helen Jackson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today, and I will be travelling to Prague this afternoon to attend the NATO summit.
    Helen Jackson: Now that the weapons inspectors are back in Iraq with a new United Nations Security Council resolution, when my right hon. Friend goes to Prague this afternoon will he ensure that NATO not only discusses its readiness for a negative report back from Mr. Blix, but holds out the possibility of a positive resolution of this frightful crisis that could lead to a peaceful outcome for the whole middle east region?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend. If at all possible, we should have a peaceful resolution of this issue, but the way to get that is for Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with the inspectors, who are back in Iraq under UN mandate. That cooperation has not just got to be about access to sites and presidential palaces; it has also got to mean a full and honest declaration on his part of the weapons of mass destruction that he has. If he co-operates fully with the inspection team, mandated by the UN, there will be a peaceful resolution of this dispute, but, in the end, that decision is for him. I hope that he chooses peace rather than conflict.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The whole House will agree that our country must be fully prepared for the awful possibility of a terrorist attack, but while the National Audit Office has found some improvement in the readiness of the national health service to respond to such an event, does the Prime Minister share my concern and that of others that more than a third of ambulance trusts are now not well prepared for chemical, biological or radioactive incidents?
    The Prime Minister: We should make it very clear that what Sir John Bourn from the NAO actually said was that there had been immense improvements in the planning and procedures since 11 September to make sure that our emergency services can cope. Of course we
    636
    carry on working on all the issues that were raised in his report, although I stress to the House—I hope that the House and the country understand this—that there will always be a limit to how far we are able to prepare against a terrorist attack, but in so far as we possibly can, we are prepared.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But Sir John also reported that there are quite significant areas of responsibility where things have got worse. The NAO found that between February and October of this year, the readiness of ambulance trusts had worsened, as had the readiness of major hospitals to deal with radioactive incidents. Why does the Prime Minister think that that has happened?
    The Prime Minister: What Sir John actually said—I quote him specifically—was:
    "Since the events of September 11th, the NHS has made a concerted effort to improve its planning and"
    procedures
    "for dealing with major incidents and in many respects has succeeded".
    It is true that he goes on to say that there are areas where it has got to do more. Those are precisely the areas that we are working on, but it is irresponsible and wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the NHS has not made every effort to do what it can.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The report said, quite categorically, that readiness in certain areas had actually got worse since the NAO first reported on them, but when it comes to terrorism, surely it is not just the NHS that needs proper co-ordination. In the past week, a press release on terrorism has been issued by the Home Office and then retracted; we have heard reports from security sources of planned attacks on the tube that have since had to be denied. Given the need to avoid confusion, on which we all agree, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the proposal of the Select Committee on Defence, supported by ourselves, for a dedicated Cabinet Minister with responsibility for those matters?
    The Prime Minister: First, the reports about the potential for an attack on the underground were not from the security services; they were reports in newspapers. I hope that, throughout the subsequent period, we keep in mind that distinction. Secondly, I do not believe that we need a dedicated Cabinet Minister in charge of such matters. A perfectly good operation exists: the Home Secretary chairs the relevant Cabinet Committees, and a system is in place headed by Sir David Omand, who is in charge of security and intelligence co-ordination. That works extremely well, and our security services and our police do a superb job of protecting this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, in these days, when virtually every major country around the world is receiving intelligence about potential threats, it is extremely important not only to make every preparation but to make sure that we do not unnecessarily alarm people.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: This is an issue of co-ordination, and the Defence Committee said about the Home Secretary:
    "We are not convinced that the Home Secretary, given his many other responsibilities, is best placed to deliver it".
    The Committee Chairman also said that he felt that there was a "lack of grip" overall. The Prime Minister should be aware that that lack of grip is particularly worrying as we head towards the possibility of an eight-day fire strike. Will he therefore confirm that, as matters stand, during the strike, it will be left to individual firefighters to decide who should respond to any terrorist emergency? Does he agree that that is utterly unacceptable in the current circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I reject entirely the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is not a proper grip on security and intelligence co-ordination. As I said a moment or two ago, our security services do an excellent job on behalf of this country. Incidentally, this country, as we all know, has long experience of dealing with terrorism. I do not believe that our system offers a useful analogy with the system in the United States, which he suggests that we adopt. That is a completely different, federal system, with far-flung states that have their own bureaucracies and administrations. That is a completely different situation from our own. I believe that our security services and the Home Secretary have done absolutely everything that they can. In respect of the firefighters' strike, of course, it must be for us to determine whether there is a major emergency.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Oh yes. If the Prime Minister, as he has said, leaves that to the Government to determine, and there is no agreement with the firefighters, will he make it absolutely clear today that he will use the emergency powers at his disposal to ensure public safety in the event of a terrorist attack occurring during the strike?
    The Prime Minister: As we have said on many occasions, we will use whatever powers we need. We have to make sure that the public are properly protected. We have had a 48-hour strike already, however, and during that strike, as a result of the preparations that were made, the military did a superb job of protecting the people of this country. In the event of a major emergency, of course, there is a procedure in place, which will be maintained whether or not there is a firefighters' strike.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister has not answered the question. People want to know why the Government will now leave it to the firefighters to decide whether there is an emergency. The public want to know whether their safety will be put first. The problem is that, throughout this period, we have had different answers from different Ministers on whether more money is available for the strikers, and on the number of fire engines available for training. Only last week, Lord Falconer said that troops would cross the picket lines. Today, that was completely denied by the Chief of the
    638
    Defence Staff, who said that they will not cross picket lines. Does not the Prime Minister understand that public safety must be guaranteed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in shouting at the Leader of the Opposition. I ask hon. Members to show courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Government must end the confusion and make sure that, if they say that they will stick to a course, they stick to it and not argue about it in public.
    The Prime Minister: I think there is rather more confusion in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman than anywhere else. First, let me again make it clear, as the Government have said throughout, that, outside the existing formula, there can be greater pay for firefighters only if it is paid for by the modernisation proposals that are set out in the Bain review. That is very clear. Secondly, we take all the preparations necessary under the advice of the military and, incidentally, they do not involve just the green goddesses, but the 400 specialist teams, the rescue equipment, breathing apparatus, fire-cutting equipment and so on. They will remain in place.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will carry on doing absolutely everything that is necessary to make sure that the public are protected while the dispute, which we believe to be unreasonable and wrong, continues. There is nothing that will get in the way of that to do with politics, ideology or anything else. However, I have to say to him that I do not believe that it helps anybody in these circumstances if the Opposition, rather than trying to help the situation, aggravate it by an opportunism that is as pathetic as it is transparent.
    Mr. Chris Pond: A couple of weeks ago, I was able to deliver a couple of hundred letters to No. 10 Downing street about the proposal to build an airport twice the size of Heathrow on marshland at Cliffe next to my constituency. I have here another 800 letters for my right hon. Friend and they express the concern and anxiety of people in that area about the impact on their quality of life and about the affect that the proposal would have on national prosperity and through the impact on—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise on behalf of his constituents an issue that I know will cause a lot of concern to them. He will know that we have in place a procedure whereby we have to put out all the various options for consultation. We will then take into account all the responses to that, including not just the 200 letters that he delivered to us but what I can see are the more than 200 that he has with him. Obviously, these are extremely difficult issues. He and his constituents will understand that it is right that we put forward all the options, but it is at a later time that we decide which option we prefer.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Earlier today the Defence Secretary confirmed that the United States Administration had now made a

    639
    formal request to the Government for the deployment of British forces if military action against Iraq became inevitable. At the same time at the same press briefing, the Chief of the Defence Staff expressed his considerable concerns about what he described in this context as the present military effectiveness of British armed forces in this respect. How much will the Prime Minister weigh that judgment in mind?
    The Prime Minister: The Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that. What he pointed out perfectly obviously is that, if one has 19,000 troops engaged in activities to do with the fire dispute, they cannot be engaged in other activities. However, he said that we would have the full operational capability for any requirement that might be made of us. It is true that we have received a request from the United States—I believe that it has made the same request to 60 different countries—but it has always been the position of the UK Government that, if there were to be a breach of the United Nations resolution and we were to enter into military conflict in circumstances that we thought were justified, we would be part of any coalition to make sure that the will of the UN was upheld. The position has not changed on that.
    Mr. Kennedy: On that point, and given that one assumes that the Chief of the Defence Staff chooses his words with care, is the Prime Minister entirely satisfied that, if he has to take that decision about the deployment of British troops, they are up to an adequate level of military preparedness?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Since the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chief of the Defence Staff chose his words carefully, I should perhaps quote those words. He said:
    "We will maintain a capability to respond to any future requirements falling on the Armed Forces."
    That is what he said. It seems to be very plain, and I agree with it.
    Alan Simpson: May I thank the Prime Minister for not responding to the taunts of the Leader of the Opposition, who seems more interested in causing a fire than in putting one out?
    Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the modernisation proposals put forward today by the Fire Brigades Union? They are based on the same proposals that we intended to include in a White Paper on modernisation and are designed to guarantee £3 billion of internal savings in the running of the fire service. Will he also join me in urging the employers to consider those proposals? They should realise that the FBU has thrown them a lifeline that will allow them to produce a sensible pay settlement and avoid an entirely unwelcome strike, which they may otherwise take us into. Will he urge them to accept those proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can go along with 100 per cent. of my hon. Friend's comments. However, we consider carefully any proposals made by the Fire Brigades Union, but they have to be seen in the context of the Bain report. Although much has been written about the report, I recommend that people read it because they will see that he recommends various
    640
    modernisation proposals. For example, he suggests ending the ban on mixed crewing, which prevents part-time and full-time firefighters crewing the same appliances; ensuring that we use joint control rooms with other emergency services; implementing measures to tackle sickness and ill health in the fire service—70 per cent. of its members retire early on ill health grounds—and ensuring that firefighters are allowed to train as paramedics and carry resuscitation equipment.
    If people study the report, they will see that those are not wildly unreasonable suggestions. Of course we will consider whatever the Fire Brigades Union does, but I hope that it, too, looks properly at the Bain proposals. It should realise that teachers, police, doctors, nurses and others also do a valuable job of work in our community and that we cannot countenance a pay claim of the size that the union suggests.

    Northern Ireland
    Lady Hermon: What plans he has to visit Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so. I visited Northern Ireland just recently, as the hon. Lady knows.
    Lady Hermon: I thank the Prime Minister for that response. I also thank him for his frequent visits to Northern Ireland and still hope that he will come to North Down, the centre of the universe.
    Given the Government's renewed commitment, which I welcome, to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, will the Prime Minister confirm that the principle of equality of opportunity, which is guaranteed and enshrined in the agreement, will be extended to police recruits and police support staff, instead of recruiting by religious discrimination? Surely, as the Prime Minister himself said in Belfast recently—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.The hon. Lady is doing well.
    The Prime Minister: We hope that in terms of the regulars, the proportion of officers in the police service will be 40 per cent. Catholic over the next 10 years, and we are recruiting on a 50: 50 basis. In relation to support staff, I am advised that we have had four competitions on a 50: 50 basis, but it is still too early to see the results of that.[Interruption.] Well, may I say to Opposition Members that the whole purpose of recruiting on a 50: 50 basis is to end the discrimination? We recognise that there are still certain difficulties with recruiting, but we want to maintain the position of getting to a balanced police service, which is why it is important to keep the 50: 50 recruitment.
    I thank the hon. Lady for her kind invitation to North Down. I do not always receive invitations to visit every constituency in Northern Ireland, so that is particularly welcome.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Prime Minister intend to attend party talks in Northern Ireland, in partnership with the Irish Government and in association with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to expedite the resolution of our political

    641
    vacuum and, in particular, to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is fulfilled in its totality? We must ensure that what is taking place now is a review of the agreement rather than a renegotiation of it.
    The Prime Minister: As I always point out to anyone who asks for a renegotiation of the agreement, we would ultimately end up negotiating with the same parties over the same issues. I want the Good Friday agreement to be implemented. I think the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland also want that. Their worry at the moment is whether they can be sure that it will be implemented: will all parties commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and will a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland stand the test of time?
    I hope my hon. Friend forgives me if I do not give a commitment about any particular meeting, but of course we will remain fully engaged and committed. I believe that the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—provides the only way forward for people in Northern Ireland. One possible hope for the future is that this recent political crisis has not intensified the security crisis. Most people understand that in the end they will have to come back and debate these issues and find a way through, so that all aspects of the Good Friday agreement are completed for the future of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Engagements
    Angus Robertson: Large parts of Moray were devastated over the weekend by the third flood in five years, causing serious damage in Elgin, Rothes and Forres. This is a double whammy for the constituency as coastal communities brace themselves for massive threatened cuts in the fishing industry which, like the floods, will cause untold misery and job losses. Will the Prime Minister outline what the Westminster Government will do to assist, how long that will take and whether he will visit Moray as a matter of urgency to see the devastation at first hand?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I pay tribute to everyone who helped to evacuate people from their homes and to contain the flood waters; they did a wonderful job.
    There are three things that I would say to the hon. Gentleman. First, Moray council will apply to the Scottish Executive for assistance under the Bellwin scheme, and obviously that is a devolved matter. Secondly, people who have no other safety net can apply to the Department for Work and Pensions for immediate emergency assistance through the social fund. Thirdly, Her Majesty's Customs will work with businesses on VAT payments and other problems that they may have to ease their difficulties in a time of great crisis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make other suggestions to me, I will be happy to hear them and to pass them on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Executive.
    Kali Mountford: The Queen's Speech, rightly, takes very seriously the question of tackling crime. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that
    642
    domestic violence and crimes associated with it remain a high priority for the Government? Will he assure us that when victims report crime, the police, courts, local authorities, and housing, social services and health departments will give them the response that they need and deserve and they will get a chance to rebuild their lives?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that domestic violence issues remain at the top of the criminal justice agenda. We shall shortly publish a consultation paper on domestic violence, which is a huge issue in this country. It is reported today more than ever before. Domestic violence underlines the importance of supporting the Government's proposals for criminal justice reform because if we make changes to the way in which evidence is given and to the way in which previous convictions are put before the court, that will assist us greatly in bringing to justice those who are responsible for this ghastly crime.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that a redrafted mental health Bill will place a requirement on health and social services to honour advance directives so that patients' wishes, expressed when they are well, are as far as possible carried out when they become ill?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Lady said. We are considering the responses to consultation and we published a draft Bill, and we shall have to return to this subject. The difficulty, I emphasise to the House, is that while, of course, we must pay proper attention to the rights of people who are mentally ill, we must also make sure—this is why there has been such pressure to change the law—that the public are properly protected from people who may be mentally ill and a severe danger to the public even though they have not been convicted of a specific criminal offence.
    Hugh Bayley: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the success of a crime-fighting partnership in York called Operation Ratcatcher, which has been extremely successful in increasing the number of arrests for drug offences and street crimes such as robbery? What additional help will the national policing plan provide for police forces in major towns in rural counties such as York to combat crime and disorder?
    The Prime Minister: Quite apart from the additional police support that will be provided, the key thing is to focus attention on the issues that my hon. Friend talked about—issues to do with drugs and violence on our streets. Once again, we see the importance of the criminal justice reforms, for example, measures on antisocial behaviour and particularly new measures on drugs where we are providing more treatment and making sure that persistent offenders on drugs are not simply bailed back out on the street again. Those proposals will make a significant difference. As I discovered when talking to basic command unit police commanders yesterday, there is broad support for the

    643
    Government's criminal justice proposals, and I very much hope that Members on both sides of the House will give them a fair and good hearing.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If Commissioner Fischler's proposals to cut white fish quotas for next year by 80 per cent. are implemented, it will be the death of many fishing communities, including Shetland in my constituency, where 30 per cent. of the local economy is dependent on the fishing industry. What assurance can the Prime Minister give my constituents that the delegation that he will send to the Fisheries Council next month in Brussels will not allow that to happen?
    The Prime Minister: We will argue for the maximum protection of the fishing industry consistent with what is a real and serious problem. I know that a delegation from Scottish fisheries is seeing the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at the Scotland Office today. We all know that the problem of fishing stocks cannot be ignored or wished away. Two things must happen. First, we will work with the UK fishing industry—we have already provided some £130 million in the past few years—to change the industry and restructure it as necessary.
    Secondly, we will do our level best to protect the stocks necessary for the fishermen to earn a living, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is only honest to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with fishing stocks, and that we have to cope with it through a combination of getting the best deal out of Europe to allow fishermen to carry on fishing that is consistent with protecting our fishing stocks and providing Government support, advice and assistance in whatever restructuring is necessary. As I said at Prime Minister's questions a couple of weeks ago, it is simply not possible to pretend that there will be no change given the seriousness of the situation.
    Tony Wright: We now have universities that offer degree courses in aromatherapy, rugby studies and golf course management, for which I understand the entry requirement is a handicap of no more than 4.4, but at the same time the country is in desperate need of skilled trades people. Does that not suggest that we need a proper review of what we want our higher education system to be and the way in which we will pay for it?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is for precisely that reason that we have a review under way. I am glad that he recognises that the status quo is not an option. What we pay our university lecturers and the backlog of repairs and work necessary
    644
    to maintain the university infrastructure means that the status quo is not an option. We have got to find the right way through, and we will.
    Michael Fabricant: The Prime Minister rather uncharacteristically brushed aside the question from his right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats, so could I ask him as Prime Minister and Head of Government what specific request has been made for what troops by President Bush, if we have to invade Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the person the hon. Gentleman gently called my right hon. Friend, we have received the same general request as everyone else. We have not received a specific request in relation to specific troop requirements. As the hon. Gentelman knows, however, the Government's position is that if there is a breach by Saddam Hussein and military action follows, he must be disarmed of those weapons of mass destruction. We are simply not at the stage yet of specific requests for specific numbers of troops to be used in a specific way—that will come at a later time.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: When my right hon. Friend exercises his considerable powers of appointment, which many believe are quasi-mediaeval both in their extent and the manner in which he is required to exercise them, what emphasis does he give or what weight does he attach to a demonstrated capacity for displaying independence of mind?
    The Prime Minister: I have precisely the same attachment to independence of mind as any Prime Minister before me. I have not yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that to my hon. Friend, but he never knows.
    Norman Lamb: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's flagship private finance initiative hospital in Norwich is heading for a £3 million deficit this year, and that the hospital is so overcrowded that more than 10 operations a week have to be cancelled? What are the Government doing to address the beds shortfall in Norfolk?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the figures which the hon. Gentleman quotes are correct.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Yes, they are.
    The Prime Minister: There we are—I have some objective advice from the Conservative Back Benches. I have visited the Norwich PFI hospital myself, and I can tell the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) that the facilities there are superb, the staff do an excellent job, and we have increased the funding for that hospital and for the health authority way beyond anything that the Liberal Democrats ever asked of us.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In March this year I tabled a written question to the Department for Work and Pensions asking for information on the position of disabled people in hospital. The written answer stated that the information was not available. As you know, I then used my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 to obtain internal Department for Work and Pensions paperwork, which demonstrated that the Department did have the information—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? There is a point of order in progress.
Mr. Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, subsequent to that, when the information became known to the press I received an apology from the Department, but not before. Were that an administrative oversight, I would let the matter rest, but I believe that there was a deliberate decision by the Department to withhold information from Parliament and thereby to mislead Parliament. I should be most grateful for your guidance.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that the Minister has apologised to him, as well as apologising through me to the House. As I have frequently made clear to the House, and as is also stated in the ministerial code, Ministers are expected to be as open as possible with the House. It appears that on this occasion the standards expected of Ministers and Departments have not been met. I look to the Department to review its handling of parliamentary questions to ensure that that does not happen again. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) may also wish to draw the matter to the attention of the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which reviews aspects of ministerial answers to parliamentary questions.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, on a separate but related matter, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that on the Order Paper today there were eight of those new-fangled written ministerial statements. I have just checked in the Library, and you will no doubt be as distressed as I am to learn that as at
646
2.30 pm, only five of those previously notified statements were in the Library and available to Members. Is there anything that you can do to protect the House against such patent abuse, whereby Ministers appear to know the day before—in other words, in time to put it on the Order Paper—that they have a ministerial statement to make, yet fail to make it available to the House even as late as 2.30 pm? Surely that is not what was intended by the new device, and something should be done about it, and quickly.
Mr. Speaker: On the day of Prime Minister's questions, other things cause me distress, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that those statements have only to be printed in Hansard That is the rule. Perhaps he should check with the Leader of the House and with the Clerk of the House.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, you made an important and dignified statement about the conduct of questions and answers in this House of Commons. It is quite plain from this afternoon's performance that no copy of that statement was given to the Prime Minister. Would you be good enough to assure the House that you will ensure that the Prime Minister sees a copy of that statement and confines his answers to the essentials? Secondly, will you do what you can to discourage some of our less confident colleagues who feel it essential to use props during questions?
Mr. Speaker: The facts speak for themselves—we reached Question 9 on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten."] My apologies; we got to Question 10, although we got to Question 9 by 3.30. I think that Ministers are taking the hint since I made my statement. If they do not, they will be cut short.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to alter the terms of questions on the Order Paper? Yesterday, I received a holding reply from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to a question that I had asked her about the number of car parking spaces available to employees of her Department. When I received that reply, the following words were added to my question: "Round Robin—Guidance Expected". Is it in order for the Government to change the terms of questions?
Mr. Speaker: Those matters have absolutely nothing to do with me.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    SIXTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 November],
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Foulkes.]
    Question again proposed.

    Home Affairs
    Mr. Speaker: Before we start the debate, I should inform the House that I have selected for debate the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order No. 33 provides that on the last day of the debate on the motion for an Address to Her Majesty, the House may also vote on a second amendment selected by the Speaker. I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party for that purpose. The vote on that amendment will take place at the end of the debate, after the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been disposed of.
    3.38 pm
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
    `Welcome measures in the Gracious Speech to improve criminal justice, despite the failure of the Government's previous 12 such Acts to deliver improvement; further welcome measures to reform the excessively bureaucratic legislation previously introduced to curb anti-social behaviour, and other measures, proposed by Her Majesty's Official Opposition, to protect the public from sex offenders; but deplore proposals within the European Arrest Warrant that could lead to the arrest of people in Britain for actions which are not crimes in Britain, or to the deportation of British people for trial in judicial systems where there is no presumption of innocence; will study with concern any proposals for the restriction of the "double jeopardy" rule, or the introduction of past convictions into court proceedings; and regret the failure of the Government to address the central issues of crime today, such as the lack of true neighbourhood policing, the falling rates of detection and the lack of a coherent strategy to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime.'.
    As I have said on previous occasions both in the House and outside, the Home Secretary bears a heavy responsibility. The integrity and energy with which he discharges that responsibility continue to evoke admiration in all parts of the House. As we enter what may be dangerous weeks and months due to the operations of unseen and malign forces, he and the officials and agencies that work with him will have the unswerving support of the Opposition in their efforts to protect the British public from those threats. I hope that we may soon be given a full statement on the nation's preparedness.
    I am hopeful about the Government's proposals on child protection and sexual offences. I believe that there is much common ground, as we said yesterday, and I
    648
    hope that we shall arrive at a consensus on many of the proposals that we have made to tighten the law protecting children. I feel confident also that the House as a whole will agree on many measures in the criminal justice Bill. It is a matter of consensus that we require new codes on criminal offences, sentencing and court procedures, and that we need a new working relationship between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts.
    It is a matter of consensus that we need more thorough protection and support for victims and witnesses. We need to explore means of preventing the ludicrous position whereby people are often more frightened to be witnesses or victims in court than to be accused in court. Witness intimidation should attract the stiffest penalties, and using violence to pervert the cause of justice should be viewed as striking at the heart of our legal system's integrity.
    However, there is a danger that the Government will present measures that fail to tackle the most genuine problems, such as lack of neighbourhood policing and the conveyor belt to crime that leads our young people to hard drugs and persistent offending. There is a danger that the Government will conceal that failing by introducing measures of questionable practical utility in the fight against crime that nevertheless score headlines because of their illiberalism or lack of sufficient attention to fundamental liberties.
    We shall carefully consider the Government's proposals on trial by jury, double jeopardy and the disclosure of previous convictions during criminal trials. We fully acknowledge the truth behind Lord Justice Auld's statement that criminal justice is not and should not become a game. Like the Home Secretary, we want the guilty to be convicted, but we remain inalienably attached to the principle of the presumption of innocence. That also applies to the principle that the prosecution should continue to have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
    We will scrutinise with energy and in detail the provisions of the criminal justice measure that deal with those matters. We shall seek agreement and constructive solutions, but we will use every parliamentary means at our disposal to prevent the enactment of measures that contravene or threaten the fundamental principles that I described.
    David Winnick: I appreciate from studying the Conservative amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has not rejected the change to double jeopardy out of hand, but would not such a change require compelling evidence to persuade the Court of Appeal? It could not simply be decided to prosecute again a person who had been acquitted of a major offence for that same offence. The Court of Appeal will have to be persuaded that compelling evidence exists. In practice, it is unlikely that there would be more than half a dozen cases in four or five years.
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we spotted that. However, how will the jury engaged in the retrial be prevented from presuming guilt if its members discover that the Court of Appeal has already ruled that compelling evidence exists to

    649
    suggest guilt? The Government will have to answer that question in drafting the Bill, and we shall investigate the matter.
    David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we shall have plenty of time to deal with the matter in detail when we examine the Bill.
    We shall not acquiesce in any measures in a European arrest warrant that lead to the arrest of people in this country for actions that are not crimes in this country. We shall vigorously oppose a European arrest warrant that compromises the principle of the presumption of innocence. Let us be clear about what such a warrant means. If a British citizen publishes in Spain a statement that is construed by the Spanish courts to constitute xenophobia, he could be tried in absentia. Without having broken a law in this country, he could be removed to prove his innocence before a Spanish court that presumes him guilty. We cannot accept that.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I am sorry to intervene at this stage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but we must be accurate about the European arrest warrant. The proposals in that element of the Bill would ensure that no country could try someone in absentia on the ground that they are presumed guilty. Under the European convention on human rights, which the right hon. Gentleman has often attacked, there must be a presumption of innocence. The Bill will make it clear that no country will have the right to extradite under the European arrest warrant without agreeing to the presumption of innocence.
    Mr. Letwin: I fear that, having examined the detail of the measure so far, I am not convinced that that is the effect of the drafting. If we become so convinced, that will be a great help. However, I have a dark foreboding that we are heading towards a major parliamentary battle about the European arrest warrant.
    I fear that we may also have a battle about the international co-operation Bill. We thought that it would be an uncontroversial measure, and we warmly support the strengthening of international co-operation in the war against terrorism. Without adequate safeguards, however, we cannot countenance police officers from another jurisdiction mounting a surveillance operation in this country without the permission of a British judge.
    About 10 days ago, the Prime Minister wrote a most illuminating article in The Observer. In it, he rightly said:
    "Crime and social breakdown affect everyone, but it is the poorest and most disadvantaged whose quality of life suffers most."
    He went on to say that
    "this autumn we will focus on tackling these problems. We are pursuing radical reform of the Criminal Justice System, tackling anti-social behaviour and restoring social cohesion to fragmented communities."
    I have recently been reading another remarkably similar speech, in which the speaker also referred to
    "the fracturing of social cohesion".
    650
    A press release from the same source on the same date called for
    "a new national strategy for crime prevention",
    and the same speaker went on to echo the Prime Minister's recent article in The Observer by pointing out that
    "it is the weak and the vulnerable who suffer most from crime".
    [Interruption.] That second speaker was not, as has just been suggested, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo); nor was it the Home Secretary. It was none other than our current Prime Minister, when he held my post of shadow Home Secretary in 1993.
    I wonder whether I am alone in finding this process a trifle surreal. It is almost as though someone else had been governing the country for the past five years. It is almost as though each year sees a new relaunch of the same ambition, a new start to history, and as though time past disappears in a constantly reinvented present. There is a reason why listening to the Prime Minister is such a surreal experience, and a reason for the constant reinvention of the present. Alas, the record of delivery—or, rather, of non-delivery—requires the progressive elimination of history. The single biggest test of a criminal justice system is its ability to catch and convict criminals. This Government have failed that test. When the Prime Minister first called for a new national strategy for crime prevention in 1993, he pointed out that only about one in 25 crimes resulted in a conviction. He regarded that as a damning indictment of the previous Government. Today, after five years of a Labour Government, only one in 40 crimes result in a conviction.
    Let me give another example of the year zero principle in action: the example of asylum. We have recently seen the completion of the passage of an asylum Bill. Its main purpose was to redress the damage done by the extraordinarily inept measures taken by the current Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary. Those ineptitudes are to be addressed by introducing—alas, in a somewhat cack-handed fashion—a panoply of Conservative measures once derided by the present Prime Minister and the present Foreign Secretary: the white lists, the denial of social security payments to those who do not claim asylum at the port of entry, and the accommodation centres. We hope that the new measures will bring about improvements, but, whatever the future may hold, the record of the last five years on asylum has been utterly dismal.

    I fear that the record on reoffending is no better. The Lord Chief Justice recently said:
    "I think that Government policy has to concentrate on avoiding reoffending. The reoffending figures are appalling".
    He was right. When young people are convicted, they re-offend with appalling frequency: 75 per cent. of young offenders are reconvicted within two years of leaving our young offender institutions.
    Mr. Blunkett: Since the introduction of the Youth Justice Board and our new measures, has there not been a 14.6 per cent. drop in juvenile reoffending? Is that not a success by anyone's standards?
    Mr. Letwin: A 14.6 per cent. drop sounds like a lot, until we realise that the figure for reconviction within

    651
    two years is still about 70 per cent. I fear that there is no sign in the Queen's Speech of serious and radical proposals for long-term reform of the sentencing of young offenders. We have made proposals that could lead to the effective rehabilitation of such offenders, but I see no sign of that from the Government.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: I shall in a moment.
    We will not seriously cure reoffending unless we seriously address the dreadful and growing problem of heroin and cocaine addiction among our young people. Conservatives have made proposals to multiply tenfold the availability of intensive residential rehabilitation for young heroin and cocaine addicts and to compel them to take up such treatment and rehabilitation. I see no sign of such measures from the Government. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is in his place, has provided me with a written answer that makes it clear that treatment places means individuals "reported as in contact" with treatment agencies.
    The Government claim to have 118,000 treatment places, or, rather, 118,000 people in contact with treatment agencies. A different picture emerges when one realises that there are, in fact, only some 2,000 to 3,000 intensive residential treatment places in this country. The Government do not even know precisely how many there are. They content themselves instead with determining the number of people in contact, much as they content themselves with determining the number of waiting patients who are in contact with the national health service. Contact, as Nurse Edith Cavell would have said, is not enough.
    John Mann (Bassetlaw): What evidence base has the right hon. Gentleman used to determine that residential rehabilitation works in treating drug offenders?
    Mr. Letwin: The evidence base is enormous, and the most compelling case is that of the Netherlands, where the average age of heroin and cocaine addicts is increasing by about 360 days each year. In other words, almost no young people are joining the queue. The reasons for that achievement are twofold: the intensive and coercive use of intensive residential rehabilitation and, as a result of those measures and the splitting of the market, the young people of the Netherlands coming to regard heroin and crack as unfashionable.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Letwin: I shall give way in a moment. We are nowhere near achieving that in this country, although I join the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who has done good work in this field, in hoping that we can move to a position under which we try wide experiments with many kinds of rehabilitation that work.
    John Mann: I totally endorse a wide menu of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the
    652
    Netherlands, but a written report presented last week by the Netherlands Government to the European Observatory on Drugs makes no reference to residential rehabilitation. Indeed, the Netherlands approach outlined in that report does not incorporate residential rehabilitation.
    I do not dismiss a small role for residential rehabilitation, but I ask again, precisely what is the evidence base on which the right hon. Gentleman makes his criticism of the Government by suggesting that a large amount of residential rehabilitation is needed? Which Netherlands evidence is he quoting?
    Mr. Letwin: I have, perhaps unlike the hon. Gentleman, visited residential treatment centres in the Netherlands and I have spent time with the Ministry of Public Health and Hygiene. I have talked to drug addicts who are and who have been in treatment and I have repeatedly visited residential treatment centres in other countries, including Sweden and this country. If he seriously denies that residential treatment is required for a considerable proportion of those who are seriously addicted to heroin and cocaine, I fear that he is living in a fool's paradise.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Letwin: I wish to make progress.
    There is a problem, which is how we are meant to take seriously the Prime Minister's promise to be tough on the causes of crime when his Government have failed to take serious and radical steps to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime. How can we take seriously his statement that he will be tough on crime itself when his Government have not been serious about neighbourhood policing? The prospective criminal has a 97.5 per cent. chance of not being caught and convicted, so the need for such neighbourhood policing is acute. If antisocial behaviour is to be tackled seriously, that will not be done by legislation. If low level disorder is to be tackled seriously, that will not be done by legislation. It can be done only through neighbourhood policing. That means police on the streets, police officers proactively sniffing out low level disorder and crime, and police officers who are not hampered by vast reams of bureaucratic requirements and national policing plans. That means police officers being present where and when disorder and crime occur, seeing and being seen, protecting and being seen to protect the public, and recapturing the streets for the honest citizen.
    We are five years into a Labour Government, yet a BBC poll reveals that 28 per cent. of the population cannot remember when they last saw a police officer. Of course, the Government tell us that they have reached record levels of policing. Once again, we are facing the airbrushed theory of history. What the Government mean is that they have very recently, and very slightly, exceeded the number of police officers that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Between 1993 and 1997 there were, on average, 127,000 police officers in England and Wales. In the five years of this Labour Government there have been, on average, about 126,000 officers in England and Wales. We should note that 126,000 is fewer than 127,000, not more. At a time when my own county of Dorset is under threat of losing 270 of its police officers from a force that is

    653
    already ludicrously overstretched, no one in rural areas is going to believe that this Government are serious about neighbourhood policing.
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman some very good news, which I gave to the conference of the Association of Police Authorities in Harrogate this morning. We have decided not to withdraw the rural policing element, so I am sure that he will stand up and say how pleased he is that Dorset's force has been saved from the vagaries of changes in the formula.
    Mr. Letwin: Hallelujah! If the Home Secretary would like to add that he will withdraw and reconsider the national policing plan, and that he will engage in serious neighbourhood policing, we would be genuinely very grateful.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): Before my right hon. Friend gets too carried away by the Home Secretary's announcement, will he reflect on what sort of Government would even contemplate removing rural policing funding?
    Mr. Letwin: I fear that my right hon. Friend underestimates the effectiveness with which he and other Conservative Members may have determined the Home Secretary's position. The Home Secretary wanted to do something that was necessitated by the fact that he could see no other way of fulfilling certain targets that he had set. Now he has discovered that enough of a fuss has been made, he undoes that effort.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) knows, it is not unusual for Governments to try to find the easy way out. Thank goodness that this particular easy way out has been blocked. The fact is that this Government have no real regard for rural areas. They are perfectly willing to lunge for that easy option if they think that they can succeed, but when a fuss is made, thankfully, they retract.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Letwin: I will not for the moment, but I shall later.
    I cannot find it in me wholly to blame the current Home Secretary for all these problems.
    Mr. John Bercow: Oh, go on.
    Mr. Letwin: No, I shall resist that temptation.
    The sad truth is that the current Home Secretary appears unable effectively to deal with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It was once said in Russia—where the main newspaper used to be called "the truth" and the main news agency was called "the news"—that there was no truth in the news and no news in the truth. I fear that, in its presentation of its spending plans, the Home Office has clearly been following that pre-glasnost pattern.
    Internal Home Office papers, revealed by The Guardian, show that Home Office civil servants admit that
    654
    "there is no serious prospect of any money being made available for secure training centres"
    which is one of the objectives. Home Office officials are also quoted as admitting that they have signed "the death knell" for this Government's aim of
    "diversification for the prison service."
    Indeed, the muddle on finances is so great that this toughest of all tough Home Secretaries finds himself making 17 per cent. of offenders subject to early release.
    Wherever we look, we fail to see coherent, focused, long-term programmes to take young people off the conveyor belt of crime. We fail to see coherent, focused, long-term programmes to recapture the streets for the honest citizen through true neighbourhood policing. We fail to see properly organised finances that can support delivery of ambitious programmes. Instead, we see targets, units and initiatives.
    In 2000, the Home Office set a target to increase the number and proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice. So far, the number has reduced, not increased. In the same year, the Home Office set a target to reduce the proportion of people under the age of 25 reporting the use of class A drugs. There has been no reduction, and the use of cocaine has risen. In 2000, the Home Office set a target of reducing robbery in our principal cities: since that date, robbery in our principal cities and elsewhere has increased.
    I referred earlier to the Home Secretary's energy, which is prodigious. We have so far counted 95 initiatives since he came to office. Nor, over five years, have the Government lacked legislative energy. We have had the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Criminal Justice Act 1998, the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, the Terrorism Act 2000, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, the criminal justice Bills of 1999 and 2000, which were withdrawn, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and now, of course, five new Bills.
    The legislative ambitions have been vast and, mostly, laudable, but have they delivered? The Home Secretary prefers to forget that when the present Foreign Secretary was the Home Secretary he said that
    "we need a criminal justice system which deals with defendants quickly, efficiently and fairly."
    He was right. The sad truth is that the present Home Secretary does not think—any more than I do—that his right hon. Friend delivered such a criminal justice system. That is why the Home Secretary said in March that
    "confidence in the criminal justice system is low, and understandably so."
    He is not the only person to have noticed that. The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform recently and rightly told us that people
    "have a deep and profound sense that the criminal justice system is failing."
    The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis recently told us that, after five years of this Government,
    "the public are more than disenchanted with criminal justice—they are fed up with it."

    655
    The chairman of the Victims of Crime Trust told us this year:
    "I have never seen the criminal justice system in such disarray."
    Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I join him in many of his criticisms, but does he accept that they could equally be made of his colleagues in the 18 years before he entered the House? The last Tory Government had 37 Home Office Bills, including 13 in the last year. However, crime doubled under the Tories and violent crime went up every year. In the last five years of the Tories, police numbers fell. On behalf of his party, does the right hon. Gentleman now say that those approaches and parliamentary initiatives were wrong and inadequate? If that is so, does he have a commitment to the funding to deliver what he says he wants and does he have a figure for the number of police that England and Wales need?
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is in the enviable position of being able to attack everyone on all occasions. We are currently discussing the question of whether this Government have delivered, and my argument is that they have not. The fact that we have had problems in the past—and we have—is not to deny that we succeeded in reducing crime significantly at the tail end of the last Government, because of the measures that the then Home Secretary took, which were right and which have been continued by the present Government, to their credit. The Government came to power saying that they would solve all the criminal justice problems that we had left unresolved. They have failed to do so.
    We have had five years of Labour Government. We have had 12 criminal justice Bills. We have had vaulting ambitions, boundless energy and countless initiatives, but we have not had a clear, settled and effective policy. We have not had results or delivery. Let us hope that this year will be the first year in the five-year history of this Government that is truly a year of delivery for the citizens of this country, who face disorder on a scale that concerns all and terrifies some.
    4.4 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We are all agreed that there is a problem. We are all agreed that the official Opposition will help us with that problem. They will help us because they agree that there is a problem. They even agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed and that legislation might be a good idea. They even agree that, in principle, the legislation that the Government are bringing forward might be worth supporting. There is only one proviso: that during the Bill's passage through the House, and especially in the House of Lords, the Opposition will go out of their way to do anything that they can to stop the legislation reaching the statute book. Moreover, they will take every opportunity to undermine the Government's efforts to make the legislation workable. That is my experience over 18 months as Home Secretary.
    656
    I want to make an offer—
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am surprised at what the Home Secretary has said. I remember that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), thanked the Opposition, at the end of the passage through the House of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, for their contribution to proceedings. I recollect that about 60 amendments tabled by the Opposition were accepted by the Government and incorporated into the legislation, which was thereby improved. Is that what the Home Secretary is referring to?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is a decent, honourable and courteous man. After 459 clauses and half his life, he felt the need to thank those who had helped him both in Committee and in the House. I do not think that he was quite as grateful to those in the House of Lords who got in the way of making the Bill more workable.
    I was about to make what I think is a generous offer. Yesterday, the shadow Home Secretary was generous enough to say that, with a fair wind, the Government's proposals would have the Opposition's support—subject, of course, to the detail of the legislation being acceptable. I accepted what he said. I want to make an offer to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They are welcome to suggest changes and improvements as we move through legislation, and to bring forward their own legal advice if they think that the Government's advice is flawed.
    I cannot say fairer than that. We have established, as we did yesterday, that we are in such agreement that only two questions remain: is the Home Office up to drafting something that will work, and will the result have the impact that we want? I want the answer to both questions to be in the affirmative. I think that we can move forward in a spirit of total unanimity. I nearly said anonymity, but unanimity is the better way to describe it.
    I shall turn to one or two points raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in relation to terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition has enjoined the right hon. Gentleman to make the interesting if slightly zany suggestion that we copy the Americans and create a homeland tsar of Cabinet rank. Presumably, we would also have to create a homeland department to back that tsar.
    I want to get this matter out of the way, as it is causing great disquiet. People have read The Sunday Times and the Daily Mirror, or reprints of the relevant articles. There is a genuine worry that needs to be dispelled, so I shall deal first with the structural issue.
    Would it be a good idea to have one person of Cabinet rank whose sole job was to oversee and co-ordinate anti-terrorism measures—and that would include the work of the security service and the anti-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan police—and the civil contingencies now known as resilience? That person would take forward measures to enhance the plans that are already well worked out as a consequence of the threat of terrorism from Ireland. Would it help if one individual had that responsibility? At present, colleagues are

    657
    required to co-ordinate through Cabinet Committees. They take responsibility and are held to account for the matters with which they have to deal for the funding that they oversee; and for the priorities that they have to weigh. Would it be better if that responsibility were put into one person's hands? That would detach measures on resilience and anti-terrorism from the mainstream activity of Government Departments.
    A couple of weeks ago the House discussed the protection of Heathrow, in connection with proscription orders. Would it better for the Department for Transport to deal with that, or a separate Cabinet Minister? Would it be better for the Department of Health if a Cabinet Minister took away the role of determining and weighing priorities, of integrating with local activity, trusts and the work of the chief medical officer, and centralised it? Would it be better if a Cabinet Minister intervened in the detail of every Department rather than requiring Sir David Omand to produce integral reports highlighting and reinforcing the need for improvement where it is required and supporting the Cabinet Committees in getting buy-in from everyone across Government, not separating it into one person's bailiwick?
    More important still, would it help to build the confidence of and reassure the nation if every time a newspaper made something up, that Cabinet Minister was expected to answer for it at the Dispatch Box? Would it be right, on the back of what The Sunday Times wrote or the interesting story in the Daily Mirror with named underground stations—reminiscent of a similar article by the same journalist on Irish terrorism—for a Cabinet Minister to jump up at the Dispatch Box or appear on the "Today" programme? I think not. The result would be that someone's whole focus in life would be answering the kind of scurrilous rumour-mongering that destroys the chance of getting real messages across so that when we say that there is a specific warning and indicate that there is a particular problem, people will not believe us.
    Mr. David Cameron: I have listened to the Home Secretary very carefully and I accept that it is a fine and difficult judgment. However, does he accept that there is an issue of time? As Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman has six Bills to take through the House. The Secretary of State for Health has a complicated 10-year plan to deliver. The Secretary of State for Defence is probably about to be involved in a war in Iraq. And as for the Deputy Prime Minister, we will leave him on one side. Who will have the time and focus to get it right? We have seen conflicting answers to the same questions over recent weeks.
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not believe that we have. I do not think that evidence has been adduced to indicate that conflicting answers have been given. I have been quite prepared to welcome the right hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for briefings and I will continue to do so. If they can show me contradictions in what has been said—bearing in mind the fact that those who are close to these matters, as well as journalists, know perfectly well who is responsible for speaking on behalf of the Government on these matters—I would be happy to write to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and apologise.
    658
    There have not been contradictions; we have indicated that wild fantasies from those who do not carry responsibility for the consequences of their speculation in the media and elsewhere have not helped. That is very different from people saying that there have been contradictions in the message coming from the Government. I appeal to the British media: do not hide the truth or duck finding out what is going on, but for God's sake do not make things up on the back of the speculation of people who wish to demonstrate that they know more than others and think that they should be listened to.
    On 9 September I placed in the Library of the House a substantial update setting out the steps that we had taken over the previous year. I updated this two weeks ago. Yes, there was a cock-up in the Home Office. I am not normally known for enthusiastically embracing every tenet of open government for its own sake, but on this occasion I do not think that anyone could floor us for having issued a draft for quarter of an hour and then having reissued the correct one. There was the first draft, then there was the correction—I have explained what happened. I have also explained that I do not believe that the term "dirty bomb" takes us any further, which is why we removed it. We did not remove the wider general warning and update that was repeated by the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor's banquet and has been repeated by him since, including on television earlier this week.
    David Winnick: Although I accept both what my right hon. Friend said to the shadow Home Secretary and what the Prime Minister said earlier, does my right hon. Friend agree that there was much public disquiet arising from reports that appeared during the past week or so, even if some of them were inaccurate? Does he also agree that terrorists would not have the slightest reluctance to strike at Britain if it was at all possible? In those circumstances, although I realise that some information cannot be given for security reasons, is there not a need to give as much information as possible, so that the public have a pretty good idea—no false optimism but no reason to panic? Such information should, of course, come from the highest level of the Government.
    Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why we issued information both on 9 September and two weeks ago. That is precisely why, on 11 July, the House debated the update on the excellent report produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee. That was a damn good debate, yet only one newspaper—one national newspaper—reported any of it. That is the level of interest when no mindless speculation is going on. If any newspaper reporter has evidence that we have not presented the public with a specific warning or that there is a specific danger, I challenge them to bring it to me personally today, tomorrow or any time. They have open access to my office.
    We need to be transparently honest with the British people. Only then will people stop continually crying wolf, so undermining real opportunities to give warnings should the need arise. At present, there is the same level of heightened concern that we experienced at the same time during the run-up to Christmas last year. As I pointed out, there are concerns about the way in which we presented, and answered questions in the

    659
    House on, the extra measures resulting from Sir John Wheeler's report on Heathrow. We indicated, as we did when we laid the orders, that we would reconsider issues that hon. Members have raised in relation to ports. We have constantly been prepared to consider suggestions for improvements.
    There is general heightened awareness. There is no specific warning from the security or intelligence services about a designated attack in this country, about a site or about a method of achieving such an attack. There is a level of vigilance and security activity that has led to the arrest of those suspected of involvement in developing, planning or preparing to carry out terrorist acts.
    We owe a debt of gratitude to the Security Service and to the anti-terrorist branch for what they are doing and for their continued vigilance. That is what I want from the services. I shall continue to undertake a co-ordinating role—that is what it is. I shall continue to report to the Prime Minister, which is the correct route, in order to safeguard the British people in the best possible way.
    Should there be a specific and verifiable need for a warning and should we believe that such a warning could aid people to protect themselves or provide additional warning to others, or that it could, in any way, contribute to foiling a possible attack, we shall say so and we shall issue that necessary warning. That is a promise from the Government as a whole.
    I have every confidence in the services and in their capability, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that. If there is a specific and verifiable issue that requires an answer, I shall always come to the Dispatch Box, but I make it clear again: to come to the Dispatch Box on the back of every piece of speculation would heighten tension and raise fears. It would discredit the process when there really was something to report to the House. That is the stand that I intend to take.
    Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary has our sympathy and support on this matter. Indeed, everything that he has said appears to be consistent with his public statements and those made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and the exaggeration appears to be the result of the press speculating and exaggerating in an entirely unhelpful way. Given that we entirely accept all that the Home Secretary has said and agree that the approach is right, does he agree that any structural change in the way that the Government deal with such things—there are arguments for such a change—should be done, first, in a considered way; secondly, if possible, with agreement throughout the House; and, thirdly, not off the back of a change in the structures in the United States, with its entirely different system and history, which it seems entirely inappropriate to mimic two months later?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I would give that assurance. When I met Tom Ridge twice two weeks ago, he indicated that the United States faces a difficulty not only because of its federal structure, with enormous power in the hands of the state legislatures and elsewhere, but because it does not have the equivalent of MI5. The United States
    660
    has no internal security and intelligence facility in the way that we do, but it is considering one because it is interested in the way in which we operate. We did not pretend to Tom Ridge that everything is perfectly fine here or that there is no room for improvement; we said that we would like to learn from each other, and I hope that we can do so.
    The massive department with a multi-billion pound budget for which Congress is now voting in relation to the homeland security facility is way beyond anything that we in this country could contemplate without completely dislocating not only our government procedures but the investment that we need in key services that secure the kind of lifestyle, economy and services that make this country worth living in in the first place. The message has been clear from all parties that we must not allow others to disrupt our economy and social life because, if we do, they have won. It is as simple as that.
    Mr. Letwin: Of course I accept that there are limits to what can be done, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Defence Committee report, which is not a partisan document, revealed very serious concerns about whether the co-ordination was working in any serious way? Leaving aside all the hype of what necessarily goes on during Prime Minister's questions at both Dispatch Boxes, does he accept that the National Audit Office report on the national health service gives serious cause for concern? Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was making a serious point when he mentioned that each of the Ministers currently most involved in such matters has a huge work load? I quail at the idea of doing such things myself. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if this is a very serious concern for the whole Government, there needs to be some means or other by which someone or other is full-time in the job?
    Mr. Blunkett: Someone or other is full-time in the job at some time or another, but it does not have to be a full-time politician, running around looking for a job to do. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; I quail as well at the responsibilities that I hold, but I am very happy to keep them for a little longer. He is right to suggest that they are onerous, but they are integral to the security issues. The whole operation of the linkage between one aspect of Home Office work and another makes it the appropriate recipient for the political responsibility of co-ordination, as has been judged by different Governments for many years. We all agree that people should decentralise accountability and responsibility to those who carry it day to day, because we could not do such things from the centre. We are always being accused of being over-centralising, but people cannot have it both ways.
    Yes, there is room for improvement. The NAO report suggested ways to improve and we are acting on them. We answered the work done by the Defence Committee in the normal way some time ago, but we also took its point about further co-ordination, which is why Sir David Omand, who is respected by everyone, has taken over, reporting direct to the secretary to the Cabinet on these matters. He is already doing a good job in pulling together and supporting the existing work

    661
    that has already been put in train. So there is a constant process of improvement—there must be. As I repeated earlier, if anyone thinks that there is a problem inside a service or elsewhere, let us have a go at improving it, rather than being defensive about it.
    Mr. John Maples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, and then I want to get on to the main issue.
    Mr. Maples: The Home Secretary has talked a lot in the past few minutes about the need for co-ordination of various activities at Cabinet level. There is also a need to drive the change in the focus of our various security agencies, not all of which report to the right hon. Gentleman—some do, but some report to the Foreign Secretary. Their focus must be more on terrorism. I know that that is taking place, but there is a role to be played in driving that change and that focus, and in making sure that they have the resources to do it. That is not just a question of co-ordination.
    Mr. Blunkett: The Prime Minister has direct responsibility in terms of the overall co-ordination of the security and intelligence services, and, through the Cabinet Secretary, for ensuring adequate resourcing. That resourcing has been put in place, and we have reported to the Intelligence and Security Committee on that resourcing and what was required. As it reported on 11 July, it was satisfied that we had done that. That was updated in the spending review.
    It would be helpful if I now moved on to the main debate. I shall be brief, as I know that many Members wish to speak. First, there is no difference between the shadow Home Secretary and me on the presumption of innocence or on the test of reasonable doubt. I do not want us to enter into debates this winter with any doubt between us on these matters. I also want to highlight an interesting debate which we shall probably have on Second Reading, so I shall not refer to it in great detail today: how those who are most attached to universal jury trial are most suspicious about trusting the jury when it comes to issues such as double jeopardy. We all need to reflect on whether we believe what we are saying. If we trust the jury, and we trust the process of guidance from the judiciary, we should be aware of that.
    Another issue that the right hon. Member for West Dorset raised, to which I want to take exception—many of the points on which we cross swords over the Dispatch Box are issues of principle or are good points that I am prepared to refute or to concede—is that of police coming from overseas, which is a good example of the right hon. Gentleman making a little mischief. We have to give the Opposition leeway for a bit of mischief, but I want to put the record straight. What this is really about is someone coming into the country who has been carrying out surveillance on someone abroad, and being given, under the proposals, five hours to continue that surveillance so that our internal forces can take over. That is a staggering erosion of our rights and civil liberties. I imagine that there might be a whole article in The Daily Telegraph on the subject over the next week or two. There are serious issues about the arrest warrant
    662
    that we should, and will, debate—such as the presumption of innocence and the right of appeal to the district judge—but that is not one of them.
    Mr. Bercow: What consideration has the Home Secretary given to the applicability to the debate on the European arrest warrant of the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam?
    Mr. Blunkett: I think of nothing else. I have had difficulty sleeping recently, and now I know why. I am a great believer in subsidiarity in all its guises, which is why I want to refer briefly to the issue of neighbourhood policing, which was raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset.
    This is an interesting point. When I asked Bill Bratton to come across in January this year—he is the former New York police commissioner, who is now doing his bit in Los Angeles—I asked the chief constables to come along. I did so because I recognised that we would all want to embrace the kind of community policing that was successful in New York, and I said so when, a month after that, I had an interesting meeting with former Mayor Giuliani in this House. I was very pleased to be joined by the official Opposition, who shortly afterwards embraced the principles behind New York policing. I was pleased that we all agreed.
    However, I cannot understand how I am supposed to dictate to chief constables the precise nature of their policing operations and the balance between intelligence-led policing and community neighbourhood policing while doing what the Opposition suggest. For example, the Police Reform Act 2002 was bitterly opposed some of, if not all, the time, although things sometimes changed from beginning to end. That legislation contained proposals about the links between community support officers and the people on the street and street wardens and about the need to reward those at the sharp end more through the new prioritisation and reward system. I sometimes ask myself a question, but let me ask everyone else; otherwise I shall lose them and they will fall asleep, and I will be left thinking of the question of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about subsidiarity.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a second. I just want to ask the House how I am supposed to order chief constables to introduce universal neighbourhood community policing and, at the same time, lay my hands off them so that they have operational responsibility.
    Mr. Howarth rose—
    Mr. Letwin rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: Ah. With the forbearance of my hon. Friend, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am fascinated to hear his answer.
    Mr. Letwin: What is most interesting about the Home Secretary's remarks is how much they tell us about the

    663
    way in which his mind works. He assumes automatically that, if we call for neighbourhood policing, we believe that the only way that it can be imposed is from on top. Has he considered the possibility that one might construct arrangements that would enable local populations to have an effect on whether they were properly policed?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with that, and I said so to the police authorities conference this morning. However, the amendment that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled blames the Government for not acting. It does not blame the chief constables, the police authorities or the failure to set up sufficient pressure groups at neighbourhood level. Incidentally, we agree on the need to fund neighbourhood watch and to vitalise communities. We agree on the civil agenda, but the amendment blames the Government. If I am to take the blame, I want to know what mechanisms to avoid the blame the right hon. Gentleman would give me. Then I will do my best, because I am sensitive to these matters to the point of bleeding when I am cut.
    Mr. Letwin rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: Don't make me bleed any more.
    Mr. Letwin: I would not dream of asking the Home Secretary to bleed. However, has he considered it possible that it is the Government's responsibility to create structures that enable local communities in this country effectively to influence how they are policed as they can in the United States? The Government have not come forward with any such measures.
    Mr. Blunkett: The national policing plan aims to do just that. It aims to ensure that, within the overall framework, the objectives are laid down at local level and that there is proper accountability as well as responsibility for operational policing at local level. We would welcome any suggestions that would strengthen the plan, because I am strongly in favour of that. I want to ensure that we in South Yorkshire do as well on street crime as the West Midlands or the Met. I look forward to South Yorkshire doing that.
    Kali Mountford rose—
    Mr. George Howarth rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) because he has shown incredible forbearance.
    Mr. Howarth: Absolutely. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the truly surreal experience is to listen to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who manages in the course of one speech to disagree with himself on at least three occasions? When my right hon. Friend reflects on the specific contents of his Bills, will he take note of the remarks of the chief constable of Merseyside, Mr. Norman Bettison, who, in welcoming
    664
    the extension of the fixed-penalties scheme, has suggested that it might be beneficial to my constituents if it could be extended to cover juveniles as well?
    Mr. Blunkett: The chief constable has a good point. We should consider doing that. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), to produce proposals on that basis. That chief constable has won that argument.
    In publishing the national policing plan with my right hon. Friend today, I realise that it can be attacked in two ways. One line of attack is to argue that the plan says too much and asks too much of people—in other words, that it has too many priorities. The other line of attack is to argue that it leaves things out. Given that people from similar organisations and, indeed, from the same organisations have made both criticisms, I am somewhat heartened by what we have achieved.
    Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend will recall that he visited my constituency recently. I am interested to discover what he learned from that visit because I observed the appropriateness of policing to particular communities. Policing works best when communities are supported by the chief constable and the divisional commander and when the police are supported by the community so that they work together to find the right partnership to make policing work. The police and the community in that area are as one in tackling crime, which is why there has been only one robbery in it in the past five years.
    Mr. Blunkett: I was pleased to see that when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency at the end of September. In particular, I was struck by the mobilisation of the community. I think that the community constable had recruited 18 specials. I was most impressed by a young woman—I think she was called Donna—who gave about 20 hours a week of voluntary commitment, and she made a hell of a difference. We are all agreed on that type of policing.
    Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the national policing plan objectives do not displace local policing objectives? We thought that we had won the argument on rural policing a couple of years ago, only to find that by emphasising street crime in cities, the national policing plan countermanded the previous emphasis on rural crime. Notwithstanding today's good news on the continuation of funding, is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that his plans do not tie chief constables' hands?
    Mr. Blunkett: There are differences within force areas. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aggrieved because we have given his force substantial resources to take cognisance of street crime and all that goes with it, which means concentrating on Bristol. Within the overall resource allocation for street crime, and the requirement of 10 forces to give priority to tackling that scourge, force areas will need to reprioritise other activities. The national policing plan at a local level expects the force

    665
    to do that. Forces are asked to draw up their own plans, including clear objectives and priorities, and I hope that they will do that. But make no mistake about it: when we lay out in the plan that antisocial behaviour and disorder should be taken a great deal more seriously by forces than they have been, whose hands are going up in disagreement? Who will go back to their constituents and say that the drive by the Government across Departments and agencies, pulling together in a new Bill measures that all of us would sign up to, is wrong?
    Before I touch on the wider measures in the Queen's Speech, let me explain why the Opposition are wrong to suggest that individual measures introduced over the past five and a half years do not make a difference. Yes, antisocial behaviour orders did not work as envisaged. That is why we have changed them, and I will change them again if I have to. However, more than 650 have been made.
    Let us consider other initiatives that have been disparaged. There have been more than 9,000 drug treatment and testing orders, more than 2,100 intensive supervision and surveillance orders, more than 12,000 reparation orders and more than 14,000 action plan orders. There have also been more than 7,000 detention and training orders, almost 2,000 electronically monitored curfew orders, more than 6,500 referral orders and more than 1,770 parenting orders. Those measures were disparaged, but they have made a difference to people's lives and to communities.
    The measures that will we introduce on antisocial behaviour and on local co-ordination and partnership working will be made to work. They will alleviate the scourge of antisocial behaviour, which causes problems not only because of its immediate impact but because, as most people now agree, when young people in particular get the idea that they can cock a snook at the police and get away with anything, they will not only carry on with what they are doing but grow into more serious crime.
    Of course we need preventive measures. By 2005, the end of the spending review period, we will be spending £450 million on the activities of the Youth Justice Board alone, which is a massive increase, 100 per cent., since its establishment in 2000. By the end of the review we will also be spending 50 per cent. more on prison places, and there are already 13,000 more places. By the end of that period we will also be spending 80 per cent. more on the probation service. We have recruited 2,000 extra probation officers since the inception of the national probation service.
    We have a tremendous way to go, but the real obstacle is the end-to-end review of the criminal justice system. Yes, the system is failing. Some £80 million is wasted on failed, cracked or postponed trials and 40 per cent. of witnesses are unable to give evidence the first time they attend court. There is a failure in my Department to get prisoners to court on time, which delays or postpones cases. The collation and presentation of evidence from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service does not work. The management of court listings, with its overbookings, does not work. The way in which some lawyers play the system makes "Bleak House" read like a fairy tale. We should and must slim down the wasted cost orders arising from the 30,000 cases that are postponed each year so that we can ensure that those
    666
    orders are imposed and that the Legal Services Commission backs them up. We have to tackle the way in which people defend vested interests.
    When I spoke at the Law Society's annual conference, I asked it to join us in finding a way forward. It has responded and is prepared to take up the challenge. I now challenge the Bar Council to do the same. It is no good people dragging themselves out of mediaeval England only to find that they have reached Tudor England. We need to be in the 21st century, where DNA, technical devices, electronic activity and all the methodology of a modern policing system are at our disposal. The criminal justice system and the judiciary must respond to that.
    I do not attack the judiciary; I merely ask it to respond to the will of the people. We will shortly get a House of Lords judgment in the Anderson case. No one has to fear a democratically elected Parliament that exercises the will of the people in ensuring that the punishment not only fits the crime but sends signals to those who would commit the crime and allows us the space to have a correctional service that responds in a way that avoids reoffending.
    Everyone fears that Parliament's failure to intervene, to be accountable and to exercise the authority to respond to the public will discredit democracy and will encourage those who want to turn against the system of government and the process that the judiciary undertakes independently on behalf of the people. We speak, and we are responsible and accountable to the people; it speaks, and is independent of the political process. In doing so, it needs to take account of the fact that in a democracy the two balancing factors have to go hand in hand. The balances and checks in our constitution must not be shifted to the point where the discrediting and the undermining of the legitimacy of our country's democratic Parliament leads others to hold it in disdain.
    4.45 pm
    Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats welcome very much this important debate on the Queen's Speech. It is right that the whole of the last day, which is traditionally important, is given over to law and order. The Home Secretary, the Conservative shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I have very different constituencies. However, there is not one of us who does not know that crime and the fear of crime is at the top of our constituents' agenda, so it is right to concentrate on these issues. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his consistent and constructive willingness to have dialogue about the detail of the Government's programme. He has heard me say in the Chamber before that we will take that opportunity up. We have always responded so far and have had, I hope, constructive dialogue on various matters in the past and will seek to do so in the year ahead.
    We are having this debate, quite properly, against the background of an enormous amount of Home Office legislation. In the first five years of the Labour Government, 37 Bills were introduced. I estimate that at least 20—others claim 12—were to do with law and order. I suggested to the Conservative spokesman a moment ago that this is no different from the style of the

    667
    previous Administration, under whom 51 Bills were introduced. In their last year alone,19 Home Office Bills were introduced, of which 13 dealt with law and order, so the phenomenon is not new. When we reflect on the way in which we deal with legislation in the year ahead, we must ask ourselves what we need to do here and what needs to be done elsewhere. How much do we need legislation and how much do we need administration to deal with the big issues confronting us all? How do we keep crime going down—I hope that journalists hear that, as according to the figures, it is going down with undesirable exception of violent crime—and make sure that detection and conviction go up?
    Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Violent crime is an important exception.
    Simon Hughes: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman's Government failed lamentably to tackle that, as violent crime went up every year under the Tories. I hope that he accepts that violent crime decreased for some years under Labour, but is now on the up again. For me, it is the most important criminal justice issue—violence in our community is the most dangerous, insidious and unacceptable aspect of criminality.
    There are no easy answers—if there had been, I hope that the previous five Governments would have found some of them—so we must try responsibly to work out the best way of responding. There are six Bills on law and order in the current legislative programme, of which three are almost entirely non-controversial, but that does not mean that there will not be lots of amendments and debate.
    Generally, however, people accept the desirability of including magistrates and crown courts in the same system, as long as justice remains local to the community and is not moved away from people.
    A sexual offences Bill, trailed yesterday, will be introduced. A largely modernising, non-discriminatory and consolidating measure with a lot of good new components, it received broad support yesterday from Members on both sides of the House.
    There are two measures to deal with our international responsibilities. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) will be responsible for the Extradition Bill and possibly the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which was published today. By and large, those measures too are good, but the difficult issue, as the Government know, is whether people should be taken from this country to be tried elsewhere without guarantees of adequate judicial process and whether people charged by foreign authorities should be pursued when they come here. Both aspects of the problem are dealt with in the two Bills which, no doubt, will be hotly debated in both Houses.
    There are two controversial Bills, including the prospective antisocial behaviour Bill—we have no idea yet what it or the White Paper will include. The Home Secretary is smiling, because he knows that that is true. I got the impression, if I may say so, that concept of the Bill came up on the outside lane rather late in the day before the Queen's Speech. I detected that there was
    668
    originally intended to be one criminal justice Bill, and then something came out of the stables and took off, in a race of its own. Such Bills have often fallen at the last fence. Indeed, some parts of such Bills have never got on to the course, or not got over the first jump.
    When the Home Secretary was in the coda phase of his speech, listing the positive achievements of the past five years, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said quietly, "What about curfew orders?". That is an example of an initiative that emerged from the stalls, went to the starting point, but never appeared to be backed by anybody after that.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will keep his word, as he has done with regard to other matters, and consult about the White Paper. There are some good antisocial behaviour initiatives in all our communities, and the best of the best must be shared and rolled out, if we believe that a particular initiative can have a wider application
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend accept that where we do not have a White Paper and where we have not had pre-legislative consultation, there is a good case for pre-legislative scrutiny by an appropriate Committee or Joint Committee, as the Leader of the House suggested?
    Simon Hughes: Not only do I support that, but I hope that in this case, where there is widespread interest and with so much knowledge out there, the Home Secretary might consider it appropriate for the Bill to have pre-legislative scrutiny, and also possibly to be considered by a Special Standing Committee, which could take evidence. People who give evidence could then feel part of the process. Antisocial behaviour affects communities, and if communities can have a say in the legislative process, they will feel much more engaged.
    Many of us regret that the Bill that was not included in the Queen's Speech, was the one on corporate manslaughter. As the MP for a Thames-side constituency where the Marchioness sank, and with other colleagues around the House, I hope that it might still be brought in—not that we are asking for more work—under the additional opportunity provided by the statement,
    "Other measures will be laid before you",
    as it is extremely important and it has been in the gestation phase for a long time.
    I have one word to add to the important exchange that took place earlier on homeland or domestic security. That is, of course, the most important issue facing us. I hope that the Home Secretary knows that all of us, in all parts of the House, will work with the Government of the day and the Cabinet Ministers of the day to retain confidences and to share information and try to make sure that our citizens are protected to the best of the ability of all our services at all times. I join him in paying tribute to the security services, and in expressing surprise that the excellent debate that we had went entirely unremarked, although there were some important contributions.
    I hope that there is a real debate about how best we cope with international terrorism. My intervention was not meant to say that there is not merit in the argument from the Conservative leader; indeed, our party

    669
    suggested that the matter be considered. The idea is not new for us, but we advance it in a deliberative and careful way. We need to reform Government sensibly, intelligently and gradually. We should not suddenly come up with an idea and think that that is the complete solution. It must be the case, though, that solutions for a huge federal state like the United States would generally be inappropriate for a much smaller unitary or nearly unitary state like ours.
    Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever we do with regard to homeland security, we must remember that among the things that we are protecting are individual freedoms? It would be a sad day if we ended up compromising the civil liberties of the innocent general public in order to try and catch the very small number of people who seek to violate them.
    Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. Our leader, in his response to the Queen's Speech last Wednesday, emphasised what unites all of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are a party with a liberal tradition and a belief in civil liberty as the basis of our constitution. We start with the individual and individual liberty. That is why my hon. Friend and I voted together last year against many of the specific measures in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We did so not because we are against dealing with terrorism or reducing crime and increasing security, but because we think, for example, that there are better ways of protecting liberty than keeping people locked up indefinitely without trial in a prison in southeast London. There was an honest debate about that issue and we will continue to make those points. I anticipate that we will advance them strongly in relation to one or two forthcoming Bills—not least the criminal justice Bill—and have the robust debate that the Home Secretary is always ready to have, although with an understanding of where the other parties are coming from.
    Mr. Letwin: I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether he agrees that there are worrying signs that that issue, which should be the top priority—I think that the Home Secretary described it as such—is not currently commanding the sense of urgency that some of us believe it should have within the bureaucracy.
    Simon Hughes: I shall try to make a careful response. I do not accept that view. I think that the issue is being treated with urgency and commanding the attention of the Government. In the past two weeks, two things went wrong, and the Home Secretary has effectively accepted that both here today and in broadcasts. First, administrative errors were made that did not help. I refer in particular to the error made a week ago last Friday in relation to the release of documentation. Secondly, communication problems therefore arose about whether there was a specific threat. I think that that was a management and communication performance issue.
    I accept what the Home Secretary says with regard to a structure in which he chairs a Cabinet Committee that is reporting to the Prime Minister, who is clearly seeking to achieve the careful balance that he explained at the
    670
    Mansion House. That shows that the issue is treated as one of huge importance, as was reflected in the visit made by Tom Ridge and the deliberations about Europe and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) implied, the Liberal Democrats occasionally think that the Government overreact not in terms of the politics of administration, but in their legislative response. That is what we hope to draw attention to.
    Let me turn to law and order more centrally and deal with a moral question that has not yet arisen and an aspect of our experience of our politics that has not yet been reflected in the debate. The British crime survey shows that, since 1995, crime has been decreasing, yet we are punishing more and more. The Home Secretary has been clear in his personal views about the fact that we risk creating a society in which punishment becomes as central a feature of our criminal justice system as it has tragically and ineffectively become in the United States. If we continue to imprison more people, locking them up and keeping them out of society for longer, we will not reduce crime. Such an approach will probably reduce community cohesion and cause the recurrence of crime among people who enter schools of crime and come out better skilled as criminals. What we need to reduce crime is greater trust in strangers, forgiveness of wrongs, willingness in the community to intervene and willingness among people to be witnesses. We need a sense of community, and lots more imprisonment is not the right road to take.
    Crime has increased massively in this country over the past 50 years, but that does not mean that if we have a choice between building prisons and communities, the answer is to build prisons. In the Liberal Democrats' view, the answer is to build communities. If we take the American road, with 2 million-plus people in prison and huge violent crime in inner cities, we risk abandoning our values along the way.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Simon Hughes: Before giving way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I shall cite one example to illustrate a view that many others in history have held. While Winston Churchill was Home Secretary, the number of people imprisoned because of debt fell from 100,000 to 2,000, because he believed that it was wrong for people to be locked up for debt.
    Mr. Tyler: Liberal.
    Simon Hughes: Indeed. The number of young men in prison under the age of majority fell by two thirds, because it was perceived, even at that time, that more imprisonment was the wrong road to take and that there were alternatives. Prison is a simplistic answer; custody is an easy answer, but it is very often the wrong one, apart from in very particular, obvious and extreme cases.
    Mr. Mullin: I do not want to dispute the hon. Gentleman's general point, but it is a precondition of building communities that some individuals are got out

    671
    of the way of the rest so that everyone can get on with their lives. That will be as true in his constituency as it is in mine.
    Simon Hughes: I accept that. However, as the director general of the Prison Service says every time he makes a public statement, and as the Lord Chief Justice and many others say, prison must be the last resort.
    As I said at our party conference, violence to others should carry a presumption of custody. That is in a different league from property crime. One or two other crimes merit custody—for example, interference with the course of justice, which was mentioned earlier, and sex offences against young people. Society should have a clear view on those crimes. Some driving offences that result in death should also result in custody. Motorists who are guilty of bad, reckless driving that results in killing someone have often got off lightly, whereas a person who kills with bare hands is inside for a long time.
    I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) there comes a time when the regular offender has to go away, and the Prison Service must then be allowed to do its job of rehabilitation and of keeping offenders out of the way.
    Mr. John Burnett: Would my hon. Friend add to his list of more heinous crimes white-collar crime involving a breach of trust—for example, preying on the elderly or the effective theft of other people's money by a professional person?
    Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has often raised that matter, which we do not debate sufficiently. Sometimes such crime should also mean custody. We must separate the breach of trust cases from those in which someone simply takes advantage of a happy chance, resulting in benefit to a white-collar criminal. The matter should be on the agenda for our debates on the criminal justice Bill; they will begin later this week with the publication of the Bill. White-collar crime is significant, not least to our country's economy, giving rise to the perception in constituencies such as mine, and probably in my hon. Friend's, that well-off people sometimes get off lightly compared with the less well-off, who are punished severely for relatively minor infractions.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman managed one example of offences for which it was wrong to imprison: property crime. He drew back from that when the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) intervened with an example of a heinous property crime. Which sort of property crime, for which imprisonment is currently common, does not require it?
    Simon Hughes: I shall repeat my earlier comments in a different way. The criminal justice system would be much better if there were two simple presumptions: that those who commit violence against another person will go inside for a period, and that those who commit a different sort of crime will not automatically go to prison. Those should be the presumptions, and the court should then judge each case on its merits and ensure that
    672
    the punishment fits the crime. I shall not provide a shopping list. We shall have plenty of opportunities to debate those matters when we consider the criminal justice Bill.[Interruption.] In case Labour Front Benchers assume that Liberal Democrats endorse the Home Secretary's campaign to free the Archer One, I should stress that my views on interference with the course of justice make that case a clear example of when someone should be put away.
    We shall hold a proper debate on antisocial behaviour, but we must be careful that we do not automatically link it to violent, serious crime. Much antisocial behaviour falls short even of criminality. Much behaviour that people find irritating is not criminal. Young people who hang around, make a noise or congregate in inconvenient places are in a different league from those who commit serious crimes. We must be careful that, when dealing with antisocial behaviour, we do not place it in the same league as serious and violent crime, because often it is not. Of course, if antisocial behaviour is not checked and is allowed to develop, it can gradually lead to serious and violent crime. Indeed, that can often become inevitable.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his rather extraordinary presumptions about those who commit violent offences and those who commit nonviolent offences run counter to a great deal of the thinking that has been advanced by experts such as the senior judges on the Judicial Studies Board? In the light of his legal experience in the criminal courts at the beginning of his career, I invite him to reflect on the difference between, for example, a case in which someone with no previous convictions throws one punch in a pub under provocation—an offence of violence—and one in which someone steals thousands of pounds of their employer's money, bringing the business close to bankruptcy. Does not such a distinction undermine his rather extraordinary presumptions?
    Simon Hughes: No, it does not. A presumption is where we start from, not where we end up. Let me give an example. The Liberal Democrats have long argued that there should be no mandatory sentences, even for murder. If a murder were committed as a result of 30 years of marital provocation at home, we do not think that the person would deserve the same punishment as someone with no previous history of provocation who commits a terrible crime. I accept the need for different solutions for different crimes, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with that.
    There are, of course, two drivers of crime—alcohol and other drugs—and unless we deal with them society will never make progress. The Hackney study released by the Metropolitan police today shows that, of all the people arrested for any offence, 66 per cent. did not show free of drugs, and 32 per cent. showed traces of cocaine. Unless we deal with the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, most of the people in our prisons will continue to return to them. I was in Cardiff prison 10 days ago, and both the people to whom I spoke in the first block were there because of abuse—the first because of drugs, the second because of alcohol—and they had been imprisoned several times. Unless they are dealt with properly, they are likely to be imprisoned again.

    673
    Those are the big issues: violence, alcoholism and drug addiction. We have to work out how we should respond to them.
    I hope that we shall not leave these debates without also realising how many good initiatives there are for dealing with antisocial behaviour and prospective disorder among young people. I shall give hon. Members an example. Last week there was a press launch in the House for a scheme called INaura, based in Slough, the aim of which is to ensure that youngsters who are excluded from school have somewhere to go, rather than being out on the streets. Intervention at an early stage, as many good examples show, can prevent people from going into a life of crime. Acceptable behaviour contracts appear to work well, as do parent control agreements. There are many forms of intervention that do not involve the use of the criminal law.
    Something that does not appear to work, however, is to punish families financially if their child has become out of control. That is why we have argued strongly against the idea of taking housing benefit away from those whose children misbehave, which seems discriminatory and entirely misjudged. It is also why we resist the idea of adding to the prospect of fining the parents of truanting kids. That might work occasionally, but it is the wrong road to go down in correcting the family failures that have been presented as the cause of the problems.
    There is agreement, however, that, of all the things that work, putting people on the street to deter and prevent crime is the most successful. That is why we are grateful to the Government and glad that, in the last Parliament, they increased police numbers, halting the downward spiral and starting to build the numbers back up. We are glad that the numbers are higher, and we congratulate the Government on that. I believe that the numbers will have to go higher still. We shall need objective evidence and advice on how to achieve that, and on how many police are needed in, for example, Somerset and Avon, Devon and Cornwall, Northumberland or the Metropolitan police area.
    I know the view in my borough. The MPs—two Labour and one Liberal Democrat—and the Greater London Authority member have, on advice and according to experience, worked it out with the police that we need 1,000 officers at minimum, although we have fewer than 800. I am sure that many other communities take a similar view. We also need special constables, and we shall be happy to use community support officers. Neighbourhood wardens can do an enormous amount to deal with antisocial behaviour.
    A year ago last month, we set up a neighbourhood warden scheme in Bermondsey that involves just half a dozen people in uniform. They have dealt with 754 abandoned vehicles, 225 cases of graffiti, 269 cases of defective or non-functioning lighting, nearly 500 cases of fly tipping and nearly 500 hazards. Much more importantly, they have made 1,000 community contacts and offered victim support to between 50 and 100 people. Racist attacks have gone down and security has gone up.
    People on the street make a difference, and they are the most effective way, in our judgment, to ensure that our communities feel safer. I have a simple view:
    674
    every community needs policing and every community will rightfully go on fighting until it has its own policing and its own police, whether it is a village, a town or a city.
    I share the Home Secretary's view that one defect of the criminal justice process is the number of people who never make it into the process at all, because they are frightened off as witnesses and sometimes frightened off even if they are the victim. I understand that, last year, 30,000 cases never went the course because people did not come to offer proof—they were not willing to say what had happened or to give their evidence. A real problem is not what happens once the case gets to court, but the fact that it never gets there in the first place. I hope that we concentrate on that.
    I say to the Home Secretary that, although I anticipate us having disagreements on a few issues to do with the main criminal justice Bill, the real failure of the system is not that all the people who go to court get let off. They do not. Most plead guilty, and most of those who do not are convicted anyway. The problem occurs before people get to court: either they are never apprehended or, if they are, the witnesses do not turn up to give evidence.
    I must say a word about the big issues for the criminal justice Bill. We are not persuaded that there is a case for reducing jury trial in, for example, serious fraud cases. There may be ways to assist the jury and there may be ways to empanel a more appropriate jury, but juries have the public's confidence because the public think that people who are more or less like them are deciding the case. That is also why they think that lay magistrates who do not do the job full-time are, by and large, preferable to professional judges and district judges.
    We shall be very reluctant to support a proposal for retrospective changes in the double jeopardy rule, which would mean that everybody convicted of the most serious offences that may be retried would suddenly become provisionally guilty or only provisionally acquitted. The case might always come back. The argument for future cases is different, but the big question, which nobody has answered yet, involves trials such as those in the Stephen Lawrence case in south London and the Damilola Taylor case. If a second jury were asked to try people who had already been tried in relation to either case, would it not be fairly clear, given the rules, that they were trying the case only because the Crown Prosecution Service and the Court of Appeal had said that there was a very good case to answer. Given the media backdrop, would not that inevitably mean that it would be extremely difficult to have a fair trial the second time around?
    Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the argument against retrospective law is that somebody should not be convicted for doing something that was not an offence when they did it? That does not apply in the example of double jeopardy, as the act was an offence when they committed it and all they did was lie in court.
    Simon Hughes: I understand that argument, but even if the principle were applied only in murder cases, for example, those acquitted would have only a provisional

    675
    acquittal for the rest of their lives. That is a bad thing in principle and in practice. It is not as if the criminal justice services do not have plenty to do.
    Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman puts an argument that goes against not retrospectivity, but against the principle of scrapping double jeopardy in general. He speaks of how difficult it would be for future juries to forget past high-profile trials, but there will be high-profile trials in future, and it will be equally difficult for juries thereafter to forget that they have occurred. His argument has absolutely nothing to do with retrospectivity; rather, it relates to the need to formulate very carefully the test that permits a second trial. That can be done.
    Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. and learned Lady's argument, but retrospectivity and the question of whether a fair trial can be ensured the second time around are two separate points. If it can be shown that a second trial can avoid the taint of prior media coverage, her argument might be adequate.
    The third of three big issues to which I referred is previous convictions. The Home Secretary challenges us to accept previous convictions more frequently because he believes that juries should be able to see the whole picture in coming to a fair judgment. He says that we do not trust juries, but those of us who argue that previous convictions should not be disclosed do so because we believe that people should be tried for the offence for which they are on trial, without the whole of their previous life being an influencing factor. It will not be possible to have a fair trial if the fact that a person has been in trouble before, and been convicted, is frequently made known to the court. Of all the issues that we face, this one will give the Government the greatest difficulty in the House of Lords. I hope that, unless the Government change their position, Parliament as a whole will reject the proposal, because it will fundamentally change the principle that people are presumed innocent. It will put that principle at risk, and many more people will face the prospect of a jury that assumes that they are guilty.
    I have mentioned the dangers of the prospects of increasing custody. However, I am equally worried by the apparent lack of clarity in the custody-plus plan, under which every sentence for a serious offence will have an equal sentence outside prison. Will it have the money to guarantee that people will get the continuing support from the probation service and the other services that they need? It would help if the Minister could explain whether Lord Falconer was correct in saying that the money will not be available for 10 years, or whether the Prime Minister was correct in saying that it will be available once the legislation is enacted. If we are to have successful punishment in the community, that money must be available.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) spoke last Wednesday, he said that perhaps the big divide in Britain today is between the liberal and the illiberal, rather than between left and right. We hope that a similar divide exists between solutions that find favour with Parliament because they are tried and tested, and
    676
    those that should not because they are just the latest gimmick; between solutions that have a long-term track record, and which will produce long-term answers, and those that are simply quick fixes; and between solutions that are likely to work, and solutions that just sound good.
    We are as committed as others to fighting the battle against crime hard in order to bring it down, and to ensuring that we make our communities safer, but unless we make sure that we rehabilitate better, and that we prevent people from reoffending, as they so often do, we will not win that battle. In the year ahead, Liberal Democrats will work according to very simple principles. The justice system has to work equally for everybody. It must be trusted by lay people, because it is often led by them. People must be presumed innocent, not guilty. They must be treated with dignity, whether or not they have offended. Never will we give up on anybody, and never will we fail to believe that rehabilitation can work. We will come from that position, constructively, and we hope that we will have legislation that works, not just six more laws that—like many of those before them—make only a small, sometimes insignificant, contribution to reducing crime.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers, which applies from now on.
    5.20 pm
    Mr. Chris Mullin: In the short time available to me, I shall concentrate my remarks on three proposed Bills: on criminal justice and sentencing, on antisocial behaviour and on the long-awaited Bill to regulate private rented accommodation—one of the few Bills that does not emanate from the Home Office.
    I add my voice to the general welcome for the White Paper that outlines plans for a Bill to update the law on sexual offences. I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary say yesterday that he remains open to argument on anonymity for defendants in sex offence cases. That arises especially in allegations of child abuse, which are frequently made many years after the event on the shakiest of evidence and which frequently collapse long before they reach the door of the court, but not before they have ruined the lives of people who are, in many cases, wholly innocent. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the recent report of the Home Affairs Committee on the subject.
    We do not yet know what the criminal justice and sentencing Bill will contain, although if we can go by speculation in the media, it seems to grow fatter day by day. If the past is anything to go by, new clauses will still be appearing long after the Bill has left this place. Happy though I am to support any measures designed to improve the efficiency of our chronically inefficient system of criminal justice, one has to recognise that, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, many of the problems that we face do not require legislation but firm management, efficient policing and, above all, a cultural change that gives due recognition to the interests of victims and witnesses. Sometimes, although not as often as alleged, the problems we face also require more resources.

    677
    Some of the measures in the Bill will help to reduce delays and, in general, I approve of them. Others are designed to tilt the balance in favour of more convictions and with those we must be much more careful. I favour anything that turns our judicial system into a search for truth rather than a game between two competing teams of lawyers, but I would not wish to see the presumption of innocence—a fundamental principle of our law—undermined. I will therefore need much persuading that it is right to allow a defendant's previous convictions to be disclosed to a jury as a matter of course.
    I also have concerns about proposals to require disclosure of defence witnesses other than alibi witnesses, who must already be disclosed. We have not yet seen the precise terms of the Bill, but will that mean that the police will be free to visit defence witnesses and, as they say in the trade, "refresh their memories" or, in some cases, help them to forget what they previously remembered? It is not unknown for defence witnesses to be threatened with prosecution, or to be prosecuted, solely with a view to discrediting their evidence. I hope that no one will claim that that is a thing of the past, because I had such a case at my surgery only the other day. I warn Ministers that if the provisions work in the way that I have outlined, they can and will be abused. We will return to those issues on Second Reading, but I flag them up now.
    I am especially interested in the antisocial behaviour Bill. There is some mystery about its contents, but I am told that it will include measures to restrict the use of air weapons—a matter on which I have campaigned for some years. I hope that in due course we will also consider imitation weapons.
    We live in a society where an increased sense of rights has been matched by a diminishing sense of responsibility. It is time that the balance was restored. Antisocial behaviour is the greatest challenge that we face. It is not so much organised crime as disorganised crime that makes a misery of so many people's lives.
    People come to my office—I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience—and break down in tears, begging to be evacuated from homes in which they have lived peacefully for years because they cannot cope with the noise, abuse and endemic yobbery that plague their lives and against which the forces of law and order appear powerless. We have to end the culture of impunity that surrounds antisocial behaviour, and I hope that the Bill will help us to do so.
    However, we should not make claims for the Bill that are too large. I am sure that Ministers will not do that. The Bill will not be a panacea, and it should not be seen in isolation. It is simply another small step—an addition to measures already taken to improve the quality of policing and education, to treat drug addicts, and to wean young people off benefits and into work—along the road to restoring our battered social fabric.
    Finally, I warmly welcome the proposed Bill to deal with rogue landlords. The Bill will be published in draft early next year. As I said earlier, it is one of the few measures in the Queen's Speech that does not seem to have emanated from the Home Office. I am led to believe that the Bill will give local authorities the discretion to license both multiple occupancy tenancies and single tenancies. That will enable us to cut off the flow of
    678
    housing benefit to landlords who decline to take responsibility for the condition of properties or for the behaviour of tenants.
    The Bill is long overdue. At present, public money in the form of housing benefit is being used to fund the destruction of parts of our inner cities. That is especially true of some of our northern cities, where there are large amounts of empty property. It is an incredible situation, and I am amazed that we have tolerated it for so long. The 10 largest landlords in Sunderland between them receive more than £1 million in housing benefit, which travels directly from the civic centre bank account into their accounts without ever passing through the property for which it is being paid. It therefore gives the landlords involved no incentive ever to go anywhere near the properties that they own, and some of them have never visited their properties.
    Cutting the flow of housing benefit to rogue landlords is potentially the most effective measure that we can take to reduce antisocial behaviour. I have pressed for this measure since I was a Minister at the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and it cannot come soon enough.
    In conclusion, I agree with those who have noted that there are no short cuts. Passing an Act of Parliament—or six, or 20 Acts—will not change the world. What matters is the cumulative effect. The Government have recognised from the outset that literacy, numeracy, training and then work are what will make the difference. It is a long, difficult and unglamorous road, but one from which there can be no turning back. Insofar as the Bills announced in the Queen's Speech help us along that road, they will have my support.
    5.28 pm
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: In my eight minutes, I want to make two points. The second of them is a constructive policy suggestion for the Home Secretary, and the first is a constructive criticism of the Government's record.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred, in his excellent opening speech, to the grandiose promises made by the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. It has been a characteristic of the Government to make big promises and not to deliver on them.
    The House has been discussing antisocial behaviour orders, and my mind went back to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which was given a Second Reading in this House on 8 April 1998. The then Home Secretary—the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—said that the Bill would
    "reverse the apparently inexorable rise in anti-social behaviour and teenage crime."
    He told us:
    "The Bill will ensure earlier, more effective intervention to nip offending in the bud."
    He told us:
    "It is one thing for Parliament to pass the Bill; it is another to ensure that it is implemented effectively. That is why we are working closely with practitioners to develop guidance on implementation".

    679
    He told us:
    "The Bill will make a real difference to the quality of life of people in this country. It will help to…secure decent standards of behaviour from everyone."—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 370–79.]
    That was an overblown puffing up of a Bill, particularly the antisocial behaviour orders that it contained. I had the privilege at the time to be the shadow Home Secretary. I gave the Bill our support—we did not divide on Second Reading—but I warned the Government that they were in danger of creating expectations that could not and would not be fulfilled and, as a consequence, there would be a degree of cynicism that people would not find attractive. Modesty forbids me from quoting what I said, but right hon. and hon. Members will find it in column 382 of Hansard.
    The fact that we are coming back to antisocial behaviour orders—which I still support—is a reflection of the Government's failure to deliver over the past five years. The Home Secretary told us today that just over 600 ASBOs have been issued. The Government promised that there would be 5,000 a year, so to date there are 17,000 fewer than there should be. If we had 17,000 more of them, the proposed legislation would almost certainly not be necessary. I ask the Government to resist their inherent inclination to overblow their legislation and to have instead a degree of realism to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the public can relate.
    My second point is a policy suggestion for the Minister's consideration. The Home Secretary hardly mentioned prisons. Given the Government's record, that is understandable. It is not clear whether the Government favour putting more and more people in prison—for we have the highest number in prison in our history—or getting them out of prison and back into the community. If I were the guardian of a policy that regularly released thousands of people early from prison for no other reasons than not having prison places and being unable to get any money from the Chancellor, I, too, would not wish to say much about my policy. However, part of the pressure on people to send their fellow citizens to prison is because the public have very little confidence in community punishment.
    When I was shadow Home Secretary, I visited eight or 10 prisons. It reaffirmed my view, long held, that I do not belong to the minority of people who think that after people are put in prison, life should be made as miserable as possible to add to the punishment. That has never been my view. The punishment of prison is the adherence to a rigid regime and the deprivation of freedom. Yet community sentencing goes in exactly the opposite direction. It provides very little rigid regime and deprivation. I ask the Home Secretary to consider that he might do better to install a regime in the community that more effectively mirrored what prison does. If, instead of being free to roam around, people were restricted for longer periods—perhaps to their homes—so that their home or some specified environment became a substitute for prison and there was still an element of deprivation of freedom, my constituents and the general public might have more confidence in the policy.
    680
    At the same time, the Minister might take a look at his prison-building programme. Five and a half years ago, he announced that the Government would build a prison in Peterborough, yet five and a half years later the old buildings are still standing and nothing has been done. One reason that nothing has been done is that, as some of us pointed out to the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he put Railtrack into administration, the costs of private finance initiatives would rise. The Minister should remember that if we are to have a prison in Peterborough. Given his statistics, we shall probably need one, so will he get on with it?
    Finally, will the Minister look at the work of Prison Fellowship? It offers some of the most effective means of helping people to turn from their wicked ways.
    5.36 pm
    Denzil Davies: Sadly, at the heart of this year's Queen's Speech—its central theme—are crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. There are to be four or five Bills. That shows the seriousness of the situation and how concerned the Government are about it.
    I became a Member of the House in 1970 and, looking back over the past 30 years, my impression is that the situation as regards crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour has been getting worse and worse. From 1970 until the mid-1980s, crime and disorder were not a major problem in my constituency. Obviously, there was crime—there has never been a golden age—but there was little or no drugs problem in my constituency until the middle of the 1980s. Elderly people could live quietly on their estates, without fear that their doors would be kicked in, without fear of physical and verbal abuse or that bricks and stones would be thrown into their gardens. In Llanelli at that time, petrol was not thrown through letterboxes and ignited.
    But something happened in the mid-1980s—or perhaps it was a manifestation of something that had happened previously. To test my impressions, I went to the Library—as, I assume, did the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—and checked the "Index to the Statutes" for the period 1970 to 2000. I examined statutes dealing with substantive crime and with procedure. I excluded Scotland, as it has a different system, but I included statutes on domestic and international terrorism. I tried to exclude the administration of justice, although there is some overlap between that, procedure and substantive crime.
    My first impressions were confirmed, although the figures were startling. In the first decade, 1970–1980, seven statutes were passed; in the second decade, 1980–1990, there were 13; and in the third decade, 1990–2000, there were 27. There was a doubling every 10 years. Turning to the present century, there were two measures in 2000; three in 2001; and we are about to consider another four or five.
    It is not, therefore, unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the number of statutes shows, first, that there is a real and accumulating problem and, secondly, that passing legislation does not seem to do much good. Furthermore, it seems to me that little attempt is being made to discover the causes, not of crime—they have been with us since time immemorial—but of the

    681
    acceleration or accumulation of problems over the past 20 to 25 years. The Government do not seem to do much about that. As far as I am aware, there is not much written about it in academia, and the newspaper pundits who write about the environment, foreign policy, economics, defence and so on say little about it. There is little questioning about what is wrong with society that makes us have to pass so much legislation. Perhaps I can briefly suggest a few questions that we may wish to ask, without perhaps knowing the answers.
    Is one reason the effect of the economic revolution that occurred in the mid-1980s? Many people believe that the dominance of the market place and the cult of the consumer have brutalised much of our society and diluted obligations to the community. Could one cause be the decline of religion, especially Christianity? Christianity provided a moral framework and social cohesion, particularly in Wales.
    Does the modern pursuit of inclusiveness—I have to be very careful now—make for an amoral society? If we are all living cheek by jowl in that big tent without core values, to label conduct as good or bad, or right or wrong is considered disruptive—indeed, the vogue word is "judgmental".
    What contribution to drug and drug-related crimes has been made by the tolerance and, in some cases, acceptance of using drugs, both soft and hard, by some of the media establishment and the entertainment industry?
    What contribution to sex and sex-related crimes has been made by the commercial and media exploitation of sex, especially by television, where sex provides an endless supply of programmes, boosting the earnings of presenters and producers?
    What effect has a child-centred education system had on a sense of order, discipline and an awareness of right or wrong in our classrooms?
    Again, I must be careful. What contribution to the behaviour of children has been made by the decline in the traditional family where both parents—or one parent in a single-parent family—are forced to go out to work, very often with wages subsidised by the state, and when the time to look after children, to listen to them while they grow up, to talk to them and read to them is obviously limited by the stress imposed by the duties on their parents or parent? No doubt other and better questions could be asked.
    The Home Secretary spoke about vested interests. They are everywhere, but I suspect that the answers to some of those questions may be inconvenient to some vested interests in commerce, the media and perhaps even in sections of the bureaucracy. By all means let us be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but let us try to find out what the causes are before we go down this road and slide further into a morass of ever more legislation.
    3 pm
    Mr. John Maples: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) made some very interesting points. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that line; I want to devote my eight minutes to the extradition Bill, which is fundamentally misconceived and seriously flawed.
    682
    However, I agree that there is a need to reform extradition legislation, particularly in cases where terrorist suspects are sought.
    The United States has been seeking the extradition of three people in connection with the east African embassy bombings for more than three and a half years. It took three years for their case to reach the Court of Appeal. As far as I know, they are still here, but that is not the worst case. The worst case is that of Rachid Ramda, whose extradition is sought by the French Government for the Paris bombings in 1995. He was arrested in November 1995. It took three and a half years for his case to reach the Court of Appeal. It then took the Home Secretary two years to deal with the order for his extradition. However, he is still here, on the seemingly entirely spurious ground that he cannot receive a fair trial in Paris as an Arab Muslim.
    It is clear that the extradition procedure needs to be tightened, streamlined and speeded-up. The fault is not all with the courts, but I am amazed that, in the circumstances, the message has not got through to the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the House of Lords that such dilatoriness is not satisfactory—and I am also amazed that the message has not got through to the Home Office that such matters need to be dealt with more quickly.
    I concede the need for this Bill, or a similar one. I concede that we need to limit the number of appeals and to tighten up the whole procedure so that we treat countries whose judicial systems we respect—and in which we think that people can get a fair trial—differently from those about which we have doubts. Currently, I think one can make about six appeals in the average extradition case. Under the proposals in the Bill, that would decrease to one, which seems sensible. The Bill goes far further than that, however. In the case of extradition to category 1 countries, it removes almost all the protections that our common and statue laws have built up over the years, and in the case of category 2 countries, it would remove some very important ones.
    Three protections have been at the heart of our extradition legislation. Before we consider those, let us be sure about what we are considering: for the vast majority of the time, we are considering the extradition of British subjects for trial in foreign courts. The first of those protections is dual criminality—what one is accused of must be an offence in Britain as well as an offence in the country to which one's extradition is sought. Secondly, enough evidence must be presented to the British court before it orders extradition for it to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case to answer. Thirdly, there is the fall-back of the Home Secretary's discretion over whether to extradite someone—the fall-back of their elected Government deciding through one of their most senior Ministers whether to extradite them. Those rights and freedoms have been built up over a long period, and we should be careful before casually discarding them.
    Part 1 of the Bill contains an extremely badly drafted list of offences, which carry no legal definition. What is racism or xenophobia, computer-related crime, or participation in a criminal organisation? Those are just three of a list of about 25 offences. That kind of drafting would not pass muster in an English criminal law statute, although, effectively, that is what it will become. It is incredibly vague, and it is subject to a great variety

    683
    of interpretations. I do not see how xenophobia can be a crime, given that, as I understand it, it is a state of mind—although, apparently, one can be extradited for it. I shall refer later to what I regard as a hypothetical but nevertheless realistic example.
    Secondly, in many continental jurisdictions, an investigating magistrate is entitled to arrest people for the purposes of his investigation. When does that right come into play? Somebody could be arrested on the say-so of a Greek or Spanish magistrate, and might spend a long time in jail while the crime or the offence is investigated. Many Members will have had constituents who have languished in Spanish or Greek jails—one of my constituents did so for a year and a half while awaiting trial on a relatively minor drugs offence. Before we put any of these provisions into operation, we must make sure that the countries to which faster-track extradition will take place have minimum juridical standards. For instance, if somebody is extradited, they should be charged within seven days, tried within three months, and an appeal must be made within a certain period. If the British plane spotters who returned from their holiday in Greece and were charged with espionage had been charged with terrorism, or a related offence, they would have had absolutely no defence against extradition. There would have been no way for them to stop the process of being extradited back to Greece.
    At least non-scheduled offences, which are not on the list, require the rule of dual criminality. The prima facie rule does not apply to them, however, and the Home Secretary has no discretion with regard to them. In relation to category 2 countries, the situation is slightly better, as the prima facie and dual criminality rules are required, but the grounds on which the Secretary of State can resist extradition are very small and fall within a very tight definition of national security.
    I shall give an example. One of the categories of offences for which automatic extradition applies is that of crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The war that we conducted in Kosovo was considered by many legal authorities to be illegal, and I suspect that the Greek Government, who were heavily on the side of the Serbs in that conflict, would take that view. Were a Greek magistrate, on the complaint of a human rights organisation in Greece, to charge our Prime Minister, perhaps after he had left office, with criminal offences in connection with that, there would be no way under these proposals that that could be stopped. The Home Secretary must have a fall-back power to stop such wholly unrealistic activity.
    What we saw in the Pinochet case—not many Labour Members sympathised with General Pinochet—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says from a sedentary position, not many Conservative Members did either. What we saw, however, was an extremely dangerous precedent. We should not forget that the same thing might happen to a senior Minister in a British Government.
    The legislation goes far too far. There is a problem and we need to reintroduce standards of dual criminality and provisions for a prima facie case and discretion for
    684
    the Home Secretary. It is Parliament's job to protect the liberties of our citizens, in particular those liberties that have been built up over a long period. This is a case in which Parliament should stand up to the Government and make the Home Secretary think again. If we do that, we will have the vast majority of the press, the judges, lawyers, the House of Lords and public opinion and—dare I say it—justice on our side. I hope that enough Labour Members realise that they will find it very difficult to explain to a constituent why that person's child, wife or husband has been automatically extradited for something that is not an offence in the UK, for which no evidence was produced and for which there was no appeal to the Home Secretary. If extradition is automatic, people may languish in a foreign jail.
    5.50 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am glad to be called because I particularly wish to speak about antisocial behaviour, which has badly affected some of my constituents in the past few months. If I have time, I also wish to talk about vagrancy and begging, which has always been an issue in my constituency.
    In the summer, I received several complaints about a group of young children who were terrorising their neighbourhood. In fact, I met some of them on one of the regular visits that I make to the area. They were aged between about eight and 14, and the police tell me that none of them was involved with drink or drugs, but many of them truanted from school and some came from dysfunctional families. The group grew in size over the summer, particularly when the police were temporarily distracted by the tragic events in Soham. In passing, may I point out that I hope that if a request for additional funding is received, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider it sympathetically? The costs of Operation Fincham were excessive for a small police force such as that in Cambridgeshire.
    By September, a group of 20 children, with a hard core of five or six, were involved in petty vandalism, arson, breaking windows and, in some cases, intimidating lone women and elderly people. I know that the people in the area were furious and turned out in large numbers to a police consultation meeting, which I also attended, in September. One woman told me how frightened she had been when a group of youths surrounded her car and made it impossible for her to get out and go into her house. She was rescued only because she happened to have a mobile phone with her and was able to summon help.
    I discussed the situation with the police and they told me that the only way they could break this circle of behaviour was by involving other agencies, such as schools, housing associations and social services. Their first move was to get the children who were truanting back into school. The action that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) took, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to encourage the prosecution and imprisonment of parents who fail to send their children to school had a positive and beneficial effect. Although it did not directly affect parents in my constituency, it certainly made them realise that the Government were serious about getting children into school.

    685
    The second move that the police took was to try to involve the housing associations. In this area, three housing associations cover social housing and the police tried to obtain their co-operation in threatening eviction orders if parents did not bring their children under control. That has been difficult to achieve, because several housing associations were involved and some were more co-operative than others. It is probably true to say that the independent housing associations have not worked collectively as part of the problem-solving process.
    Social services were also involved in offering advice and support to parents. Such a multi-agency approach is effective and could be more effective as trust builds between the police and the different agencies. For example, the police tell me that there is a great variation in the co-operation offered by secondary schools. Some of them are very co-operative and invite the police in, while others are much more suspicious. More cooperation between schools and the police would be beneficial in such circumstances. The situation is now much improved and the police have been successful. The children now attend school or, in some cases, a pupil referral unit where they can be given much closer attention than in a mainstream school.
    Following the events in the summer, I paid a visit to my local youth offending service at the invitation of its director, Tom Jefford. He wanted me to see the effect of Government legislation and how effective it had been on changing the environment around young people's behaviour. He invited all his section heads to come to talk to me about the work that they were doing, and I was particularly moved by a young woman who was in charge of the lay panels that interview young offenders and monitor their behaviour. Children who have been involved in the vandalism of the sort that I have described are given a caution for the first offence. However, for their second and subsequent offences, they have to attend a meeting of the lay panel, which may include the victim of their antisocial behaviour. I gather that the national participation rate of victims in the lay panels is around 20 per cent., but in Cambridge it is nearer 80 per cent. I heard that the young offenders attending the panels are often visibly moved and distressed on hearing of the victim's experience. We do not know whether this will have a positive effect on the offending rate in the long term, but the signs are good. Young people begin to identify with the victim, start to understand the effect of their behaviour on other people and become more socially integrated. The youth offending team was optimistic about the effect that such measures will have.
    The team also told me about the acceptable behaviour contracts that bind a young person to a set of rules that govern his or her behaviour. The panels usually monitor the contracts and hold the young people to account if their behaviour does not reach the required standards. All such measures have proved to be extremely positive and beneficial.
    I also talked to several police officers. The community beat officers in the city told me of the changes that they would like to take place. On the rules for antisocial behaviour orders, I understand that, at present, it is not possible to write down positive behaviour points on the orders. They usually say that a young person must not
    686
    do something, whereas the police would like to write down what the young people must do. That would present a much more positive image.
    I have already discussed the problems of children as young as eight in my constituency, and their parents must become much more involved. They should know where their children are and should be able to discipline them properly. In some cases, parenting orders will help. However, sadly, in many dysfunctional families heroin or crack cocaine may be a problem for the parents, and serving parenting orders on them is unlikely to lead to an improvement in their behaviour.
    I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is introducing a Bill on these issues. It will certainly have my support.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Sadly, because of time, I will not be able to pursue the issues that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) raised.
    I want to focus on the anonymity of defendants in trials relating to sexual offences, and I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) placed such emphasis on the presumption of innocence and on the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. I was reassured that the Home Secretary also endorsed the importance of those cardinal principles. However, if one's reputation is destroyed, it is of little consolation that one remains technically innocent. I hope that the House also paid attention to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and to the report that he has published.
    The Government addressed this issue in a White Paper and said:
    "We are minded to retain the existing format in regard to anonymity for defendants as no other category of offence is dealt with in this way. However, we are still prepared to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on the matter."
    Of course the Government are still prepared to listen. That is the purpose of Parliament. However, I also hope that it means that they are prepared to be persuaded by the arguments of hon. Members who feel as strongly about this issue as I do.
    Sex offences and the way in which we deal with sex in the United Kingdom provoke extremism and a hysteria peculiar to us. The atmosphere in which sex offences are considered is uniquely charged because of the press coverage of such cases. The recent history of our media bears that out. We have only to consider the press frenzy following the Burrell trial, the television presenter whom the press accused of rape, and the police officer in the Soham case—mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge—whose name appeared on a list from the United States, to realise that those people are convicted in the eyes of the nation before there is any question of a trial.
    Those are national figures and their cases are known to us, but the local press causes just as much damage. In 1998, 700 people attended the funeral of a 31-year-old teacher in my constituency called Nick Drewett. He was a popular and committed teacher, but he took his life when faced with charges of behaving improperly with pupils in his care. The master who was charged with him was acquitted. A significant factor in his decision to commit suicide was the sensational publicity that attended the investigation of the charges.

    687
    Nick Drewett is not alone. I presented a ten-minute Bill in 1999, which the NASUWT helped me to prepare. It gave me the statistic that between 1991 and 1998 there were 974 police investigations into abuse allegations against its members. No grounds were discovered for prosecution in 792 of those cases. The publicity in any one of those 80 per cent. of cases would do serious injustice to an innocent teacher.
    My Bill attempted to protect teachers from injustice. I managed to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who was our Education spokesman, to include similar measures in our manifesto at the last election. However, the principle does not apply only to teachers; it goes wider than that. I was slightly concerned about the Home Secretary referring to the will of the people. The fourth estate frequently claims for itself the will of the people and that it operates on behalf of the will of the people.
    In the last Parliament, the Government introduced advanced measures to help complainants in sex offence cases. They are listed on page 19 of the White Paper. Although in 1985, 25 per cent. of complaints about rape resulted in a conviction, by 2000 that figure had fallen to 7 per cent. So 93 per cent. of those people who have to defend themselves against such complaints are innocent. That is what the presumption of innocence means. I notice the expression on the faces of Labour Members, but people are innocent until they are proven guilty. We cannot allow reputations to be destroyed by the publicity that accompanies cases in which people are innocent.
    The decision-making process in the prosecution of sex offence cases is uniquely tilted. As a result of the atmosphere surrounding such cases, there is a tendency to press on with them. When the Crown Prosecution Service or the police decide whether there is a complaint to answer, the sensitivity of such cases, especially those involving children and, I now believe, in the more general case of rape, the tendency is to proceed to prosecution.
    Vera Baird: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the joint publication by the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and police inspectorate, which came to the opposite conclusion? Cases do not go on when they are difficult. Instead, they are stopped when there is the slightest difficulty. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts straight.
    Mr. Blunt: How does the hon. and learned Lady explain the fact that the same number of people are being convicted 15 years later when the number of complainants has quadrupled? I have not read the document she mentions, and I will do so, but my experience—and no doubt that of others—and the statistics cast doubt on its conclusion. The tendency to continue with a case is more extreme if the complainant is a child, and the loss of reputation of the people concerned is also extreme. Such cases result in extreme and tragic consequences, such as my constituent's decision to end his life.
    688
    It was decided in 1998 to end the anonymity of defendants in such trials, but we have moved on from that. The White Paper gives an example of a practical difficulty. It states:
    "if a man escaped custody before conviction, the police could not warn the public he was a suspected rapist unless the judge exercised his power to lift those restrictions."
    That is a pretty thin practical justification for the measures. The judge is plainly able to lift restrictions if someone is thought to be a danger to the public, and he would be right to do so. The balance of the argument has changed since 1998.
    Caroline Flint: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is raising some difficult issues. Although I would not support sensational accounts in the newspapers, by the same token does he agree that the public's awareness of a person who has been charged with rape or paedophilia has often led to other victims coming forward who might otherwise not have done so?
    Mr. Blunt: I accept that sensational publicity around a case may encourage other people to complain, but there has to be a balance. The charges that are brought against people in such circumstances are serious. The public take them very seriously and the publicity that can result from people's names becoming known serves to destroy their reputations whether they are proved innocent or guilty. I believe that the balance of the argument has changed since the decision was taken in 1998 to remove anonymity from defendants.
    Measures have been introduced to assist people who complain about such crimes to give evidence. They are protected from a defendant cross-examining them in court and there are powers to enable complaints to be made. We must properly balance those measures, especially in the light of the atmosphere that our media create around such cases, by giving defendants the anonymity to which they are entitled, in what is a unique set of circumstances, until they are convicted and found guilty of the crime. If we do not do that, the presumption of innocence amounts to mere words for the people who are on the receiving end of such allegations.
    6.8 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I trust that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the House will forgive me if I do not cover the points that he raised, because I want to concentrate on the important issue of the misuse of drugs. I am pleased that it is covered in the Queen's Speech, which I welcome.
    The misuse of drugs is at the heart of the Government's strategy on social deprivation, health, environment and the quality of life of our constituents. People in my constituency would expect me to say that they share my opinion that the problem is serious. There is barely a family or a street that has not experienced the trauma that arises from drug addiction. Of course, those people expect the House and the Government to address their concerns.
    The objectives in the Queen's Speech, including economic growth, an improved environment, a better quality of life for our people and investment in public services such as education and transport, are, very noble and welcome, and so too is the regeneration of our

    689
    towns and cities. Hanging over those noble objectives, however, is a big cloud in the shape of drug misuse. If that is an aspect of globalisation—and I believe that it is—it is right that we act both domestically and internationally. In the short time available to me I should like to make some points which I trust are relevant.
    We should be seen to be tackling the problem along all parts of the chain, acting over the long term domestically and internationally. It is my firm belief that the sophisticated and complex nature of drugs issues requires the Government to be equally sophisticated and nuanced in their approach. Joined-up government is essential and must be to the fore, involving almost every Department in facing this serious challenge.
    I am glad that the Queen's Speech refers to measures to deal with drug trafficking. Customs and Excise employees are important in that. I want to put on the record a point about those personnel, and I should perhaps declare my interest as a former civil servant and union activist. In 2000–01, we employed 22,803 people in those posts, and at 22,854 the figure for 2001–02 is hardly different. I am not alone in thinking that, with millions of people coming into the country and billions of tonnes of freight arriving, that is inadequate. There is a case for increasing Customs' number, and I believe that that would be effective.
    I say that because, domestic though this problem is, it would hardly arise were it not for the fact that drugs are arriving here from other parts of the world. In the past year or so, the House has rightly spent a great deal of time dealing with Afghanistan, and we were reminded that over 90 per cent. of heroin on the streets of Britain comes from that country. I encourage the Government to continue their observation of what is happening in Afghanistan; to bear in mind what is taking place in other developing countries; to do their utmost to discourage the production and export of heroin; and to offer other job opportunities to those who are tempted to become involved.
    At home, I want to deal with demography and with the environment and its impact on those sad, and very often lonely, people who are tempted to use and deal drugs. The use of hard drugs is far more prevalent among the unemployed than among the employed, and in a constituency such as mine, where in many places there is serious deprivation, that fact has to be borne in mind. We simply do not see the bigger picture. Do employment programmes in such deprived neighbourhoods take account of that? I am not sure that they always do.
    Treatment, which has been mentioned, often focuses on drugs per se, but should we not also take on board wider issues, including obvious social exclusion? Drug misuse is not merely about statistics, important though they are; it is about people and families. We all see in our surgeries and elsewhere people who are traumatised by the antisocial activities of others or, sadly, by their discovery that young people in their own families, including well-educated young people who have been to college or university, have succumbed to the menace of drugs. I want to put an end to that and to the revolving-door syndrome whereby people move between institutions and hospitals without a solution to the problem. Prison has been mentioned. I have taken the view since I came to the House that we send far too
    690
    many people to prison, and certainly too many who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities. To add the issue of drugs, without addressing it, is mistaken.
    I thank the House for listening. I welcome the inclusion of this serious issue in the Queen's Speech, and I hope that we can return to it when legislation comes before the House.
    6.16 pm
    Sandra Gidley: The biggest law and order problem in my constituency is antisocial behaviour. I was tempted to spend my eight minutes talking about that, but as we have not yet seen any proposals on it, it would be difficult to comment constructively.
    I want to pick up on something that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. It is clear that when communities start to work together to tackle antisocial behaviour, and members of the public become actively involved in working with agencies, positive steps are taken. However, there are parts of my constituency where people are still frightened to come forward because they think that there will be retribution if they get involved. Whatever the legislation says, we need to find a way of making sure that communities feel safe to work together.
    I want to concentrate my remarks on the proposed legislation to deal with sex offenders. I welcome the document that was published yesterday and many of its proposals, including, in particular, the special protection for children and the most vulnerable in our society and the new crime of grooming. However, I make no apologies for spending most of my time talking about something that is not of immediate interest to the vast majority of my constituents because it is a hidden problem.
    Yesterday I asked a question about sex tourism, and I was heartened by the Home Secretary's positive response. I hope that the forthcoming Bill will provide an opportunity to tackle this problem on a global scale. I first came face to face with it when I visited Cambodia. The visit was arranged by a non-governmental organisation, World Vision, but I had the opportunity to work with and speak to many other NGOs in this field.
    While I was in Cambodia I met some of the girls who had been most affected by sex tourism. I visited a centre that rescued young girls from brothels, and I remember a young child who was so tiny that I could only assume that she was the daughter of one of the workers. The child was eight and had been sexually exploited. Her image will remain with me all my life. On a more positive note, I saw a great deal of work, including peer education projects and education for communities to help them try to understand the problem. On a lighter note, I also visited some of the brothel areas. It occurred to me that that was one occasion on which it was helpful to be a woman MP, because when I rang home and said, "I'm visiting the brothel area tonight," people were not unduly worried.
    Cambodia is not yet a mainstream tourist destination, but the temple of Angkor Wat was recently voted one of the 50 top places to visit before one dies. Evidence is already emerging of the sex tourism problem, which has been highlighted in a document called, "Children's

    691
    Work, Adults' Play". In that publication, European men, many of them British, feature among the top five groups of users of what can only be regarded as underage sex services. Places such as Cambodia and Bangkok are high on the list of people who are increasingly forced to go abroad to obtain their peculiar sexual kicks.
    Cambodia's Ministry of Planning estimated that the country has 30,000 prostitutes under 18, its legal age of consent, with over 5,000 young girls in Phnom Penh. Worldwide, it is estimated that 1 million children are new victims of sexual exploitation every year—most of us will find it difficult to get our head round that figure. A lot of prostitution is prompted by poverty, so we must put in place alternatives for young girls who decide that they have no other option in life. I spoke to one young woman—she was 15—who had been rescued from a brothel, but had got used to the lifestyle and liked having money. There was no immediate alternative for her, so attempts need to be made to retrain girls with other skills so that they are not forced down that route again.
    Many countries are doing their best to tackle the problems internally, while some poor countries may need the help of the international community. But the paedophile is a cunning beast and will seek other ways of getting his kicks. There is a weakness internationally, and we have to be one step ahead of the problem.
    The Government could do a few things in the short term before the forthcoming Bill is introduced. First, when will they ratify the optional protocol—on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography—to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child? Secondly, France and Austria have taken the step of installing their own police in their embassies in Cambodia and possibly elsewhere so that they can better monitor incoming nationals. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the benefits of the United Kingdom doing that, as it is a positive and practical measure that may deter people from seeking their kicks abroad since they will know that society is one step ahead of them.
    There are also problems in the expatriate community. I do not want to distort the issue, as the problems do not all stem from tourism. A large number of people go abroad to work—it is easy to get a job as a teacher, for example. Because there are no police checks and their salary is comparatively high they can employ young girls, ostensibly as maids, and abuse them. Again, there must be international police checks so that when people move from country to country, we are one step ahead of them. My understanding is that known sex offenders do not have to register their travel destination for short visits. I give the Government credit for the Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001, which compelled outbound offenders to register, but only for visits of eight days or more. Clearly, quite a lot of abuse can happen in eight days. Communities in different countries must work together to tackle that problem and while we have an opportunity to do something here, we should take the lead.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome many of the Bills in the Queen's Speech, particularly those on home affairs, including the criminal justice Bill and
    692
    measures on tackling antisocial behaviour and sex offences. I wholly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
    On criminal justice, the public perception is of rising crime and a lack of police response. The other day, when meeting members of the South Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation, I was told by one that he had been on duty and had received a call from a young woman in distress who wanted a visit from a police officer. She was 137th on his list of calls to be made that day. He said that it was hours before he could attend to that incident. There is therefore a problem concerning the lack of police response to the public's calls. There is also a perception that the punishment does not fit the crime, so I welcome new measures on sentencing. I have previously raised in the House the issue of Crown Prosecution Service cases being dropped before they get to court or while the court case is proceeding as a result of lack of evidence. I have also spoken about the failure of the public interest: members of the public are simply not informed of the collapse of those trials.
    I welcome initiatives on victim and witness support, especially the latter. In my constituency, a witness refused to give evidence in trial because he was sitting opposite the defendant while waiting to go into court. For want of a better expression, he simply lost his bottle or received threats from the defendant. He thought that discretion was the better part of valour, left the courthouse and would not give evidence. I therefore welcome the proposals that witnesses will be given support.
    I also welcome the measures on antisocial behaviour, which will be debated at length in the House. Antisocial behaviour is a major concern in my constituency, as in other constituencies where people suffer from antisocial acts, graffiti and vandalism. In districts throughout the borough of Barnsley, youths congregate and instil fear into the local populations, even though they are not committing a crime. There is simply a perception among local people that they cannot walk down the street or get past those gangs of youths without being assaulted. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said about the problem of antisocial tenants. Some private landlords take advantage of a system in which housing benefit is paid directly to them rather than the tenant—we must take a look at that. In my constituency, a landlord who lives in the midlands refuses to visit a property where problems have arisen. The property is tenanted by a young woman who is not committing any crime, but her boyfriend is a known drugs offender in the area, and the police are finding it difficult to deal with the situation. The boyfriend is making the lives of the surrounding neighbours pure hell. He is a known offender and is wanted for drug and firearm offences. Obviously, local people are afraid.
    I endorse comments made today about the need to look at problems caused by air weapons and fireworks. There is a fear in my constituency that fireworks are used as a signalling mechanism, especially among drug dealers. Quite apart from that, fireworks are used throughout the year. They are loud and noisy. At best they are a distraction and nuisance; at worst they are used as weapons and devices to blow up telephone boxes and destroy property. We need more than a code of practice. The time has come to look at introducing a

    693
    legislative measure to restrict the sale and power of fireworks. The problem is getting out of hand and is one of the biggest issues in my postbag at the moment. Similarly, there has been a rash of incidents involving air weapons. I believe that there has been a fatality in the north-east, so the time has come for us to consider the problem carefully.
    Although they are no longer part of the home affairs brief, I welcome the measures on alcohol licensing. I declare an interest as honorary adviser to the Northern Licensed Victuallers Association, and very much welcome the reforms in the alcohol and entertainment licensing Bill, especially the deregulation of opening hours. I do not believe that we will get 24-hour licensing in every pub throughout the country, and I do not believe that we would want that, but we can have some sensible relaxation of the law in relation to licensing. The portable licence is to be welcomed, as is the proposal to license the licensee as opposed to the premises. Licensing is not really a judicial function, and it can easily be transferred to a committee of magistrates, much as taxi drivers and others are licensed, as a local authority function.
    The relaxation of licensing laws might reduce the antisocial behaviour that occurs at turning-out times, and the problems that the police have to deal with at certain times of the evening. That is well documented in the press, in journals and so on. When we consider alcohol licensing, we should examine the discounting schemes used by pubs and companies. In my area, pubs are a growth industry, and there are numerous applications for licences. We already have far too many public houses. The only way for them to attract a limited market is to offer tickets at £10 entry, which entitles people to drink as much as they like, or to offer two or three drinks for the price of one. Such schemes are leading to problems of drunkenness and disorder. I hope that licensing deregulation will address that.
    6.31 pm
    Lady Hermon: I am taken aback at being called to speak. I owe an apology to all the hon. Members in the Chamber. As the Deputy Speaker knows, I had to leave the Chamber to attend a Standing Committee, so I appreciate being called so promptly, and I appreciate the forbearance of other hon. Members, who may have been present this afternoon while I was not.
    There is much that the Ulster Unionist party welcomes in the Gracious Speech, particularly the proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour. I noticed that it is the Government's intention to deal with antisocial behaviour throughout the United Kingdom. At our last Home Affairs Question Time, I pointed out to the Home Secretary that while hon. Members criticise the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been made in Great Britain, no such orders are available to the police or local councils in Northern Ireland. If the Government are committed to dealing with antisocial behaviour throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, will they please bear it in mind that we in Northern Ireland would love antisocial behaviour orders to be available there?
    I was especially pleased to see that the Government intend to increase sentences for those involved in sex crimes, particularly against women and against
    694
    children. In that regard, I draw the Minister's attention to a loophole that currently exists in Northern Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land frontier with another European Union country, the Republic of Ireland. I have a constituent, a young lady, whose daughter, a very young child, was taken by her mother's brother on an outing, ostensibly to Dublin, to Butlins, and was raped in the Republic of Ireland.
    The man was duly convicted in the Republic of Ireland and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. However, he was transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland, on the ground that he wished to be near his family, without members of his family being aware that he had been transferred. He had been included on the sex offenders register in the Republic of Ireland, but he is not included on the sex offenders register in Northern Ireland, so when he becomes free, he can reappear in my constituency. My constituent, and particularly her daughter, are very fearful of that man coming anywhere near them. That loophole needs to be cleared up.

    The Ulster Unionist party expects Northern Ireland to be included in all the measures that are introduced to modernise and streamline the criminal justice system. We had an extensive review of criminal justice as part of the Belfast agreement, and many new institutions were developed through the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which has been on the statute book since July. There was a major shake-up of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. We lead the way in the reform of policing, in human rights and in criminal justice.
    I commend to the Minister one of the changes that was introduced—the judicial appointments commission, a body that has been set up to appoint all but the most senior members of the judiciary. That gives an enhanced sense of accountability and transparency to those who sit on the Bench. The commission is designed to be representative of the community. Community involvement in judicial appointments is helpful to the judicial system.
    I was pleased to see the references to international cooperation, given that Northern Ireland shares a land frontier with another EU member state. We suffer greatly in Northern Ireland, as does the Treasury, from cross-border smuggling. The Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for security has just returned from a useful trip to study cross-border co-operation between Canada and the United States of America in dealing with cross-border smuggling.
    I hope that in the spirit of co-operation, the Government will make representations to ensure that the Irish Government, on passing their new extradition measures, will give sufficient powers to police forces in the United Kingdom to execute arrest warrants in that jurisdiction. That would be invaluable in countering those who are involved in cross-border smuggling. As the Minister will appreciate, the smuggling of fuel and cigarettes is used by paramilitary organisations, both loyalist and republican, to fund their paramilitary activities. Any co-operation between police forces in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom would be welcomed to clamp down on such activity.
    I thank the Deputy Speaker again, and leave those points with the Minister, in the hope that he will incorporate them in future legislation.
    6.38 pm
    Mr. Bill Tynan: I welcome the Queen's Speech. Reading the debates on the Gracious Speech in June 2001, I was struck by how much the Labour Government have achieved over the past year, and how little the rhetoric from the Opposition Benches has changed.
    I am delighted with the focus on justice for victims of crime and antisocial behaviour. That is important to my constituents in Hamilton, South. Dealing with crime is a devolved matter for Scotland. Because of the need for United Kingdom-wide solutions, we have an opportunity for real partnership between Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. By tackling poverty, we are improving social inclusion, enhancing benefits and tax credits, and increasing employment opportunities. If we do not do that, we will not eradicate the crime that exists in many of our communities.
    Crime and disorder is a UK-wide problem, but the Government have taken significant steps to deal with it. The Home Secretary admits that we have not solved the problems. The measures proposed by the Government are an opportunity to further advance the improvement in our communities that we all desire. I do not believe that it is a failure that each of the measures that we have introduced has built on the successful implementation of previous law. We have been building measures in a sensible way, seeing what works and listening to what communities are saying, particularly about what has to be done to solve the problem of antisocial behaviour and deal with that blight on our lives. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) that pressure for action on antisocial behaviour is generally coming from the grass roots. We must take cognisance of that fact.
    In the middle of Hamilton, we still have a problem regarding the yob culture. The same problem is endemic in many of our constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) spoke about fireworks, which are topical. Local communities face considerable harassment and nuisance from children who regard fireworks as some sort of toy and apparently find enjoyment in putting them in pillar boxes or letter boxes. While an elderly lady in my constituency was waiting for an ambulance to take her to hospital, a rocket was put into to her letter box and lit. It hit the back of the hall. The trauma for that person, who was waiting to go into hospital, was substantial.
    I should like to consider some solutions to the problems that we face. In Hamilton, South, we introduced a successful pilot scheme as part of our child safety initiative in which young children aged 12 and under who were out late at night after a certain time were collected by the police and taken back to their homes. Their parents were held responsible for correcting the problem. Unfortunately, the amount of policing time involved makes such an approach untenable in the long term, as police had to be moved from one area to another in order to make the scheme successful.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central spoke about the 137th item on a list of calls. I should like to draw attention to a pilot scheme that is in operation in Hamilton, South in which a dedicated call centre has
    696
    been set up and four experienced police officers work on a shift rota to take and screen the calls. Callers often report that a car has been broken into and that the police force cannot do any reparatory or investigatory work. Those taking the calls can advise the caller, perhaps saying "You don't really need a police officer; this is what can be done."
    Working in partnership with the likes of South Lanarkshire council, with which the police have a good relationship, those involved in the scheme have been able to deal with many of the problems that arise. When yobs are constantly causing problems in an area, the problems are highlighted and it is possible to ensure that the callers understand how to deal with them. If a problem relates to yobs in a drunken rabble, the police can look to the licensed retail outlets in that area in order to deal with it. The scheme is a good example of joined-up thinking involving the local council, the police and other bodies working together not only to be proactive, but to look in the long term at how best they can deal with the problems in their area and eradicate their causes. That is certainly a way forward.
    Having outlined some of the problems that the Queen's Speech seeks to tackle and local initiatives that are working, I should like to express my welcome of the proposals and suggest a number of others. If the revised antisocial behaviour orders are used wisely, they can have a genuine impact. In my constituency, we set up an antisocial behaviour unit and found that it could make a difference in tackling problems in particular areas. Where people felt previously that they were in a hopeless situation, taking evidence and ensuring that families were taking responsibility for their children worked well and enabled us to prevent the problems from escalating out of control.
    Another problem is young kids who are out of school during the day, especially in the afternoon. That is a problem not only of policing, but of education and trading standards. It is also a council issue. Those involved have to work together in particular to ensure that those young children are not involving themselves with alcoholic beverages because of peer pressure.
    Last night, I welcomed to Westminster the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities fireworks task group, which has considered the problem of fireworks for the past six months. Some 22 local authorities have given evidence, along with the police. The group has made a number of recommendations that I would recommend to the Home Office for its consideration. Misuse of fireworks is one of the biggest problems that we face. Unless we deal with it, it will continue to escalate out of control. The group said that health and safety is one of the big issues and recommended that the retailers who are selling fireworks should be made responsible and that the law should be tightened to prevent fireworks from falling into the hands of young people.
    I congratulate the Government on introducing a range of important measures, but crime and antisocial behaviour are not easy issues to solve. The best way for us to deal with them is to ensure that we exert pressure as Members of Parliament, consider the issues and deal with the problems.
    6.46 pm
    Mr. Boris Johnson: I am very grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. I realise that at this stage in our proceedings, it is likely that a great many excellent points will already have been made, so I hope the House will forgive me if I reiterate a couple of those points, and especially those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) about the European arrest warrant, which is potentially very alarming indeed.
    Let me give another example of why the warrant might go wrong. Let us imagine that a journalist is responsible for the production of some virulent anti-Welsh rhetoric of the sort that A. A. Gill produced not so long ago in The Sunday Times—I would not dream of repeating what he said, fond as I am of the Welsh, having contested a Welsh seat in 1997. The article might well be reprinted in a Spanish newspaper or read in an English newspaper on the Costa del Sol by a Welshman. It would then be possible under the laws of Spain to extradite the journalist to Spain for the crime of xenophobia against the Welsh.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Johnson: I hear cheers of approval on the Labour Benches, but I do not think that that would be the right approach. It would be absurd. Even if my example seems frivolous, the problem that it illustrates is very far from frivolous. Two criminal systems cannot operate effectively in the same territory. The people of this country should be governed by the laws of this country. I say that not necessarily because I have any objection to the laws of any other country, but because the people of this country cannot vote out of office the legislators of Spain and did not elect them or give their approval to the laws under which A. A. Gill would be arraigned in my hypothesis. No matter how good the law might be, the approach is fundamentally undemocratic and alarming.
    I am also alarmed by proposals to reform aspects of the criminal justice system. I do not quite understand why it is necessary to change the law on double jeopardy, which has protected citizens since the 12th century, as far as I can remember. We are told in the White Paper that the necessity arises from the tragic failure of the prosecution of the alleged culprits in the Stephen Lawrence affair, but as I think the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, there is no earthly prospect of a fair retrial of those culprits. It is therefore nonsensical and illogical to introduce a change in the law on double jeopardy on that basis. Abolishing the rule against double jeopardy is a considerable potential extension of the power of the state to oppress the individual and could encourage the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to be less than diligent in preparing cases in the knowledge that they can always have a second bite at the cherry.
    Speeches throughout the afternoon have made it clear that hon. Members of all parties are united in their desire to reduce crime, especially violent crime, and in their consciousness that the threat of crime eats away people's confidence and security.
    The genuine deterrent to crime is not elaborate and possibly illiberal reform of the criminal justice system but helping police to catch criminals. To that end,
    698
    the Government would be better advised not to monkey around with laws that have existed since the 12th century, but to consider methods of alleviating the bureaucracy that oppresses the police and that they use all too often as an excuse for not doing the job as effectively as they might.
    I want to speak briefly about the problem of rural crime in my constituency, and people's genuine fear that the police will not come to help them. When people ring, the police say that they do not have sufficient numbers to attend the scene of the crime. The other day, a farmer rang the police to say that there were burglars in his barn. The police said that they did not have the numbers to attend, so the farmer rang back to say that he had shot the burglars. At that point, the police attended the scene.
    There are too few police on the beat in south Oxfordshire. My constituents also face the problem of magistrates courts closures. Henley magistrates court was closed three years ago, and Thame magistrates court has subsequently been closed. No adequate reason has been given for that. I suspect that the demon of property prices in the area lurks somewhere at the bottom of the matter. Consequently, witnesses have to drive for a considerable distance, sometimes for more than an hour, to testify. That is a deterrent and leads to the possibility of delay and the collapse of cases. There is also a problem for local newspapers, which are unable to report the cases.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) attacked the fourth estate for causing hysteria. I want to make a brief defence of newspapers, which play an important role in our criminal justice system through alerting the public to what is happening and to cases that come before the courts. In recent months, it has been impossible for the Henley Standard—a great newspaper for which, I should declare, I write a column, unpaid—to receive advance warning of cases. They used to get them when cases appeared before Henley magistrates court and Thame magistrates court, but they receive no warning from Oxford of the cases that are coming up. That is absurd. Justice is a public matter. It should be a utensil of public shame, and the newspaper has a vital role in that.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Like my hon. Friend, I have a magistrates court—Trowbridge—that is threatened. Does he agree that it is shameful for Ministers to try to hide behind magistrates courts committees and blame them for closures when Lord Justice Auld made it clear that responsibility lay with Ministers?
    Mr. Johnson: I agree. The Government cannot evade responsibility. The Lord Chancellor recently tried to do that with the immortal declaration that he was all in favour of local justice but did not necessarily believe that it had to be administered locally.
    Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend referred to my "attack" on the fourth estate. I agree that justice must be public and that newspapers have a proper role to play. However, my point was to do with the way in which newspapers

    699
    deal with sexual crime. I believe that there is a case for anonymity for the defendant when that is granted to the complainant.
    Mr. Johnson: I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend. I simply wanted to show that I had listened attentively to his comments. I impute to him no disrespect for the Henley Standard and other local papers.
    I want to refer briefly to the interesting contribution of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who is no longer in his place. He asked whether we were genuinely tackling the big issues. There are six Bills that are supposed to solve the problem of crime in this country to consider. The right hon. Gentleman asked good questions about parental authority, the collapse of the family and education, which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) also mentioned. I agree that those are the main questions.
    There is a nexus of problems that centres around children who go through school without showing respect to their teachers because they have no reason to show respect to their parents. Unless we begin to deal with the collapse of respect for authority, we will not begin to tackle the deep causes of crime. That may be a pompous thing to say, but one is entitled to be pompous in politics. It would be good if all hon. Members agreed that the collapse and loss of respect was the central problem for British politics and we all had the courage to say so from time to time.
    6.55 pm
    Vera Baird: I shall spend all my eight minutes on one issue, just as I used to spend all my pocket money on one toy every Friday, but the issue is not to be toyed with: it is jury trial.
    What are the virtues of jury trial? First, it is democratic. Society suffers from crime and pays for its effects and for the incarceration of those convicted by the courts. Society should therefore be represented in the system that determines guilt or innocence.
    Juries make better decisions. Twelve jurors have a breadth of experience and insight that no judge—indeed, no individual—could hope to match. They cancel out each other's prejudices and they have the advantage, which a judge who makes a decision alone does not share, of debate.
    Juries are free from any suggestion that they are pro-prosecution or pro-defence; their independence is uncompromised. Trial judges, however, are selected. I do not know who selects them, but however much a judge tries to be impartial, it will not prevent public misgiving about a tribunal being less than independent.
    Let us consider the way in which judges are selected. They do not simply appear out of the ether to try specific cases; they are put in place, and there are some interesting anecdotes about that. The trial of the Archer One was mentioned a short time ago. Hon. Members will recall that it was conducted against the background of a libel trial in which the defendant's wife had given evidence, been called "fragrant" and provided
    700
    important support for him. Gossip around the Bar, of which I was formerly a more active member, suggested that the defendant would act in the same way: he would not give evidence but get his wife to do so. The trial judge was subsequently announced. I shall not name him, but he is the greatest misogynist who has ever belonged to the judiciary of England and Wales. It was plain that he had been put in place by someone who had the power to do that to prevent a recurrence of events at the previous trial.
    That information will not help Jeffrey Archer, even if he is told about it, because the jury, not the judge, makes the decision. However, the judge sets the framework, and selecting a judge to try a case is not an open process. If I were offered trial by judge instead of trial by jury, my first question would be, "Which judge?"
    The critical issue in most trials is the honesty and reliability of witnesses. The standards that should apply to both tests are those of ordinary members of society. Full-time judges do not qualify as that because of their background, training and the lives that they lead.
    Who will opt for trial by judge? Judges will not try a cross-section of cases. They will have a diet of appalling sex cases because the defendants will believe that a jury cannot overcome its prejudices when making a decision. Unattractive, upper-middle-class fraudsters will believe that they might be better off with someone who broadly derives from their social segment rather than with a jury that comprises a cross-section of people. Cases in which defence lawyers hope for a technical victory in the court of trial or on appeal because of possible defects in the reasoned judgment would also probably be tried by a judge instead of a jury.
    Allowing such opportunistic incursions into the fairest form of trial—that by jury—goes in the opposite direction from all other Government policies and risks bringing the law into disrepute. For the public at large, the perception is likely to be that some defendants can avoid justice by removing juries—the guardians of our democratic values—from the decision-making process.
    I have a profound anxiety that, if we have the ability to elect trial by judge alone, it might not seem such a great variation, at some later date, to relocate the right to elect trial by jury to the judge and away from the defendant. The proposed change would pave the way for a future Home Secretary completely to remove the right to a jury trial, leaving it as a form of trial available only at the discretion of a judge at a directions hearing, which is an appalling prospect.

    This argument reaches its height in the context of serious and complex fraud trials. The White Paper refers to a small number of serious and complex trials lasting six months or so, which highlight—it does not say how—the difficulties of jury trial. The Serious Fraud Office prosecutes such serious and complex fraud trials. Between 1988 and 1991, there was a 63.6 per cent. conviction—that is, success—rate; between 1999 and 2002, the conviction rate was 86 per cent. Those rates are both higher than average and are on an upward trend. Juries brought about those convictions. If the cases were so complex that the convictions were brought about by incomprehension and were therefore wrongful convictions, it is a surprise that there have been so few appeals.

    701
    It is the job of the lawyer to outline and present to the lay jury the evidence of the offences. Complex and unfamiliar medical or forensic evidence has to be given in wounding trials and rape trials; psychological and psychiatric evidence in murder trials may be crucial in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter, between life imprisonment and probation. I have been involved in trials with five or six psychiatric reports in them, and technical and scientific evidence about tissues, fibres and DNA can be relevant to every level of crime. In all cases, it is the job of the lawyer to convey to members of the jury sufficient information to allow them to follow the case.
    The public explanation of the charges performs the further important task of ensuring that members of the public and the press also understand the nature of the case. The jury not only represents the public at the trial; its presence ensures a comprehensible exposition of the case. The assumption seems to be, however, that some cases are so complex that only experts are capable of understanding the allegations, and that, consequently, there can be no public explanation that is comprehensible to the layman. The trial is then reduced to exchanges between lawyers and the judge, probably in impenetrable jargon, and occasionally falling into Latin. The tribunal will then pronounce to the public that, as a result of its proceedings, which neither the public nor the press have been expected to follow, it has concluded on the guilt or innocence of the accused. I do not believe that the public would, or should, be satisfied with a criminal justice system in which people are at risk of long sentences of imprisonment following trials in which the state has admitted that it cannot make its evidence comprehensible to the public.
    There are many defects in the criminal justice system, to which the Home Secretary referred. It is slow, cumbersome, inefficient, unco-ordinated, at times chaotic, and intractably unwilling to be changed. Change it! If I had a hundred minutes, I could tell the House a hundred ways in which it could and should be changed, but I can make no link between the need for change and the proposal to curtail jury trial. We should be proud of trial by jury: please, leave it alone.
    7.3 pm
    Patrick Mercer: I am privileged to follow the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) about fireworks, which have recently been causing all sorts of grief in Newark and Retford. I thoroughly agree with the their comments about them.
    I would like to spend my eight minutes underlining the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the need for effective legislation on community policing. I want to concentrate entirely on my constituency, which is not a typical inner-city constituency but a mixture of market towns and rural areas. It is an area that should be a fairly quiet part of north-east Nottinghamshire, yet it suffers in a special way. Nottinghamshire has seen a rise in crime of some 2 per cent. over the last year, but, more worryingly, robberies have gone up by 54 per cent., sexual offences by 4 per cent., offences of violence against the person by 8 per cent.—and so it goes on.
    702
    The hot spot in Nottinghamshire is not Newark, Retford or Tuxford but Nottingham, and, of course, that is where the chief constable has to put his resources. Those resources are extremely limited, and I shall come back to that in a moment. We have already heard in other debates from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—I suspect that the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) would agree with him—that all these areas are being stripped of their officers and resources so as to concentrate on the big problem, namely, Nottingham. Before I move on, I would like to pay tribute to the amount of work that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has done on the drugs problem in north-east Nottinghamshire. That issue certainly touches my constituency and I am grateful for the exposure that he has ensured for the matter.
    The problem in Nottinghamshire revolves around police funding. We are told that there is to be an extra £3.3 million for Nottinghamshire constabulary, and I am sure that there is. That will represent a 2.5 per cent. increase, which in real terms is not an increase at all. Nottinghamshire constabulary faces the same level of difficulty and reported crime as Merseyside, yet the number of officers on the beat is several hundred short of the number in Merseyside. To overcome this lack of funding, the chief constable has had no alternative but to step up the police precept in the council tax, which has risen by almost 20 per cent. in the last year. That has deeply irritated my constituents.
    Despite that rise in taxation—and perhaps because there is no real additional central Government funding—the lack of policemen in my constituency is quite remarkable. I am told that, since March last year, an extra 55 officers have been available in Nottinghamshire. I am sure that that is so, but they are not to be seen in Newark, where we have gone from 42 officers to 29. When those numbers are divided into shifts, and when the new response system that the chief constable has introduced is brought into play, there are times when we have only two officers on duty to ensure that the town remains relatively law abiding.
    In addition, the number of our special constables has fallen, and I have also been told that we are not going to receive any community support officers. I attended a recent meeting of Newark Business Club, at which we were told that if we wanted extra community support officers we would have to fund them ourselves at a cost of £20,000 a year per officer. Additionally, with the new systems that have been introduced to centralise response times, further officers have gone from Newark. We now get response vehicles only from 12 miles away, in Ollerton. It has been said before that Newark has been "hollowed out" of its officers and its resources.
    The Prime Minister has never visited my constituency, and when the Home Secretary came to Nottinghamshire we were not, strangely enough, on the list. Perhaps they did not want to see that the streets were pretty well unpatrolled, or that it can sometimes take 40 minutes to get a response on the telephone from the police. Interestingly, the striking firemen whom I visited recently in Newark said that one of their problems was that they were having not only to act as paramedics at the scenes of accidents but, with the lack of police officers in the area, to become de facto policemen themselves.

    703
    Even more worryingly—I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of this—a number of police officers have complained anonymously through the pages of the Newark Advertiser about the way in which their constabulary is run. This illustrates the completely unacceptable lack of confidence that has spread through the constabulary, which is being communicated to my constituents every day.
    What are the solutions? I challenge the Minister and the Home Secretary to visit Newark to see what it is like and how community policing has broken down completely in that part of north-east Nottinghamshire. If the Minister doubts the effect of that and how seriously my constituents take it, let him look at the general election result in the constituency. The grievance is very deeply felt.
    When the regional inspector of constabulary visits in January, I ask that he consider particularly carefully the system that has been imposed on Nottinghamshire constabulary and how Newark and associated areas are losing officers in order to police Nottingham. I understand the reasons behind that, but without extra funding my constituency and areas like it will continue to become increasingly lawless.
    The Government's failure to announce appropriate measures is likely to continue to undermine confidence in our policemen and their support services. I ask the Government to try to re-establish that confidence and to try to prevent a bigger rift from developing between people and police officers.
    7.11 pm
    Tony Wright: I shall, if I may, speak about antisocial behaviour in particular and in general. The particular point—fireworks—has been raised by a number of Members. The issue has made my postbag bulge like nothing else over these past several weeks, and I am glad that the Prime Minister agreed at Question Time two or three weeks ago that there should be legislation. We do not yet know whether it will be included in the antisocial behaviour Bill or what form it will take, but it needs to be introduced.
    The other day, I received a letter from a constituent, who says:
    "On Sunday…I was watching television in the conservatory at the back of my bungalow…there was a loud bang and a large, spent fireworks rocket came through the roof of my conservatory leaving a hole about 6–8 inches in diameter. Shards of the polycarbonate roof were scattered all around but fortunately I was not injured, only shocked. Had my wife been sitting with me, instead of in our lounge, the rocket and razor-sharp shards would have landed largely upon her and possibly caused severe injury. This was a firework from one of several parties taking place in the surrounding residential area and was, of course, impossible to trace.
    I now know, subject to an insurance assessor's visit and approval, that I shall need the roof completely replaced at a cost of £1,450 plus VAT."
    He goes on to suggest, not unreasonably, that it is time for something to be done, and it is. I hope that the Government will do it.
    May I move from the particular to a general point on which I shall follow the interesting argument opened up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli
    704
    (Denzil Davies) and taken on by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)? It involves the larger question of the context in which we talk about behaviour. We regularly pass such Bills here but nothing happens out there, which suggests that the factors that determine behaviour have little to do with what we do here. We should at least be aware of that when we pass more legislation. We need to pass that legislation, but we need also to be aware of the dark, shaping forces that are causing the problems in the first place.
    There is a paradox here. Looking back over the past generation or so, we find that people have better lives in many ways. They have more money than ever before and average earnings have gone up fortyfold during the Queen's reign. Life expectancy has gone up eight years. People can travel all round the world, choose from 100 television stations and have personal freedom of an order never seen in history, yet, over the same period and moving from the private sphere to the public, our society has reached a more parlous state than we have known in recent memory.
    If we are honest with ourselves, which we must be in discussing those things, our society has become less civilised, coarser and cruder. People are less attentive to and considerate of the needs of others. Our public spaces have become degraded. We have the image of someone sitting in their house and being able to tune into 100 television stations or to access all kinds of wonders through the internet, yet being afraid to walk down their own street. That is the society that we have created.
    A few days ago, the Home Secretary said in a television interview that the real problem is one of our culture. He was right. Saying that shows a necessary humility in a Home Secretary, but the question is, what is shaping our culture and what has made it like that when we have become ever more prosperous, liberated and self-controlling, yet ever more degraded and insecure in our social behaviour?
    We see examples on every side. A leading international footballer can write of his premeditation in setting about committing violence on an opponent, there is the routine disorder that is celebrated in sections of the media and the coarseness and crudity emitted from our television screens. As the forces that traditionally shaped behaviour and provided support are weakened—the home is one example; the transformation in family life over the past generation has been extraordinary and on a scale never seen before—where do people get their values? They get them from the images that are transmitted to them from other places. Some people do not have the protections that came from those old sources and I am afraid that those images are corrosive—they produce the antisocial behaviour that we are talking about.
    Soon after the general election, after I had been pontificating about the civic crisis and the need to engage people more in the process, I received a letter from someone who had heard my remarks but is not a constituent. I remember his letter well, because he went through what it is like to live on his street on his estate. He described the daily awfulness of being there and the sense of degradation. After going through the list, he said at the end, "And you expect us to vote?" He meant, "You expect us to give legitimacy to a political system that cannot even guarantee the security of my street."

    705
    The bottom line for a state is whether it can guarantee the security of its citizens. If it cannot do so, its citizens will walk away from it. That is what is happening now.
    7.18 pm
    Mr. Andrew Turner: First, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock (Tony Wright) on saying things that deserve and need to be said. His speech built on the contribution of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), which I admired, and at least part of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). There is indeed a great weakness at the heart not only of the Government's programme as enunciated in the Gracious Speech, but of society's approach to law and order.
    I am fortunate in having in my constituency three prisons that provide an excellent service and many jobs. One is Albany, which is one of the foremost prisons in the country for dealing with sex offenders. The section of Hampshire constabulary that covers my county is 10th in the league table in terms of the ratio of registered sex offenders to population. Given that statistic and the prison, it is not surprising that many of my constituents are concerned about the number of people living in the constituency who have a record of sex offences.
    Of course, the problem is that my constituents do not know—they can only assume. When the governor tells me that no prisoner released from Albany remains living on the island, I believe that absolutely, because part of a prisoner's release programme involves the giving of treatment on the mainland. There is a further problem, however, in that it is believed that many former prisoners come back, and of course, many other former prisoners from elsewhere also come to live in my constituency.
    I want to discuss Sarah's law. In my view, the Government and my party have entirely the wrong approach to trusting parents with the knowledge that is necessary to assist in ensuring the safety of their children. Nobody can expect parents to bring up their children effectively without having as much knowledge as can be provided of those into whose hands their children might fall. I was greatly privileged to meet Sara and Michael Payne after the murder of their daughter. I congratulate them on the courageous and dignified way in which they have advanced the cause of Sarah's law. If we are to enable parents to do their job, it is essential that we give them information and—more importantly—that we trust them with it. Even more importantly, we must enable them to trust the authorities—be it the police, the probation service, or indeed ourselves—to do what is best for them and their children.
    I use that issue as an illustration. I do not believe that the riots in Paulsgrove and the attacks on a paediatrician would have occurred, had parents been able to say to the police with reasonable cause, "I am worried about this individual—can you set my mind at rest?" The point is illustrated by the release of a former sex offender on to the Pan estate in my constituency. He was known to local parents. Parents were quoted in the Isle of Wight County Press as saying, "We have no need to attack him. All that we have to do is to warn our children to beware of him." That is the kind of sensible
    706
    reaction that one gets from sensible parents on a council estate when they are given information. There is no hysteria or riot—that happens when they cannot trust the authorities, and when they are unsure of the circumstances in which they are forced to raise their children.
    I fear that, too much of the time, too many of us share this lack of trust in ordinary people. It seems that the Government do not trust ordinary people on Sarah's law, or to serve on juries. The Liberal Democrats do not want to trust them with information on previous convictions when serving on juries. Many of us, and many of our constituents throughout the country, do not trust groups of youngsters standing around on street corners. We fear to walk past them, when perhaps the best thing to do is to say, "Hello, how are you?" Such lack of trust is becoming endemic, and we must reverse it if we are to turn society back into one that is more comfortable to live in.
    The Government do not trust the people on capital punishment, and nor have many previous Governments. I deeply regret that. This Government do not even trust Parliament on capital punishment—they have signed a treaty that deprives parliamentarians of our right to represent our electors on it. In my view, the murder of the only witness to a crime is a crime itself deserving of capital punishment.
    The erection of a panoply of complaints procedures has made the lives of police, prison officers and teachers impossible. A great machine of children's rights is determined to impose those obligations on parents as well, making their lives more difficult. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, there is an increasing sense of rights, and a diminishing sense of responsibilities, in our society. I would increase the rights of those placed in lawful authority, in line with their increased sense of responsibilities. They and our community leaders are the front line against chaos. They are the people whom we must reinforce, and whose contribution we must reinforce, if we are to make society pleasant.
    The pendulum has swung far too far towards what the Americans call liberalism. In the nature of things, it will swing back, and for that I am thankful, but let us not swing it back by adopting a kind of authoritarianism. To do that would be to swing it far too far in the opposite direction.
    7.26 pm
    Caroline Flint: On Monday, I was pleased to attend a "planning for real" session in Edlington, a community that I represent that is full of decent people, with decent hopes and aspirations for their families and their village. To aid the session, local school children made a large-scale model detailing the whole village, complete with cardboard houses. However, the houses in two particular streets were depicted as blackened lumps, representing the demolished or burnt-out houses that have been virtually destroyed by the actions of a few families.
    I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). They are right to point out that we need to discuss how these extreme situations can arise in such communities, and the ways

    707
    in which the life we live and the culture in which we operate add to the problem. However, while doing so—and while supporting employment programmes and projects such as sure start, in order to tackle the behaviour that leads to such problems—we must deal with the here and now, and the few families who cause havoc in our communities.
    Most people in former mining villages such as Denaby Main, Edlington, Conisbrough and Rossington—the latter still has a pit, but less than 300 people work there, compared with the many thousands who did so years ago—mention the pit closures of the 1980s as one reason for the decline in their communities. Those closures occurred without the necessary economic and social regeneration to rebuild their communities. People started leaving the villages, property prices stagnated, private landlords bought up former right-to-buy houses, and social cohesion declined as the number of workless households rose. Moreover, drug taking increased. I do not mean the trendy drug taking by certain people in the media to enhance their sexual performance, but drug taking in order to blot out the daily experience of life, and what people see in their communities. Decline in incomes, in work and in community morale is accompanied by physical decline: closed shops, boarded-up houses, graffiti and the antisocial behaviour that many hon. Members have talked about.
    In such an environment, a few families in one street can wreck a neighbourhood. Small-time nuisance escalates into fear, intimidation and arson, and before we know it a whole area is blighted. A climate of fear exists, and the authorities—be it the police, local authorities, councillors or Members of Parliament—look powerless. Imagine the impact on a neighbourhood when a family associated with drug dealing, nuisance and all that comes with it—the late-night visitors, the fights, the disturbances—are evicted from their council property, only to move into a private rented house three doors away. The young people in these families appear to live almost unattended lives, bereft of any guidance or parental control. They drift in and out of the family home, or between two relatives' homes. They keep irregular hours, stay out late, and are virtually independent of their parents.
    Local residents say that they want more police on the beat. In Doncaster, we do have more police, but perhaps that is not enough—perhaps more police on the beat is not the only answer. These antisocial families demand a more comprehensive response—from the police, from local authorities, and from the courts. We need to establish new jobs in the community, such as neighbourhood wardens and community safety officers—people who will be available for community liaison and who can ensure that information given to the police or the local authority is followed up. We need to ensure that we use new technology so that intelligence is gathered together. In that way, if a police officer whom a resident speaks to is not on shift the next night, the police officer who is on shift knows what the resident is talking about. We need joined-up thinking and a co-ordinated response. Otherwise, those families run rings round local agencies, soak up enormous time and energy, and still continue a reign of terror.
    708
    If other parts of the country are initiating good practice, we should also ensure that people in the community have access to that information so that they can place demands on the people who are empowered to ensure that they get it right at least some of the time, if not all the time. That is how we could give confidence to the people whom we represent.
    I have always supported antisocial behaviour orders, but they could be more effective. There are still professionals in the police, local authorities, social services and the courts who believe that ASBOs should be the last resort rather than a power that can be used before the worst is done. Those professionals also do not consider using the other powers that the Government have provided to enforce the ASBOs. Parenting orders are a good example.
    We need wider use of ASBOs and that can be helped by a swifter system for obtaining orders and a consistent response to breaches by the courts. In one notorious case in my constituency, the authorities took nine months to obtain an order against a 14-year-old involved in a string of incidents. A fortnight ago, the authorities went back to court when the order was breached. The breach alone can carry a custodial sentence of up to five years. Instead, for incitement to abusive behaviour—serious abusive behaviour in this case—the court imposed a 12-hour community reparation. That teenager will spend a few days caring for dogs at the local RSPCA facility. That is ridiculous. Breaches of orders should be seen as the final steps in a sequence of offences—not as isolated minor incidents. The Crown Prosecution Service should get its act together to better represent the community when dealing with such breaches.
    Truancy is another issue. Some 25 per cent. of burglaries are committed by truants. Worryingly, truancy sweeps frequently show that truants are often with a parent or supported by a parent in their truancy. We must tackle that. Dragging the parents to court takes a minimum of 13 weeks—a full school term of truancy—and the parents would most probably receive only a fine. We need to consider withholding child benefit until a parent is willing to co-operate with the school and education welfare officers. As one head teacher told me, it is not just about poverty. The very same children who play truant with their parents' consent are often taken on holidays abroad by their parents. We need to tackle truancy.
    As has been said, it is when people step outside their homes and see chaos that they feel that the agencies that exist are not supporting them. That is when they ask why they should vote and that is why we need national legislation that changes lives on our doorstep, and why the situation that people face on their doorstep should inform the legislation that we pass here.
    7.33 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: My constituents in Romford are increasingly concerned that crime is rife in their community and they live in fear of becoming the victims of crime. The London borough of Havering is the second largest borough in the Greater London area, but we suffer the lowest number of police officers per square mile, the third lowest number of police officers per, head of population, and the 11th highest number of crimes per officer.

    709
    Last week, I met the local borough commander for Havering and the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Lord Toby Harris. From my postbag and surgeries, I knew that the biggest concern of my constituents was crime, but my fears were confirmed in that meeting when the results of a recent consultation were revealed. No fewer than 80 per cent. of respondents were worried about being burgled. Some 77 per cent. were worried about being mugged and 76 per cent. were worried about experiencing antisocial behaviour. Massive concern is also felt in the borough about becoming the victim of vehicle-related crime. In addition, 46 per cent. reported that their fear of crime had worsened in the past three years, with only 36 per cent. of people feeling safe at night. Some 78 per cent. of people said that they were dissatisfied with the police provision on the beat.
    I hope that the Minister will agree that those responses suggest that the problem is indeed serious. We need proper resources and enough police officers to have an active presence on the streets to deter antisocial and criminal behaviour, and sufficient officers in the police stations to answer the phone and deal with the public when they need help.
    One of the biggest problems in Romford is criminal activities in the town centre, especially in the early hours of the morning. Romford has been described as the night club capital of east London, with the most night clubs and entertainment premises outside Soho. The town attracts thousands of youngsters every Friday and Saturday night, but most of them come to enjoy themselves and cause no trouble. However, there are those who take part in yobbish behaviour, causing damage and being abusive towards others. With such a volume of pubs and clubs, that creates a very intimidating atmosphere for local residents.
    I welcome the Government's realisation that antisocial behaviour is a huge problem and their attempt to address it through the antisocial behaviour orders has been a start, albeit a small one. However, when the Government came to power in 1997, police numbers in Havering stood at 326. By September 2001, following a massive fall to 297 in December 2000, the 326 figure was restored. Today, we have only 320 officers, when the bare minimum it is estimated we need is 334. My borough includes three parliamentary constituencies—Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster—and 240 million people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thousand."] I am sorry, I mean 240,000. We have lost a police station in Collier Row, in the north of my constituency and the Romford station is now the only 24-hour station serving the entire borough—all three constituencies. It is no wonder that confidence is so low and crime is increasing: the yobs know they can get away with their behaviour because there is little there to stop them.
    If the Government are serious about law and order, I suggest that they tackle the problem at the root and give the police the numbers and the power they need to have a noticeable presence and the authority, once more, to fight back. We must also give the police the confidence to get on with the job, and cut them free of unnecessary paperwork and the culture of political correctness that is so damaging.
    The drug problem is becoming rife. If we are to classify anyone as antisocial, those who deal in and take drugs must be prime targets. The Government's
    710
    confusing approach to drugs will make our streets no-go areas for the decent majority of law-abiding citizens. If the Government want to stamp out antisocial behaviour, the message must be strong and clear. Drugs cause crime. Drugs destroy the lives of our youngsters. Drugs are simply wrong. I fear that no progress will be made until that message is sent out and real action is taken to stamp out drug use.
    Police numbers and resources are not the only problem. On 14 December last year, Scott Young, a 14-year-old from my constituency, was set upon as he walked home with friends from a nearby fish and chip shop. He was punched in the face and, terrified of further assault, ran into the paths of two cars. Tragically, he died from multiple injuries after the incident, but the perpetrator of the crime was given a sentence of only three years' imprisonment.
    When I heard about that, I was appalled. That repulsion and disbelief is shared by the thousands of people who have already signed a petition organised by Scott's parents to mark their disgust at the way in which the law appears to display more understanding for criminals than for victims and their families. How can our constituents have confidence that the rule of law is being upheld, and that their lives and their loved ones' lives are safe, when such judgments are made? I sincerely hope that the proposed Bill on criminal justice and sentencing takes careful note of cases such as that involving Scott Young in Romford. I hope that it strengthens punishments and creates real deterrents.
    Crime in Romford and Havering has been at unacceptable levels for far too long. It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government have failed to give police in my area the officers and resources needed to tackle the problem. The people of my constituency demand a better law enforcement service, and I completely—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
    7.41 pm
    Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): Antisocial behaviour has become the most serious issue in my constituency, if visits to my surgery and the letters that I receive in my postbag are to be believed. It is clearly the same for hon. Members of all parties. The problem is not confined to the urban part of my constituency. Antisocial behaviour takes place in urban Donnington, in the market town of Newport, and in the village of Wrockwardine. Every part of my constituency is a source for the same complaint.
    My constituents complain about abusive and aggressive behaviour, vandalism, hooliganism, graffiti, litter, noise, including a particular problem at this time of year, as other hon. Members have noted—fireworks. However, they also complain that the police do not respond adequately to their calls for help, that the council or their landlords do not care, and that the onus on them to gather evidence for prosecution is too heavy, and to give evidence as a witness in court too intimidating. As other hon. Members have noted, it is a simple truth that one individual—never mind a family or a gang—can blight the lives of all the people living in whole streets, estates or neighbourhoods.

    711
    It is also true that the police have been too slow to acknowledge that low-level crime can have a high-level impact. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said so eloquently, the erosion of quality of life can lead to an erosion in people's confidence in the police's preparedness and ability to protect law-abiding citizens. It is not a problem only for the police, local authorities and landlords, however, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that they often do not do enough to respond to public priorities. The key issue is not just about the incidence of crime, or even people's experience of it. We must also tackle people's fear of crime.
    In 1996, I conducted a survey in two market towns in my constituency. I found that two people in five were too fearful to walk the streets at some time during the day, and that one person in four—25 per cent. of the people surveyed—were too frightened to remain alone in their own homes.
    A great deal has been achieved over the past five years. We have heard about reductions in the incidence of crime. In my police area of West Mercia, there will be 300 additional police officers by the end of the year. A senior local officer told me that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the best piece of legislation to have been passed in the 25 years that he had been in the force. We have slashed youth unemployment, and introduced ASBOs, crime reduction partnerships, neighbourhood wardens and on-the-spot fines, and it is clear that such measures can work.
    In the target areas, street crime has fallen by 16 per cent. in recent months. I welcome that, but the job is only half done if people do not feel safer. As has been noted, it is important to recognise that although our constituents are worried about the state of the world and our nation, they are most concerned about what happens outside their own front doors. If people believe that their neighbourhood is down at heel and uncared for, that is how they feel too. If their neighbourhood looks good, they feel good. We need to learn that lesson quickly.
    We need a cultural change, as other hon. Members have said, that recognises that, in this affluent age, quality of life is a key priority for constituents. It may be that antisocial behaviour has not increased in recent years. It is a difficult thing to measure, but it is certain that people have grown more sensitive to it.
    I support the Government's programme wholeheartedly. I am not in favour of illiberal legislation that simply catches the tide of public opinion. We in this House should be jealous of this country's civil liberties, and we will need to scrutinise the legislation that is put before us. However, it is surely right to shift the balance in favour of the citizen, and in particular of the victim.
    It is a fundamental principle that social order is based on a balance of rights and responsibilities. People who refuse to fulfil their responsibilities cannot be allowed an absolute freedom to abuse the rights of others. It must be right to broaden the powers of police, local authorities, landlords and the courts. We need to get the message across to offenders that their antisocial behaviour will be tolerated no longer.
    712
    We need to get the same message across to parents as well, as other hon. Members have noted. We cannot force them to love or cherish their children, but we can oblige them to accept some basic responsibilities. As has been noted, there are 40,000 to 50,000 truancies each day. Truancy sweeps show that 80 per cent. of truants are found with an adult, who is often a parent or relative.
    The link between truancy and crime hotspots is also difficult to argue against. As has been noted, a quarter of young offenders are former truants. I therefore agree with what other hon. Members have said about the importance of parenting orders and the withdrawal of benefit from parents, where that can be justified. We also need to support head teachers and other teachers in our schools. Putting police officers in schools is an extremely unfortunate step, but it is inevitable and in many cases welcome. I hope that there will be time in the legislative programme for us to hear more about the need to teach the fundamentals of citizenship in classrooms.
    However, young people are not the only offenders; they are often the victims of antisocial behaviour, as well as its perpetrators. I spoke earlier about perception, which nowadays, with the help of the press and the media, often overwhelms reality. Young people are often perceived to be a problem when they are not. They gather on street corners and represent an intimidating presence for many people, but that is often because they have nowhere else to go. It is a great shame that our investment in public services contains too small an element for youth services and facilities.
    There is little that is more important for hon. Members and our constituents than making neighbourhoods fit to live in. That is what people in our communities expect us to do. We must focus our resources on prevention as a priority, but we must act decisively when offences occur to detect and convict the perpetrators, and to protect our citizens and the quality of life to which they are entitled.
    I therefore welcome the priority that the Government are attaching to the priorities of my constituents.
    7.49 pm
    Julie Morgan: In the short time available to me, I wish to address my remarks to the issue of violence against women, particularly domestic violence.
    I am pleased that the Government have given a priority to domestic violence, because under-reporting and under-recording are major issues when it comes to that type of violent crime. It is well known that one woman in four will experience domestic violence. The facts are starkly laid out in the White Paper "Justice for All"—on average, a woman will be assaulted 35 times before reporting it to the police; the police receive a 999 call every minute about domestic violence; and a quarter to a third of victims of homicide are killed by a partner or ex-partner. We are beginning to realise the extent of the problem.
    It is therefore right that the Government have put an emphasis on tackling domestic violence. I warmly welcome their commitment to a consultation on it, as announced by the Prime Minister last week and reaffirmed today in Prime Minister's questions. However, it is important that the consultation moves

    713
    towards a specific end. We are all aware of the need for action. Indeed, the Government have already introduced many measures to tackle the issue, such as the national network of domestic violence specialists in the Crown Prosecution Service to improve the prosecution process and the domestic murder reviews.
    The White Paper "Justice for All" has already consulted on issues such as anonymity for victims of domestic violence. Will the consultation announced by the Government lead to draft legislation, with pre-legislative scrutiny? There is a strong case for having a draft Bill on domestic violence, and I feel strongly that if we are to embark on another consultation process in the new year, it must lead to a tangible form of legislation.
    The Home Office has already shown its commitment to tackling domestic violence by funding a number of pilot projects throughout England and Wales which are aimed at tackling domestic violence. The women's safety unit in Cardiff, which I chair, and which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is one such project. It brings together seconded staff from key agencies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the probation service, Women's Aid, the Black Association of Women Step Out and the police to provide a one-stop shop for women and children suffering domestic violence. The unit works closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the housing departments and social services to provide a service to women and children in Cardiff. A recent independent evaluation of the project has shown that the unit has made a difference in the service provided to women and children suffering domestic violence in Cardiff. We have factual evidence to back that up: the number of persons who have been charged with offences of domestic violence has increased significantly from 27 to 40 a month; the number of victims refusing to make a complaint has decreased significantly from 99 to 79 a month; the number of repeat victims has decreased significantly from 58 to 39 a month; and the number of concern for children reports has more than doubled from 22 to 50 a month. So we have had increases where we wanted them and decreases where we wanted them.
    The project has clearly shown that a concerted, planned effort to change the tide of domestic violence can succeed. However, it was funded by a one-off, one-year grant from the Home Office of £300,000. The women's safety unit is waiting to hear whether it will receive mainstream funding from the Home Office. The funding runs out in February and I want to take this opportunity in debating the Queen's Speech, much of which has to do with violent crime, to urge the Home Office to make a favourable decision soon on this and similar projects throughout the UK. We have the hard data to show that the project is working in Cardiff, and I am sure that there is evidence for other such projects throughout the country. There is not much point in talking about a consultation on domestic violence if we do not look at what has happened in the projects that have been funded by the Home Office. The Government have given a commitment to action against domestic violence and they should, I strongly believe, follow that through by looking at these successful projects.
    714
    I welcome the proposals on domestic violence, and I welcome the consultation. However, to make it all meaningful, the consultation should lead to draft legislation that draws together the various strands for which the Government have already been responsible, and the projects that have been funded by the Home Office should be considered for long-term funding.
    I welcome the plan to increase the number of fixed penalties for minor crimes and disorder offences and believe that these should be extended as far as possible. I am also pleased that the Government are taking the needs of the victim more into consideration. I have some concerns, however, about the proposal that the previous convictions of defendants will be revealed to courts in certain circumstances and I hope that its implications will be carefully considered.
    It is difficult to make an objective decision on one particular crime if the previous convictions of the accused are revealed. I have no doubt that some of the miscarriages of justice that have occurred have been due to the police picking up suspects who have a previous history. The revelation of previous convictions is in many ways bound to influence a jury and could result in a defendant being convicted on his or her past crimes rather than on the facts of the crime considered by the jury. Although the White Paper says that the judge will decide whether previous convictions are relevant, that is putting power into the hands of one person. I am concerned that we do not open the way for people to be judged on their past history rather than on the crime that is being considered.
    7.56 pm
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly on the Labour Benches, I welcome the priority in the Queen's Speech given to crime and to tackling antisocial behaviour. In particular, I endorse the comments of some Members about the legislation on air weapons and fireworks. In common with many other Members of Parliament, at every surgery I have complaints from people pleading with me for the Government to do something about antisocial behaviour. It is the No. 1 issue in my constituency, particularly among the elderly.
    The failure of laws and law-enforcing agencies to curb antisocial behaviour has two consequences. First, when people see illegal and antisocial activities going unchecked, it undermines their faith in the law and reinforces those tendencies within society to act lawlessly, so the problem snowballs. Secondly, as others have said, it undermines people's faith in democracy. If elected representatives cannot make laws that improve their constituents' everyday quality of life, the incentive to participate in democracy is removed. That is a profoundly dangerous development.
    The agenda, which is difficult and profound, may go beyond legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) talked about the way in which people's behaviour towards each other has changed. We are trying to implement a programme that will in the long run change the way in which people behave towards each other. I support the proposed legislation's underlying philosophy of rights and responsibilities. However, we must recognise that such

    715
    ideas start in the home, with good parenting, are continued in school and must be backed up and supported by the legislative framework.
    People who commonly evade the law are often those who are most aware of their rights. Perversely, they use those rights to exploit deficiencies in our legal procedures to evade justice. The proposed legislation will go some way to redress the balance. Legislation must change the balance in favour of the community.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bailey: I am sorry that I cannot give way as time is limited.
    I hope that the proposed fixed penalty system will be used so that certain antisocial elements are prevented from exploiting the legal system to evade being brought before the law. Although curbing crime is pre-eminently the responsibility of the police, the courts and the law enforcement agencies in general, it is not theirs alone: many local authority services also have a vital role to play. Education has already been mentioned and the youth service, housing departments and even environment departments are also important. They must all work together.
    Comments have been made about the link between truancy and crime. It is important for education authorities to be clear about the law and about their obligations in implementing it if they are to have an impact on crime and antisocial behaviour in their area.
    I welcome the proposals on tackling graffiti and fly tipping. They may seem only minor infringements of the law, but when people see graffiti and fly tipping in an area, it reinforces the impression that the prevailing standards are those of the antisocial minority rather than of the law-abiding majority and acts as a deterrent to decent people to move into the area.
    Tackling drugs is vital to deal with crime. In my local authority, a community against drugs programme was implemented as part of the crime and disorder partnership. It is working. Funding for four police operations has already resulted in 45 people being charged with the supply of class A drugs, and money from the drug trade, as well as heroin and cocaine have been recovered.
    Sandwell borough council wants to continue the campaign, as there is considerable evidence to show that heroin use is being checked and there is much greater community resistance to the drugs trade. I hope that funding for the programme will be continued.
    My authority and others in the west midlands pioneered the use of antisocial behaviour orders, but they have found that court processes work against them. Common complaints are that derisory action is taken on breaches of ASBOs, that there are long waits for court appearances, and the general culture of the courts suggests that ASBOs are not an important part of their responsibilities.
    Crime must be tackled at all levels, starting with good parenting, continuing throughout education and within a legal system that reinforces rights and responsibilities.
    716
    I hope that local co-ordination will be specified in legislation to ensure that local authorities, the police and other agencies work in partnership to deliver it.
    8.4 pm
    Mr. Mark Todd: I want to address two related issues. A family in Church Gresley, which is close to my constituency office, perpetrated a reign of terror on citizens around their home for a period of between 18 months and two years. It was a large family, with a number of children who attracted friends who acted in much the same way. Several of them were prosecuted for offences, but the preparation of the antisocial behaviour order took a long time. I was involved because I had received so many complaints that I could set out for the police the details of what had happened in some cases. However, the encouraging aspect is that the ASBOs seem to have provided some relief, supplemented by a certain amount of informal community social control on which I shall not expand at present.
    I welcome the implication in the Queen's Speech that landlords who fail to ensure that their tenants abide by normal tenancy obligations might lose the right to receive housing benefit direct. In the case to which I referred, the family's home was privately rented and the landlord simply took the money and could not care less about the behaviour of the tenants, despite the complaints that were made. Other hon. Members have referred to similar cases, which cannot be excused. The state should not provide a pay cheque for people who are prepared to ignore the behaviour of tenants who are terrorising an area. I strongly welcome the proposals and will scrutinise them in detail to ensure that they will actually work in such cases.
    My other dominant concern has not yet been mentioned: the increasing prevalence of illegal camping in my area. Typically, there are four or five such encampments—I think there are five at present—despite the fact that the local authority provides two sites for travellers. South Derbyshire has long provided a home for people with a travelling way of life. We welcome them. They attend local schools and are part of our citizenry. However, we also attract a large number of people who scorn that hospitality and are a tremendous nuisance in our area.
    Normally, such people occupy a site and then trash it. They dump debris, including destroyed cars, dead animals and felled leylandii. One of the major economic activities of such travellers is to chop down those nuisances in people's gardens, but they leave them in lay-bys and on other people's property. Such rubbish is scattered across the site.
    The local taxpayer has to pay for the cleaning of the site, at a cost of between £2,000 and £3,000 a time. My local authority usually spends between £20,000 and £30,000 a year cleaning up after those travellers have left. It would not be so bad if they did not immediately move on to another site in the area and repeat the experience.
    The councils, the police and the Environment Agency claim difficulties in responding. There are clear breaches of environmental protection law, but linking physical evidence to an individual is often difficult. There has been one successful case—an extreme one—in which the

    717
    person set up a car-breaking business. Often, however, names given are unreliable and the police seem to be unable to pin down vehicle ownership. Hon. Members may not be aware that one needs a licence to haul waste and if one's vehicle is not licensed, it represents a breach of the law. However, it seems impossible to nail people for that particular offence.
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has drafted proposals for new guidance within the existing law. They may or may not be adequate. Apparently, the matter rests with the Home Office, a Department which, I regret, has in the past had a reputation for gentleness towards abusive and antisocial travellers who bring law-abiding travellers into disrepute. I urge rapid consideration and firm endorsement of measures to reduce and, I hope, remove that nuisance. I note that the proposals on fly tipping in the Queen's Speech may help enforcement, because that is one of the major activities that I associate with such travellers' presence, and I would wish to move amendments if that is not the case when we see the Bill.
    I turn briefly and finally to other points that have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). The debate has certainly highlighted the institutionalising of social control. There has been an accelerating trend of transfer from informal social mechanisms—families, larger employers where people work for most of their lives, shared entertainment and social activities, shared military experience, deference and so on—to an obligation on the state to provide the same apparatus.
    A good example is the work load of any Member of Parliament. In my grandfather's time—he was a Member of Parliament—few felt that they should turn to an MP to demand a response from the state. All hon. Members can now witness the fact that we receive such requests daily, yet let us consider this paradox: as the state increases its panoply of controls, its servants and representatives are held in less and less regard.
    We fail to engage our citizens in parliamentary democracy if we do not succeed in engaging them in the apparatus of the state that they will for themselves through us, and we will need to reflect on that on another occasion. Their engagement is critical to the way in which any state apparatus may work, and many of the apparatuses that they wish and will through us will fail for that reason.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I wish to follow on from some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). I welcome the reform of the licensing laws proposed in the Queen's Speech. I acknowledge that they will do much to help tourism and lead to a saner licensing system. I also acknowledge that they will help to reduce the trouble—the violence and so on—that our police face owing to the 11 pm closing of so many licensed premises. Having said that, I want to draw attention to the problems that the reform of licensing will not address.
    The reforms will not address the problems that occur in many metropolitan city centres, such as that in my own city, which have an extremely high density of
    718
    licensed premises, usually with late licences—clubs and the like—and where the police encounter immense difficulty finding the resources to meet the problems that that density causes.
    I hope that the forthcoming legislative programme—as has been mentioned, it is overwhelmingly sponsored by the Home Office—will include a proposal to deal with those problems. I suggest that a precept should be placed on the sale of alcoholic drinks in areas with a high density of licensed premises. Such a precept—for example, perhaps just 1 p on a pint or an equivalent alcoholic drink—would be worth six coppers on the beat in my constituency.
    The particular problem in Cardiff is that, during the last three years for which figures are available, the capacity of licensed premises has expanded from fewer than 8,000 to 13,500 in a 100-yd area in St. Mary street, which is in the heart of the city. The police estimate that they are policing 30,000 to 40,000 drinkers in the city centre on an average Friday or Saturday night. One reason why those figures have increased remarkably in Cardiff is the great success of the Millennium stadium, which is right next to that drinking area.
    Some 3 million people have come to the city to attend the Millennium stadium in the past few years. That is a great success, and many of those people have had a good time and stayed on. They have decided that Cardiff is a good place to have a good drink at the weekend, and they often come from areas hundreds of miles away from Cardiff.
    The problem is that violence has also increased. In the six months to 31 December 2001, 135 injuries were treated, compared with 65 in the same period in 1999, so violence is growing faster than capacity. Almost one serious injury is reported every night. In 2001, 63 per cent. of violent incidents in Cardiff on Saturday nights occurred in the city centre, compared with 38 per cent. in 2000 and 26 per cent. in 1999. Some 87 per cent. of those injured were male and 63 per cent. of the males were between the ages of 18 and 30.
    Although ending the 11 pm closing time for pubs and the 2 am closing time for nightclubs will lead to less friction, the high density and the level of drinking make it inevitable that the problems will continue.
    The figures that I have just given come from the work of Professor Shepherd who is a consultant surgeon at Heath hospital in Cardiff and chair of the Cardiff violence prevention group. He has done magnificent work in co-ordinating hospitals, police, councils, ambulance services and others in drawing attention to such problems and trying to address them.
    The number of police available on Friday and Saturday nights in Cardiff city centre is typically one sergeant, with eight constables on duty. That is not nearly enough, so they are supplemented from each of the 10 police districts around the rest of Cardiff. Those other police districts, which typically have three to four policemen on duty in the evening, will therefore have 25 per cent. of their police resources taken away to police the city centre.
    Of course this is not just a problem for Cardiff. The chief constable of Nottinghamshire has said that it is
    "unacceptable that officers were being forced away from other areas, leaving city suburbs without sufficient cover."

    719
    He wants pubs and clubs in the city centre to pay a direct tax towards those policing costs.
    Many of those who drink in Cardiff city centre come from outside Cardiff, but they do not bring with them the resources allocated to police them when they go there to drink. The people of Cardiff bear the costs in rates and reduced cover in other parts of the city. On the principle that the polluter should pay, I believe that a precept of a penny or two on alcoholic drinks in areas with high densities of licensed premises, with the money raised going to the emergency services, would be the most just way to fund the resources needed, rather than depriving other parts of the city of emergency cover.
    On the basis of 1p a pint, if the 30,000 to 40,000 people in Cardiff city centre on an average Friday or Saturday night buy the equivalent of three drinks each—I suspect that they would often drink a lot more than that—it would bring in £1,200 a night, roughly equivalent to six extra policemen. There could be other mechanisms, but I hope that the Home Office will carefully consider that proposal to bring in resources to meet the causes of the problems and to fund those resources from the people who profit from the problems—the licence holders—and make very large profits on the alcohol sold.
    8.19 pm
    John Mann: I was described earlier by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) as living in a fool's paradise. I remind the House that I had asked him to provide evidence for his claim that what was needed for drugs treatment in this country was residential rehabilitation, because that was what worked. He cited the Netherlands as his evidence base. The Council of Ministers meets next Thursday and Friday, and I believe that the Home Secretary will be present. It will receive a paper from the European Union drugs co-ordination committee, in which AWUD—the co-ordinating group of Ministers in the Dutch Parliament—states that the policy in the Netherlands in recent years has been to move towards outreach work. Outreach work is a separate form of treatment from residential care—the two are competing variations.
    I make that point because, in my few minutes, I shall concentrate on the issue of drugs and its relationship to crime. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge on the part of a senior politician is an even more dangerous thing. The same right hon. Gentleman said at his party conference that we should follow the example of Sweden, and that that would involve a tenfold increase in drugs treatment in this country. The Council of Ministers will also, of course, receive evidence from the Swedish drugs co-ordination Minister. Last year in Sweden, 9,887 people were undergoing drugs and alcohol treatment. The estimate of a tenfold increase in this country would suggest that approximately 989 people were currently receiving drugs treatment in this country, and that is not so. To suggest as the core part of an answer to a major problem remedies based on ignorance rather than fact is not appropriate in terms of good governance and decision making in this House. I trust that the House will treat such a lack of evidence with the contempt that it deserves.
    720
    On a good piece of news, I held a drugs inquiry recently, and my panel of six included a Church representative, the chaplain of Bassetlaw hospital, the Reverend Roy Bennett. Unfortunately—or fortunately—Roy has retired, and has moved from Bassetlaw in the last two weeks. He now resides in the constituency of West Dorset. He will therefore be available to the right hon. Gentleman to provide real expertise in terms of informing the debate and the policy-making of his party.
    The issue of drugs is a major one.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    John Mann: No, I want to develop my point in the time remaining.
    The evidence received in my inquiry showed that one in three households in the majority of my constituency were directly affected by drugs—the vast majority by drugs-related crime. When we looked at mining villages—or former mining villages—we found that the concentration was significantly higher. A majority of those households were directly affected, and often dually affected: a member of the extended family would be a drug user, while the house would have been burgled. As a user becomes drug-dependent—in virtually all cases in my constituency the drug is heroin, as appears to be the case in other former mining constituencies, rather than cocaine—they steal from their own family. As that dependency builds up, they progress to stealing from shops and breaking into houses, not for large goods but for goods that they can resell for small amounts of money. The item stolen most often from stores in my constituency is razor blades—they are cheap, easy to pocket, easy to sell on, and there is a big demand for them.
    The police suggested that two thirds of all crime was committed by drug addicts. What that fails to quantify, however, is the vast majority of crimes that are not recorded, such as shoplifting. Therefore, that is a severe underestimate of the levels of crime taking place. The police in Nottinghamshire estimate a criminal income of £15,000 per drug addict per year. If we remember that that represents the resale value of stolen goods, that equates to £20 million of goods stolen from my constituency every year to feed drug addiction, which is the cause of the vast majority of crime. I do not pretend or claim to speak for any other constituency in any other area, but, in my constituency, that is the key issue in relation to crime. Of the 150 case studies of heroin addicts that I have provided—I shall provide the others if anyone wishes to see the 300 pages of detailed evidence—only one of them was not involved in crime. One young female drug addict told me that, for her, shoplifting is a way of life and a routine that is followed methodically.
    In relation to the criminal justice system, the issue becomes more interesting. I shall not refer to our recommendations now, as the Home Office has received my report. I shall therefore concentrate on the biggest weakness, which is the National Treatment Agency. I have suggested that an Opposition-day debate could be allocated to the issue of the National Treatment Agency, as that would allow us to discuss such an

    721
    important issue in great detail. The National Treatment Agency is a good initiative, but it is not working. In my constituency, nobody can evidence a single drug addict criminal—they constitute the vast majority of criminals—who has been treated. I have asked that question repeatedly, going back 10 years, since the pits were shut and as heroin has taken a hold in the mining villages in particular. The evidence base should be created so that we can quantify what the National Treatment Agency has been doing and it can be held accountable for a menu of treatment to be provided. The kinds of treatment that should be available are not available in my constituency. We demand action, whether from the Department of Health or the Home Office.
    8.27 pm
    Mr. Chris Pond: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to him for the work that he has done on drugs in his constituency.
    A central purpose of the measures in the Queen's Speech is to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of witnesses and the victim. I welcome that, as do other hon. Members. We must ask why that is necessary, however, at a time when the risk of being a victim of crime is lower than at any time in the past 20 years. In my constituency, burglaries are down by 20 per cent. in the past year alone, car theft down by 9 per cent., and overall recorded crimes down by 5 per cent. That is a tribute to Kent police and particularly to the area commander, Superintendent David Pryer, to extra investment in more officers and closed circuit television, and to the partnership between my local authority, the police and other agencies in pursuing the measures necessary to reduce crime. Although the chances of being a victim of crime are lower than they have been for many years, the consequences of being a victim are as devastating as they have always been. As the organisation, Victim's Voice—which has campaigned for many years for the rebalancing of the system—has pointed out, the consequences include the loss of one's job, financial hardship, physical and mental ill health, attempted and, tragically, sometimes successful suicide, alcoholism, divorce and the loss of one's home.
    As if that were not enough, the criminal justice system can also humiliate victims and witnesses, depriving them of their dignity, especially in rape trials. In a recent Adjournment debate, I pointed out how the families struggling to come to terms with the loss of their loved ones in the Marchioness disaster found that struggle made worse by the treatment of the coroner who described them as
    "a number of mentally unwell relatives and survivors who mutually support each other."
    He described one mother who was still grieving as "unhinged". That is why we need to shift the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of victims.
    As other hon. Members have noted, there is a second reason why the fear of crime persists despite the fall in the recorded crime figures. It is the persistence of those forms of antisocial behaviour that blight and tarnish the lives of many of our constituents. One constituent phoned me at home on a Saturday night not so long ago.
    722
    He was at the end of his tether over what he had seen over the past month outside his front window. He listed what had happened. The doctor's surgery window had been broken; the dental surgery window had been broken; and the chemist's window had been broken. Someone had a real grudge against the health service. A shop had been vandalised; a car had been surrounded by thugs who pulled the occupants from it and beat them up; two phones were regularly vandalised; trees were torn up; and rubbish bins were overturned.
    I received a letter recently from Victim Support in Gravesham about the circumstances of a particular family. It said:
    >"Mr. and Mrs. Singh had been the victim of quite serious assaults by local youths and they were now both, but in particular Mrs. Singh extremely worried for their own and their children's safety. Mrs. Singh was very jumpy and quite obviously upset. She started at every sound and appears at times near breaking point. They told me that there was repeated harassment from neighbours and their children, in addition, to the assaults they had fireworks thrown at the house and only that morning someone had been on the flat roof at the back of the house and left a pile of clothing."
    For the young people involved, that incident was a "bit of a laugh". It was a way of asserting their authority over adults whom they knew very little about and with whose interests they were little concerned. However, their behaviour was a source of terror, fear and humiliation for the family. It must stop.
    As I have said, in Gravesham, we have been working effectively in partnership with the police, local council and other agencies to pursue a number of antisocial behaviour orders, but there is recognition that the processes are often complex and too vulnerable to failure through technicalities. My community will certainly welcome the measures to make it easier to deal with loutish and antisocial behaviour, including the wider use of parenting orders and final warnings for young people. It will also welcome a number of other measures to curb alcohol-related crime and new powers to tackle graffiti, noise, litter and local environmental threats, including restricting the sale of spray paints. In my postbag, as in that of many other hon. Members, such quality of life issues are the most important to our communities.
    The measures that we are discussing could have a significant effect on the level of social nuisance. Police in north Kent estimate that just 10 young offenders aged between 13 and 17 are responsible for 40 per cent. of crime in some areas. One young person had clocked up 76 arrests in just 18 months. Although it is true that a minority of young people are responsible for a large proportion of criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must also recognise that it is also true that a majority of young people are responsible for no criminal or antisocial behaviour at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) pointed out, there is a real danger of demonising young people. We need to make sure that we re-engage those young people in the process of combating crime and antisocial behaviour.
    In the time that I have left, I wish to point to two or three of the measures that are being pursued to tackle the root causes of such behaviour. First, I want to highlight disruptive behaviour in schools, which is the biggest challenge that faces us in education. However, it also offers the prospect of the biggest prize in dealing

    723
    with crime and social disorder. If we can deal with the problem particularly in primary schools and in secondary schools that could pay a big premium as time goes by in preventing young people from moving on to a life of crime.
    Secondly, I want to highlight the "Make Space" initiative promoted by the Kids Club Network. It is based on new research that shows that 70 per cent. of 11 to 16-year-olds believe that young people commit crime because there is not enough to do. The research also shows that almost half of parents do not know where their teenage children are after school. The initiative will provide a network of clubs that provide after-school initiatives for 11 to 16-year-olds. That will have a significant impact.
    Finally, I want to mention the work of Gravesham Youth Forum. It engages young people and helps them to work with the local authority, other agencies and myself to tackle youth crime and disorder. Unless we involve young people in that process and ensure that they take responsibility too, we will not deal with the problems blighting our communities.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I congratulate the Home Secretary and his Department on many provisions in the Queen's Speech. Although it is easy to be swept away by events overseas—from our efforts to tackle international terrorism to possible military action against Iraq—it is important not to lose sight of our responsibilities at home. The word "responsibility" is especially important because the theme of rights and responsibilities provides the foundation on which this year's legislative agenda is to be built.
    My constituents frequently tell me that one of their biggest concerns is the insecurity and, in many cases, outright fear that they feel as a result of crime. Although this country has been fortunate to have experienced broadly falling levels of crime—the British crime survey is testament to that—street crime and other forms of antisocial behaviour frequently dominate my postbag. For that reason, I am pleased that the Government intend to introduce measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.
    An emphasis on local communities is the key. It is ultimately at a local level that people assess success. It is all well and good for politicians to trumpet national statistics, but unless people see tangible local benefits and feel safe in their neighbourhoods, all our hard work will be forgotten.
    Last year's crime and disorder audit published for the London borough of Ealing, which covers my constituency, found that antisocial behaviour was one of the four most pressing concerns for residents, with more than a third of panellists saying that they were concerned about it. So I welcome proposals to extend the application of fixed penalty notices and to widen their enforcement, as well as plans to continue to improve the implementation of antisocial behaviour orders in the courts.
    I recognise that the orders have had a mixed success. Research published by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders shows that they
    724
    take an average of three months to obtain. But the principle behind them is right. We should work to improve the system rather than simply abandoning it. As NACRO points out, such orders can work, but it is essential that they take local circumstances into account.
    Taking a more robust approach to quality-of-life issues, such as graffiti, fly tipping and the use of spray paints, also makes sense. The term "zero tolerance" is often overused and misunderstood. Many people associate zero-tolerance policing with police brutality and the persecution of minorities, but that need not be the case. The problem often lies more in the execution of the policy than in the principle behind it.
    The strategy is based on an article published in March 1982 called the "Broken Window Theory". It argues that if one window in a building is left broken, the others will soon be broken too. I agree that the system, which has been adopted in cities such as New York, is not perfect and that other factors, such as demographics, have played a part in falling crime. Any initiative on antisocial behaviour, and on criminal activity in general, will invariably focus on young people. The crime audit in my constituency found that in 2000–01, over 70 per cent. of suspects for incidents of robbery of personal property were males aged between 10 and 21.
    Education plays an important role, especially in the early years. It is one of the best ways of reducing such crimes. As the Economic Opportunity Institute, based in Seattle, points out, quality early education is regarded by law enforcement officers in America as considerably more effective in crime prevention than trying more juveniles as adults or building more youth detention centres. We should also note successful initiatives such as the campaign conducted by the Boston police department, whose scheme includes co-operation between police officers and civilians to wash off graffiti and to run youth clubs.
    Unfortunately, whatever progress is made in preventing youth and adult crime, there will still be offenders. I welcome the Home Secretary's plans to increase consistency in sentencing, as well as his custody minus and custody plus proposals. I am convinced that they will prove popular with my constituents as it surely makes sense to find useful alternatives to short-term custody which will benefit local communities. As a justice of the peace for 11 years, and having relevant experience of the system, I also support plans to reform the court system and to bring together magistrates courts and Crown courts to work within a single organisation.
    I hope that you will indulge me for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, while I quickly cover proposals that fall within my remit as a member of the International Development Committee. I am pleased to note the continued commitment to development work and the plans to increase the aid budget still further. We have seen the terrible effects that suffering and disenchantment can create, and we have been made all too painfully aware that what happens in one nation affects us all. Improving the conditions of the world's poor benefits us all and it is also the right thing to do.
    There is much to look forward to in the current legislative year. No doubt much will prove controversial as the Government try to strike the correct note,

    725
    whether on freedom for hospitals, on freedom for individuals or on how best to balance the rights of victims and the accused.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Mark Hoban: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what is an important debate for all our constituents.
    I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) who spoke, as ever, with passion and eloquence about the problems that face his constituency. As someone who spent the first nine years of his life in the east Durham coalfields, I understand the sympathy and concern that he displayed about the problems with heroin in former coal-mining communities.
    My constituency is stuck between Southampton and Portsmouth. I am glad to see the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) in his place on the Treasury Bench. Both those cities have much greater crime problems than my constituency. Fareham is a relatively peaceful place, but I get an awful lot of letters from constituents who are concerned about antisocial behaviour. That issue affects people throughout the constituency regardless of their social class or the type of housing that they live in.
    Many people saw the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders as a first step to tackling those problems. Many are disappointed that fewer orders have been issued than the Government suggested when they introduced them in the last Parliament. In Fareham, none have been issued. I have been made increasingly aware of the difficulties that the police and local council face in applying for antisocial behaviour orders. Despite the fact that they have worked hard together, there are too many impediments in the magistrates courts for the orders to be granted.
    Sandra Gidley: I, too, represent a Hampshire constituency. A police superintendent recently told me that antisocial behaviour orders were expensive and time-consuming. However, she said that the police had had a lot of success with acceptable behaviour contracts. Has that been the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
    Mr. Hoban: The police and the council have worked hard to use many different orders to try to combat antisocial behaviour. At the end of the day, however, a much more severe sanction is needed for some of that behaviour. The hon. Lady may not be aware of a recent case in Portsmouth where an antisocial behaviour order was issued. Having read the list of convictions that the subject of the order had gained in recent years, I was surprised by the length of time that it took to issue an antisocial behaviour order—she had caused havoc across Portsmouth and in her local community.
    I agree that there are other means available to tackle the problem, but ASBOs should be looked at again—we should make it much easier to apply for them so that they can be used to restore peace to local communities. There is one area in which ASBOs do not appear to have been used. A business in my constituency had great problems tackling the behaviour of a small group of people. The owner operated a retail premises, which
    726
    those people would enter to terrorise his staff and customers. That happened repeatedly, but it was difficult for the owner to resolve the problem. He lost trade and staff, and ended up having to spend £5,000 of his own money to ban those people from his premises. We need to look at ways in which we can act more effectively to protect people in shops, whether they are customers or staff, so that owners do not have to resort to delving into their own pockets to protect their business from the actions of a small group of individuals.
    When I went out with the local police in Fareham in the summer to get a better idea of the antisocial behaviour that they faced, they raised the issue of drink, which they felt was a more important factor in crime in the area than drugs. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said that it is not just the police who have a role to play in tackling problems in crime. The Fareham police raised with me the way in which alcohol is sometimes sold by convenience stores. One police officer cited alcohol being placed near the door. Forty-eight cans of Stella Artois, for example, may be offered at a bargain price—people come in, see the cases of beer and run out again, getting away scot free. The till is not at the front of the shop near the door, but at the back. The location of promotional offers therefore creates an environment in which alcohol can be obtained relatively easily.
    That police officer also drew to my attention something that was emphasised again by Portchester community school this morning. School council members came to the House today to look around, and I talked to them about the issues that they perceived were a problem in their area. Both they and the police said that too often people serving in convenience stores and off-licences were only 18, 19 and 20, knew under-age drinkers in the area and did not feel strong enough to stand up to their demand to be sold cheap beer and cider. Shop owners, who may be victims of crime, need to think about their role in preventing crime. If they take more responsibility for their actions—
    Mr. Tom Harris rose—
    Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is a persistent intervener in all sorts of debates, and I am sure that he has something interesting to say, but I ask him to wait a moment.
    If shopkeepers take greater responsibility for the way in which they sell alcohol, many of the problems that we face in Fareham arising from the sale of alcohol to under-age people will be resolved. I give way.
    Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I entirely agree with his assertion that alcohol-related crime, especially among the young, is a huge problem. Will he therefore join me in welcoming the Government's moves to increase taxation on alcopops?
    Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman has a long memory. That topic was raised in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, on which we both served. The debate then was about whether the tax increase was a means of controlling the sale of alcohol or a revenue-raising

    727
    measure. On that occasion, the debate was a score draw, rather than a home or away win for one of us. In a debate about law and order, I do not wish to be sucked any further into a debate about levels of taxation on alcohol.
    I shall move on briefly to the topic of drugs, about which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw spoke. A couple of weeks ago I visited a homelessness shelter in the centre of Fareham and spoke to the manager and staff there. The centre is run by a charity, Two Saints housing association, which has homelessness projects across south-east Hampshire. Part of it was the St. Dismas Society, which was set up in the centre of Southampton a number of years ago. One of the concerns that staff at the shelter raised with me was that when an addict is ready for rehabilitation—we may have a discussion about what form of rehabilitation is the most effective—the important thing is that some rehabilitation is available, but often the waiting list for rehabilitation is far too long and the resources have not been put into rehabilitation. As a consequence, some addicts decide after a couple of weeks that they are not that fussed about rehabilitation any more. They will continue to create the same problems in their community and in their family as the hon. Gentleman described in his speech.
    In conclusion on this important matter, I hope that the Government will examine the way in which drug rehabilitation projects are resourced. It is a problem not just in the inner cities or in former mining communities. Every community throughout the country is touched in some way by the problems arising from drugs and their use in society. We all need adequate funding for rehabilitation to tackle the menace that drugs have become.
    8.53 pm
    Andy Burnham: The influence of the civil liberties lobby has been in evidence in some—not all—of the contributions that we have heard today. One thing unites people who propound those arguments: they tend not to live on the estates where the problems that we are discussing today are worst. They can afford to cling to such intellectually pure positions when their car is not being damaged, their children are not being intimidated and their community is not being trashed.
    This Queen's Speech finally recognises in full a phenomenon that has been growing over the past 20 years, plaguing communities throughout the land. It is no exaggeration to say that youth annoyance and antisocial behaviour have become an epidemic in town centres, suburbs and estates across the country. It is by nature low level and difficult to get a grip on. For that reason, perhaps, it has taken a while to appear on the radar screens as a priority for action. I have no doubt that it is currently the highest priority for action affecting proud working-class communities such as those that I represent.
    I have noticed today the lack of interest in the debate among Opposition Members. The Opposition are scrabbling around for speakers. Until they understand the importance of the issue to local communities, I suspect that the only conveyor belt that they will need to worry about is the one that leads to permanent opposition.
    728
    Many of us have spoken in the House about how antisocial behaviour makes people's lives a misery. I have stood here and pointed out examples of how the system simply does not have the answers, and it is clear that the representations and arguments that we have put have moved policy. They are the most important single driver in the policy changes that we are discussing today, which is worth remembering for people who say that this House is often bypassed or irrelevant.
    I shall speak for a moment about the origins of the antisocial epidemic, as I think that we need to understand it, and its effect on policing in our communities. Some hon. Members have said that it all starts in the home and others that schools are to blame. Without doubt, respect for authority figures has diminished. In some ways, that is a good thing. We are a far less deferential society and hierarchical class structures have been eroded to some extent, but the downside is the loss of a culture of mutual respect and tolerance.
    I strongly believe that the antisocial epidemic can be linked to the social history of Britain in the '80s and '90s and to the "no such thing as society" era, in which private wealth was elevated as society's prime goal above other things such as the common good. In the area that I represent—I suspect that the same is true for many hon. Members—young people growing up in the '80s and '90s in deprived communities witnessed a fast-developing consumer culture in which images and stories of wealth abounded, but at the same time all that they could see were run-down schools and estates, poor employment prospects and a lack of quality leisure opportunities. What sort of message did that send to young people about how we value them and what aspirations society has for their future? Thankfully, investment is now going into our communities, including those in Leigh, but in some of the most deprived of those communities, the legacy is a large number of disfranchised young people who have limited aspirations for their own future and engage in a range of risk-taking and antisocial behaviour that exasperates their neighbours.
    Of course, it is the police who have picked up the pieces and borne the brunt of those problems, and I should like to say a word about the effects on policing. In seeking to address the situation, they face two problems: first, the sheer volume of calls reporting incidents involving antisocial behaviour; and secondly, not having the measures and tools available to them to mount an effective response to such calls. That has led to a highly unsatisfactory situation in communities in which the police patrol will turn up, but then say that there is nothing that it can do. The lack of anything more creates huge frustration among the public, and confidence in the police and the criminal justice system has been damaged because the measures and the tools have not been at their disposal in taking action against some of those young people.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Does he agree that one of the best ways of dealing with the problem is to introduce more highly visible policing and more police officers on the streets around the estates where the problems are? People who call on the telephone and have to wait one or two hours

    729
    or until the next day for somebody to turn up experience a bigger frustration, which causes even greater problems.
    Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know about his constituency, but I am beginning to find that the police are more in evidence on our streets. The introduction of community support officers has been a very welcome change.
    One of the most damaging effects of the situation that I have described is that young people have come to believe that they run no risk of redress or punishment for their antisocial behaviour. That is why legislation is vital in this area: the cycle must be broken.
    I shall draw attention to three issues that I hope the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers will consider before finalising their legislation. The first is under-age drinking, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, as it is a common thread in all the problems that we are discussing. On Friday, along with the Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I shall attend a meeting in my constituency of Lowton and Golborne youth crime forum. At the last meeting, we heard how frustrated people were about the fact that off-licences were selling drink to young people. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) referred to exactly the same problem. On Friday evenings, gangs of 40 or more young people gather at locations in my constituency and cause mayhem and problems. A common sight on a Saturday morning is the smashed bus shelter. As far as I can see, the only beneficiary is the company that makes the glass panels.
    One issue that local police officers have raised with me repeatedly is their ability to confiscate bottles and cans from under-age drinkers. I believe that there is an ambiguity in existing legislation. It gives police the power to seize open bottles, but not carrier bags full of Stella Artois or White Lightning cider. We need to get at the supplies. The Home Secretary previously suggested that he would legislate and clarify the law. I hope that he will do that.
    My second point deals with identity cards. At the risk of further inflaming the civil liberties lobby, I believe that the measures that the Home Office propose will be effective only when coupled with a compulsory identity card. I do not understand why people would object to giving their identity to a police officer on request. Many people carry bank cards and forms of ID. They should therefore not object to identity cards. I suspect that, beyond a vociferous intellectual minority, the public have no problem with compulsory identity cards.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the hon. Gentleman support compulsory identity cards? The Government rejected that idea.
    Andy Burnham: As I said, I advocate compulsory identity cards and ask the Home Office to consider them. People who misbehave can thus be identified immediately, and the necessary action can be taken against them.
    My final point goes beyond the Home Office remit, but I would like Ministers to consider balancing the tough regime with opportunities for children to engage
    730
    in constructive activities outside school hours. In towns such as Leigh, which are away from the big city centres, facilities for 11 to 16-year-olds constitute a missing link. There is no cinema, no bowling alley and there are no skate parks, but I am repeatedly told that young people are interested in them. We badly need more investment in modest facilities for young people, such as places to meet and listen to music.
    Although I welcome and admire the proposed legislation, I urge Home Office Ministers to do more about activities for 11 to 16-year-olds. Such provision is a missing piece of the jigsaw. If we do not act, there is a danger that society will perceive all young people as apprentice hooligans when they have talents that have never been brought out. If we do not show an interest in young people, we cannot be surprised when they start to rebel
    9.1 pm
    Vernon Coaker: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who made several points with which I agree.
    Like other hon. Members, I want to concentrate on the criminal justice Bill and the proposed antisocial behaviour measure. As many hon. Members said, antisocial behaviour is the main problem that we face. A sense of disorder and increased fear of crime pervades all our areas. The Government are right to propose further measures to tackle those problems. However, as other hon. Members said, we must also try to understand what is happening in our society.
    Why does a sense of decline pervade our society? Why is there a decline in respect for authority? Why do some families not appear to care about the problems that they cause others? Why do not our police command the respect that we would wish when called to specific incidents? What has happened to parental control? Those are important questions about genuine problems. They set the context for our debate on some of the problems on many of our estates.
    As well as laws, crime and the courts, all hon. Members should consider the social issues that feed the different problems. Perhaps Ministers will consider a royal commission to examine that. Many hon. Members said that those problems confront us all, whether we represent urban or rural seats.
    We must also tackle the problems that our communities face now. I therefore welcome the criminal justice measure, which tries to restore a proper balance between the rights of the accused and those of the victims and witnesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the Bill has been described as an attack on civil liberties. However, people in the communities that I represent are fed up with what they perceive to be an attack on their civil liberties. They want their civil liberties to be asserted over those of the drug dealer. They want their rights to be asserted over those of people who cause persistent criminal damage. They want their civil liberties to be asserted over those of the thug and the joyrider. These are not the rantings of the hangers and floggers, although it is easy to portray these people as such. They are the voices of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who are sick and tired of what is going on in their communities, and of the apparent failure of those in authority to deal with the problems.

    731
    How can we wonder at the disillusionment of these people with us? How can we wonder at the increased apathy that we see around us, or at the fact that the extreme right sees this as a fertile breeding ground? If we do not protect the rights of the majority, and if the state is not seen to stand up for these people, that sense of disillusionment with us, that sense of apathy, and the possibility for the extreme right to make gains in those communities will grow. I welcome the Home Secretary's efforts to rebalance the criminal justice system, and my constituents will welcome it as well.
    I also welcome the antisocial behaviour Bill, which is to tackle what is supposedly low-level nuisance. It is not, however, low level, and we all need to adopt the zero tolerance towards graffiti, litter and noise nuisance, that has worked so effectively elsewhere. In trying to solve these problems, rather than to score political points, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members how we can ensure that laws and regulations are used. We do not appear to be short of laws or regulations. Indeed, sometimes there seems to be an unwillingness to use existing laws. When people come to me and say, "These people are joyriding round the estate and causing criminal damage", we do not need a new law passed in Parliament to get something done about it. There seems to be inertia in the system that prevents the law from being used, and if we cannot get something done about that we will continue to experience these problems.
    How can we ensure that the laws and regulations that we pass are enforced? How can we ensure, for example, that something is done about persistent offenders, who are still being bailed, despite all that we have been saying? How can we get councils to take action against antisocial tenants who have been warned time and again about antisocial activities such as noise, when the councils are often unable to—or fail to—take such action? There should be no untouchables in our community, but many of our communities feel that such people exist. Those people believe that they are above the law, and that undermines all of us.
    For all the criticisms of the police, and the arguments that have been made about the numbers of police in our communities—the numbers are increasing and I hope they will continue to do so—it is incumbent on us as the Parliament of this country to congratulate them on their work in some of the difficult situations to which they are called. In Nottingham, the police face particular problems with gun crime, and I salute the bravery of many of the men and women who face the real problems that many of us would not like to face.
    My philosophy on this subject is summed up by the term "tough love". If people do wrong, they must be caught and punished, but, alongside that, we have to consider how we should rehabilitate them and how, when they are in prison, we can prevent them from reoffending. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that. The youth service has also been underfunded for several years, and we need to do something about providing more facilities for our young people.
    732
    This is the most important debate that we have had on the Queen's Speech. If we cannot resolve some of the problems relating to crime in our communities, apathy and disillusionment with us, the Parliament of this country, will only increase.
    9.9 pm
    Clive Efford: Tonight's debate has been punctuated by the odd speech from those on the Opposition Benches. No doubt they have been trawling the Tea Room trying to get enough people to speak, but when we get down to debating the legislation they will be in here complaining that there is not enough time to consider the issues.
    We need to look at the background to our communities' concerns about antisocial behaviour. The Government came to power against a backdrop of rising crime—crime had doubled and police numbers were going down. Today, police numbers are reaching record levels in England and Wales and approaching record levels in London. The British crime survey published in July showed that crime had gone down 2 per cent., and we in London have seen the restoration of the housing allowance, which was taken away by the Conservatives. The training centre at Hendon is bursting at the seams with new recruits, which means more police officers.
    My community of Eltham in the borough of Greenwich is one of the safest places to live in London and crime has consistently gone down over the past few years, but Eltham has recently suffered detrimental criticism at the hands of the media following a number of racist attacks during the summer. My constituents resent being vilified as racists by virtue of their postcode. That is done largely by feeble-minded journalists who are eager to create sensational headlines. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) spoke up on behalf of the fourth estate, but if my constituency has been given a fair hearing in the media over recent months, I would like to see it.
    The media claim that they are standing up for victims of racism, but they have never considered at any stage the effect of their inaccurate reporting on the people of Eltham, especially the black members of my community. I must be the only Member of this Parliament who has black constituents come to his surgery to ask what is going on and whether they are safe to continue living in the constituency. People have lived there unharmed for more than 30 years, but when they see the media coverage they do not recognise the community being described.
    No Member of the House can deny that they have racists in their community, and Eltham is no different, but I appeal for a more reasonable approach that deals with the issue of racism across all our communities without just describing it as a pocket—a localised problem—and sweeping aside the serious, endemic problem that we have in our society among a minority of people who are capable of carrying out serious racist attacks.
    In dealing with issues involving racism and antisocial behaviour, I have discovered that what is needed locally is a better co-ordinated response from all the agencies involved. I have come across cases in which people have been moved to other parts of my borough to avoid harassment, only to find several months later that the

    733
    very people they were moved away from have also been moved to that community. The same problem starts up again, but that would not happen if there were an effective local method of tracking people who have been involved in antisocial behaviour and harassing their neighbours.
    Such records would have to be accurate to avoid the innocent being wrongly criticised in those situations and to avoid malicious accusations being put on people's records, but where there is clear evidence that such behaviour has taken place councils should be able to act to protect their tenants from families who refuse to behave in a reasonable manner.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently announced measures to streamline the process of obtaining antisocial behaviour orders and dealing with antisocial behaviour. That must be welcome, but I believe that local authorities need guidance on how to manage the process of obtaining ASBOs. To deal with antisocial behaviour, they need to start keeping records from the first intervention, whether it is a letter from the council or a visit from the local police. The process must begin immediately. That could streamline the gathering of the information necessary to go for an ASBO, should it be decided that that is the best course of action.
    There should be one point of contact for all information gathered at local level. Guidance could ensure that local authorities and the police take the same approach in exchanging information about what is going on in our local communities. In my experience, beat officers have a very detailed knowledge of what is happening on their patches, but even where relationships are good, that sometimes breaks down when the police's objectives conflict with those of the local authority. A lack of co-ordination can also lead to individuals falling between two stools, whereby both the police and the local authority are aware of what is going on, but are not actually dealing with it. Better co-ordination at this stage would reduce the time and effort required to obtain antisocial behaviour orders, and would shorten the time taken to obtain an ASBO once the decision is taken that that is the only course of action.
    The failure of ASBOs is that they have proven unwieldy, and it has also been difficult to gather evidence. Too often, residents are terrified to come forward and give evidence to the relevant authorities, which results in unacceptable delays, or people being forced to continue to live in misery. Two areas in my constituency have particular problems. In Eltham Green road, the local post box had to be blocked up because the Post Office could not guarantee the safety of the postal workers who emptied it. In Alnwick road, people have been forced into a curfew. They cannot come out after dark because of large groups of young people who act in an antisocial way, terrorising the neighbourhood.
    The situation needs to be tackled through a co-ordinated approach and better exchange of information with the police. Local people need to be kept informed and given the confidence to emerge from their front doors and stand together against those who terrorise their neighbourhoods. Resources are needed to gather independent evidence, and we have the technology to assist us in doing so. We also need to send expert
    734
    witnesses into communities to identify the individuals involved. Such witnesses could stand up in court and give evidence to ensure that effective action is taken against the perpetrators.
    The measures set out by the Government in the Queen's Speech could result in effective action being taken against the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, who terrorise—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I call Mr. Tom Levitt.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Tom Levitt: I shall be brief as I realise that others want to speak.
    It used to be said that law and order and crime were not natural Labour issues, but given that we have succeeded in getting crime down in the past five years, and in the light of the proposed legislation and the tone of today's debate, those days are long gone. In fact, it is on the Labour heartland estates that crime levels are highest. Our young people are painted as the perpetrators of crime, but they are also disproportionately the victims. It is our old people who have the greatest fear of crime, even though the figures show that crime is actually falling. Although some fear of crime may not be rational, such fear is nevertheless a political reality. We must tackle that reality, as well as crime itself.
    I shall not go into the problems in my constituency, which are similar to those that others have outlined. Instead, I want to be a little upbeat. My constituency was the first in the country to use an antisocial behaviour order, and it worked. We have also used parenting orders. Of the first 10 parents who were sent on parenting courses, six enjoyed the experience so much that they signed up for further courses. We have also run sure start programmes. Such initiatives are an investment in keeping crime down. New initiatives to put bobbies back on the beat in Hadfield will be extended elsewhere. We have a crime and disorder partnership, community safety officers and a rural policing initiative, through which a mobile police station serves 10 different villages for half a day every week. Those villages have never had such a service before.
    The Connexions service is up and running—an investment for the future—and we have youth offending teams with cross-disciplinary connections. We also have two magnificent youth clubs: the Millennium Cellar, in Glossop, and Buxton For Youth, in Buxton. Both were conceived and created by, and are run by, young people themselves, often with the help of Crimestoppers and the involvement of the police. They are superb initiatives.
    I want to say a quick word about the police in Derbyshire. I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said about police officers. I have regular contacts with police officers—police constables, inspectors, divisional commanders and the chief constable—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety for taking time earlier this year to meet police officers from my constituency to discuss the Police Bill, which we did rationally and constructively.

    735
    A few weeks ago, I was out on patrol with some police officers in Buxton. We were called to a group of young people about whom a complaint had been made. We found nothing wrong, but they wanted to talk and we spent time discussing with them what it would take to improve their reputation. There were four breathalysing cases that night and a road traffic accident. We took runaways back home. The incident of domestic violence that I attended with the police at 2.30 on a Saturday morning was handled magnificently, and all credit to them.
    I know that the investment that we are putting into the police will pay off, but it has to go along with learning what works, and enabling the police to learn from good practice in different parts of the country by, for example, improving the way in which their IT systems work together. I am sure that the investment will happen.
    I believe that I am the only person to mention this final point today. I very much welcome the draft Bill on corruption in the Queen's Speech, for reasons that I hope to develop in an Adjournment debate at a later date.
    9.21 pm
    Martin Linton: I shall concentrate on three issues that will feature in the criminal justice Bill: double jeopardy, mode of trial and offending while on bail.
    I congratulate the Home Secretary on undertaking the mammoth task of reforming the criminal justice system. To say that the system is in need of reform is a huge understatement. One of the first things that Lord Justice Auld discovered when he started his review was that it is not even a system. As he said, there is no overall direction and there are no overall lines of management and accountability. The recommendations in his report are a very good start.
    I encourage the Home Secretary to go even further and not let himself be deflected either by the House of Lords or the lawyers. I do not say that all his opponents will be lawyers, or that all lawyers will oppose his reforms—far from it. But it is often our learned friends who command the most attention because we assume that lawyers know all about the law and must be right. It is an observable fact about this place that many of our honourable and learned friends who are the most radical on every other issue turn out to be the most conservative when it comes to changes in the legal system.
    Many lawyers are against any relaxation of the double jeopardy rule, although, to my mind, there is an overwhelming case for relaxing it. DNA testing is now used to prove the innocence of people previously found guilty. It is also used to prove the guilt of people who previously could not be brought to justice. Under the double jeopardy rule, however, DNA cannot be used to prove the guilt of people previously acquitted. It baffles me how lawyers can seriously defend that position, but they do. They care about miscarriages of justice when the innocent are found guilty, but they are less concerned about miscarriages of justice when the guilty are found innocent, even though it can lead to just as much suffering. What about the case of a rape victim
    736
    who knows that the man who can be proven by DNA to have been her attacker is not only free but immune from prosecution because of double jeopardy? She may be imprisoned in her own home by the fear that that knowledge induces.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Martin Linton: I do not have the latitude.
    Why lawyers should care more about wrongful convictions than wrongful acquittals is a mystery. Perhaps they get to know about the wrongful convictions because those involved are, after all, their clients. Victims have no one in the legal system to speak up for them but only us. Perhaps it is because they do not like the courts to revisit their old mistakes. Doctors can bury their mistakes; defence lawyers have double jeopardy to bury theirs.
    I am glad that the power to hold retrials will be extended to cover offences other than murder, as the Law Commission recommended. They will now include rape, manslaughter and robbery. I would go even further: the difficult hurdle in the system should be the Court of Appeal, which has to quash the acquittal, not the type of case involved.
    I strongly counsel my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary against making the test "compelling new evidence" of guilt. That sounds as though one is trying to prejudice the jury. I agree with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that that would not make for a fair trial. It would be far better to go with the formulation recommended by the Home Affairs Committee two years ago, which was that the test should be that the acquittal was unsafe.
    I hope that the due diligence test will also be dropped. If the police miss a fingerprint or fail to interview a witness, it is not clear to me why a court should not be allowed to consider fresh evidence in a retrial.
    I want briefly to mention trial by jury. I admit to being disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had to give in to the relentless campaign in the other place and among some lawyers here against the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. I have never understood why, as Auld points out in his report, England has the unique distinction of being the only legal system in which, for a range of relatively trivial offences, the accused and not the court decides in which court the trial takes place. As a result, jurors—and I have been one—may spend three days deciding who pinched a 60p can of coke.
    I agree that justice should always be paramount, but that does not mean that we should have no interest in the cost effectiveness of the judicial system. Safety is paramount in any discussion of the railways, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss the cost effectiveness of the railway system. To my mind, it is crazy to have a £20,000 trial to decide who stole a can of coke.
    I welcome the assurance in the Queen's Speech that the Government intend to introduce legislation rendering it impossible to appeal against bail for any imprisonable offence. I welcome that because the carjacker sentenced for the murder of estate agent Timothy Robinson on the streets of Battersea last month was on bail for a similar carjacking offence at the

    737
    time that he committed the murder. Sadly, that is not unusual: 24 per cent. of bailees commit another offence while they are on bail. That murder could have been prevented if the proposed legislation had been on the statute book. If the murder helps to persuade the House to support the measure, some good may have come out of that evil.
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: I shall use the beginning of the time available to me by apologising for not being present for the whole of today's debate. I was present for the opening speeches, but then had to deal with an emergency constituency issue. However, I was delighted to hear, in those initial exchanges, that the Government have backed away from their proposals regarding the sparsity factor in the police funding formula. That would have dramatically affected policing in Lincolnshire. The people of Lincolnshire will be delighted, although it remains to be seen whether other factors will take funding away from the police in that area.
    I welcome much of the Queen's Speech, although I have severe concerns—shared by other Conservative Members—about the potential eradication of some fundamental tenets of the British justice system. Such changes might prejudice a person's right to a fair trial. The three issues that spring to mind have been mentioned already in the debate—double jeopardy, trial by jury and the provision of information regarding previous convictions.
    It is possible that the Government's proposals could tip the balance in favour of the victim, but they may also tip it in favour of convicting innocent people as opposed to ensuring that more guilty people are convicted. I strongly question whether a jury can remain impartial when it knows in great detail the previous convictions of an accused person. I suggest that such knowledge could prevent a fair trial from taking place.
    I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has returned to his seat. He made, as always, an engaging and articulate speech on the problem of drugs. However, I take issue with two of his points. First, the problem of heroin is not peculiar to coalfield or ex-coalfield areas. I represent a low-wage rural area. We have terrible problems with heroin in the towns of Boston and Skegness and also in the villages between them—there is a heroin dealer in every village.
    Secondly, I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's pronouncement that outreach drug work and rehabilitation centres are in competition. To my mind, they are not mutually exclusive and should work together. More funding should be put into both facilities to enable young and old alike to come off the drug habit into which they have so sadly fallen.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the first Queen's Speech in my experience, going back to 1970, that has not been wound up by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. Can you explain why Parliament has been so sidelined on this, the most important debate of the year?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I think that under the circumstances I should say
    738
    that the Leader of the House has a relative who is very ill and he has to be in Scotland. I think that the House will understand.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    9.31 pm
    Mr. James Paice: I am pleased to reply to what has been a good and serious debate. I have been privileged to be in the House for 15 years and have witnessed, as others will have done, a huge change in attitude when debating crime and law and order. When I first came to the House it was quite fashionable for Labour Members to claim that the criminal was the victim and needed help and counselling rather than punishment. So I welcome the conversion that we have seen this evening and the unanimity across the House on many issues, especially on antisocial behaviour and drugs. Some Labour Members seem to think that antisocial behaviour is limited to what someone referred to as the Labour heartlands but that is not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) said, the problems of drugs and antisocial behaviour exist in all sorts of areas, including small market towns. I share the town of Newmarket with my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). It has very serious drugs problems which my hon. Friend has worked tirelessly to address.
    David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paice: No, I shall not give way.
    It is indicative that so many Labour Members have spoken tonight of problems in their constituencies and have welcomed the measures in the Gracious Speech. However, those speeches sounded as though they were being made in the first Queen's Speech of Labour Government rather than in year six. The background, of course, is that crime is rising.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Paice: No, I have already said that I will not.
    The Government will claim that the British crime survey shows that crime is falling. However, the survey is not as reliable or as complete as the Government wish us to believe. It does not include retail crime, crimes in homes of multiple occupation or, indeed, murder. Most importantly, it does not include crimes against people under the age of 16. The equivalent survey in the United States, which includes crimes committed against children over 12, shows that 4.8 per cent. of crimes were against 12 to 15-year-olds. If that figure were extrapolated to the United Kingdom, it would mean another 600,000 crimes being recorded. It is hardly surprising that many people—including Labour Members, from what they have said tonight—do not believe that crime is going down. Others will point to the Prime Minister's initiative and his promise to reduce street crime. It is perfectly true that, using selective

    739
    figures in selected areas, he has succeeded in reducing street crime in those areas, but in a wholly artificial and temporary way, by removing large numbers of police officers from other areas and other duties to flood the streets. That cannot last. In the modern idiom, it is not sustainable.
    Let us be clear: when we left office in 1997, police numbers were rising. The new Labour Government reversed that and numbers fell catastrophically, so we welcome the recent increase in numbers, but for the Home Secretary to claim credit for getting police numbers back to 1997 levels by early 2002 really is bare-faced cheek.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in his introduction to the debate, and the Home Secretary in his reply, referred to terrorism. We support the Home Secretary's call to the British media not to cause unnecessary alarm and also his tribute to the role played by the security services to protect us, but I repeat my right hon. Friend's hope that there will be a statement to clarify various aspects of preparedness. That obviously could not be included during this debate.
    I want to refer to legislation on sex offences, especially in respect of paedophiles. The House will be aware that I represent Soham, the scene of August's awful tragedy. I live nearby and we have close family links with one of the schools involved. Obviously, I cannot comment on the crime as the case is sub judice, but the experience of those weeks gives me a special perspective on that sort of crime, as does an even more recent constituency case in which a man is awaiting trial for the rape of two 13-year-old girls and other offences. All were the result of internet grooming. I have met some of the people involved, so I wholly welcome the measures in the proposed Bill.
    I cannot support Sarah's law, which was espoused by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), because I am convinced that it would result in vigilantism. I hope that the Home Secretary will have noted the concerns expressed about anonymity and that he will also consider other issues relating to paedophilia, for example, the failure of some people to provide the key to encrypted child pornography. When the problems of the Criminal Records Bureau have been resolved, will he consider whether psychometric testing could be incorporated in the checks on those seeking employment in residential homes and boarding schools? Will he examine the feasibility of the remote tracking of paedophiles, using satellite technology?
    We wholly agree that a criminal justice Bill is necessary. The legislation needs dramatic reform. If the Bill largely follows the White Paper, we shall be able to support much, indeed most, of it. However, the public, like the Home Secretary, do not believe that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing offenders to justice. As was pointed out, it is hardly surprising that 38 per cent. of under-18-year-olds commit at least one further offence while they are on bail and that 12 per cent. of those bailed fail to appear.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) referred to prisons. The Government appealed to the courts to stop sending people to prison and created the presumption
    740
    that people serving less than a year can be released 60 days earlier on a curfew—now increased to 90 days. That is not a considered policy of reform; it is a panic reaction from a Government who see prison populations soaring.
    When the former Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, spoke on the Labour Government's Queen's Speech in 1997, he said:
    "Our prison population today is 60,000 and rising. Many—indeed most—of those prisoners began their criminal careers as young offenders. The previous Government's failure to tackle youth crime effectively has contributed both to the high levels of crime and to the record prison population which we face today."—[Official Report, 19 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 389.]
    If that was true then—I assume that Labour Members believe that it was—what do they say now that the prison population is 72,000 and still rising?
    My hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) referred to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill and the Extradition Bill. I am interested in the fact that no one—not even the Home Secretary—has attempted to justify the proposal that someone could be arrested in this country by another country for something that is not a crime in the United Kingdom.
    I will not rehearse all our civil liberties concerns about those issues, and I welcome the Home Secretary's emollient remarks about listening to our arguments, but a number of hon. Members have slightly scorned the civil liberties issue. Everyone whom I have ever come across is usually in favour of restricting other people's civil liberties; the problem arises when someone's own civil liberties are restricted. That is why the job of the House is to find the right balance between creating crimes and dealing with the problems of criminality and protecting the civil liberties of people in our country.
    Many hon. Members have mentioned antisocial behaviour by young people. Again, as I suggested a few moments ago, it sounded as though we were about to embark on a new Government, rather than their having been here for so long. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire modestly pointed out, the Government were told at the outset that antisocial behaviour orders and child curfew orders, which seem to have died a death, would not work in the way in which they were first devised.
    We do not know what will be in the new antisocial behaviour Bill. I fear that it smacks of a panic reaction and the "something must be done" syndrome. Very real issues have to be addressed, but the Government are addressing the symptoms, not the causes. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made a pertinent remark: the issue is much more about values, standards and what is seen in the media than necessarily about creating more crimes.
    What is really missing from this panoply of legislation is any sense of cohesion or strategy. The conveyor belt of crime exists, yet no real strategy to identify those who might get on it or to help those who are on it to get off is shown in the Queen's Speech. Some 90 per cent. of persistent teenage offenders were highly disruptive children, so we need to pay far more attention to providing residential treatment for young heroin and cocaine addicts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said.

    741
    We need radical reform of sentencing for young people, so that they are not only punished, but as many as possible are rehabilitated. We believe that that involves combining punishment and custody with proper training, followed by a long period of supervision, not because we are soft or sympathetic to those people as individuals, but because trying to rehabilitate them makes economic and social sense. We need help for parents who cannot cope—real provision to enable them to steer their children away from that conveyor belt.
    Most of all, we need to establish true neighbourhood and community policing, not as some sort of afterthought or simply for reassurance because it is thought that the public want to see a uniform, but as an integral part of policing and information gathering. A police officer who is always on his or her patch, not constantly being pulled away, will know where the problem spots are and who is spraying graffiti, causing vandalism or joyriding. If properly equipped with the right facilities and powers, those neighbourhood police officers will use other agencies to help them to do their job to keep order in the community. Most of all, that approach to policing will do much to stop young people becoming permanent features on that conveyor belt.
    It is perverse for the Home Secretary to hide behind our opposition to central direction as an excuse for not having it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, local arrangements, removing barriers and creating structures, including career structures, are all responsibilities that the Home Secretary could take up.
    This Government and the Prime Minister came to power promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Ten years ago, the Prime Minister identified the problem. Since then, we have had more repeats than we would get from a plateful of kippers. When the current Foreign Secretary took office as Home Secretary in 1997, he pledged that our towns, cities and villages would be reclaimed so that everyone would be free to go about their neighbourhood in safety and security. We would all applaud that. He put through 12 criminal justice Acts before being shunted aside by the present Home Secretary, who has consistently dismantled everything that his predecessor did. We are now in the sixth year of the Labour Government, and we will finish undoing or correcting what they did in their first five years. Police numbers are finally above the figure at which they started, but crime is up. Detection rates are down. Recidivism is up. Almost every indicator has gone the wrong way, yet they plead for more time. How much longer do we have to wait for the Foreign Secretary's words to come true?
    Two years ago, the Government promised in their targets that levels of fear of crime in the key categories of violent crime, burglary and car crime reported in the British crime survey would be lower. Have they missed that target? No, the target itself has gone missing. It has been dropped, forgotten, and is no longer mentioned. One does not necessarily reduce crime by making more things criminal activities. Instead of more initiatives, we need more police officers in our communities. Instead of more promises, we need action to address the causes of crime. Instead of excuses, we need results. I commend the amendment to the House.
    9.47 pm
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I am very pleased to wind up the Queen's Speech debate and to be the final speaker after five days of debate. It has fallen to me to wind up for the Government because the Opposition decided that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), rather than the shadow Leader of the House, should reply to the debate. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman—he and I respect each other—neither of us have any illusions about where we stand in the pecking order. As far as I can see, this is the first Queen's Speech for five years not to be concluded by the shadow Leader of the House. That says something about the state of the Opposition—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the right hon. Gentleman speak. He is in order. Take my word for it.
    Mr. Denham: The truth is that the Opposition have reached the last day of the Queen's Speech debate only to realise that they have run out of shadow Cabinet members capable of making a competent winding-up speech. I had thought that the reason that the Conservative party had chosen to structure today's debate in such a way was that they were determined to highlight home affairs. What a shame, therefore, that at 7.41 pm, the Opposition ran out of speakers, and they had to scour the bars, restaurants and cafes of the House to find someone. That tells us everything we wish to know about the Opposition's approach to this matter.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister tell us why the Labour party ran out of speakers last Thursday?
    Mr. Denham: It was the Opposition who chose to break with a time-honoured tradition to devote the entire day to home affairs, and ran out of speakers at 7.40 pm.
    I cannot reply to every speech made, but let me pick out a few highlights. First, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that, in the view of the Liberal Democrats, crimes such as burglary and car theft should not be met with custodial sentences. I trust that that will be repeated on every "Focus" leaflet that is put out. If not, the rest of us should take on that responsibility, because Liberal Democrat voters would like to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks.
    I have taken good note of the calls for action on fireworks, air weapons and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. I will clearly want to consider those calls carefully when we draw up the Bill on antisocial behaviour.
    I was reassured by the remarks made about extradition, and not because I believe that the criticisms were well placed, but because I believe that we will be able to reassure the House on the points made by Conservative Members. People will not be dragged off to Spain for writing articles in London that are legal here. The introduction of extradition without prima facie evidence was, of course, introduced for Europe by

    743
    the previous Conservative Administration in 1991. Although I cannot respond to all the points that have been raised, we will be able to deal with them in detail when we discuss that Bill.
    I welcome the broad support for the proposals for sex offenders that were outlined yesterday. Some details points were raised tonight and we should reflect on them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) asked about domestic violence and the forthcoming consultation paper. I can confirm that the paper will consult on changes to legislation, building on the approach taken in the White Paper "Justice for All" and with a view to legislating when parliamentary time allows.
    There was a good debate to which Members on both sides contributed about the importance of drugs. It underlined the essential investment that we are making to double the number of drug treatment places that are available up and down the country.
    Simon Hughes: The Minister has misrepresented our position on burglary and car crime, but I can deal with that point later. Can he clarify the Government's position on custody and the use of prison? Is the Home Secretary's view that we should seek to reduce the number of people in prison in England the prevalent one? Or is the Prime Minister's view that we need to build more prisons because the numbers going to prison will continue to rise the prevalent one? What is the Government's real view?
    Mr. Denham: The Government's view consistently has been that we need to have prison for serious and persistent offenders. When, as we are doing for young offenders, we can develop sentences such as intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, which give us sufficient control over young people without custodial sentences, we shall develop those sentences where appropriate. What we should say to the people of this country is that we want the right sentences for the right criminals, and should not chase after particular numbers and targets and go in whichever direction they happen to take us.
    Mr. Letwin: In the light of his last remarks, will the Minister tell us why 17 per cent. of prisoners are today subject to early release?
    Mr. Denham: If that is appropriate and it is the judgment of prison governors that it is right, we will support them. The policy is working; that is the answer.
    As we have set out in the debate, the Government will take forward their programme of fundamental reform of the criminal justice system. That programme began with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced crime reduction partnerships and youth offending teams and established the Youth of Justice Board. It has already achieved a 14.6 per cent. of decrease in the rate of reoffending by and reconvictions of young people. The measures that we have taken so far have helped to contribute to the fall of 20 per cent. in the overall level of crime.
    744
    This year, we took through the House the Police Reform Act 2002, which created the framework for improving the performance of every police force in England and Wales. In the coming year, we will reform sentencing, court procedures and put witnesses and victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. Step by step, the criminal justice system is being reformed from beginning to end.
    The Opposition have largely carped and criticised tonight, but I am no wiser about what they would do. They are still dogged by their record. Let us remember that, 10 years ago, the Conservatives thought that the police service needed reform. What did they do? They looked for somebody to reform it. Where did they look? They looked where any Conservative Home Secretary would look: not to the police service or the police authority, but to a man who made cigarettes. We remember the history. Sheehy came. Sheehy went. The Conservatives gave up on police reform and filed it under "too difficult". But we have not filed it under "too difficult". Instead of asking a tobacco manufacturer how to do it, we worked with the police service on the reforms in last year's legislation. That is why they will work and support our police officers in the work that they need to do.
    Not everyone agrees with every part of the reforms. Any reform worth having will be opposed by people who do not want change. The same will be true of our changes to the criminal justice system. Not all of them will be popular with people who do not want change, but the ideas that we will introduce will come from the experience of victims, witnesses, police officers, lawyers, judges and magistrates.
    Having abandoned police reform, the Conservative party never tried to reform the criminal justice system in their 18 years in government. It allowed the system established under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which was right and proper when it was introduced, to become inflexible and bureaucratic. It allowed the Crown Prosecution Service—a necessary initiative—to become too distant from the police with whom it needed to work closely. The Conservatives promised in 1992 to increase police officer numbers by 5,000 and ended up cutting them by 1,000. We have increased the number by 5,500 in the past two years and that will rise by an extra 2,500 by 2004. We are making the changes that the Conservatives failed to make.
    The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was elected when recorded crime in his county stood at 34,097. By 1997, it had risen under the Tories to 69,513. He will be pleased that it has fallen since Labour came to power in 1997 because that was not the case when he was a Minister. However, I hear hon. Members say that Labour cannot live off old Tory failures anymore. Apparently, the Conservative party is refreshed. It is reborn. It has a new leader, untainted by the past, and a new shadow Home Secretary, who is only marginally tainted by missing £20 billion a couple of years ago. The problem is that they are still getting it wrong.
    The Conservatives said that no one would want community support officers, but 27 police forces will have them next year. They condemned the Government for not dealing with neighbourhood policing, but every time we discussed the Police Reform Act last year and said that we wanted measures to improve the quality of

    745
    policing across the country, the Conservatives said, "No. You can't do that. That's not the job of the Government."
    Let us consider how the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) reacted to the street crime initiative. He said:
    "another day, another initiative, another summit, another quick fix."
    By the end of September, street crime was 16 per cent. below the level at which it stood at the start of the campaign. The Conservatives said that the street crime initiative would drive up other crimes. In fact, in the 20 basic command units in which street crime fell the most, burglary and car crime fell too. In London and the west midlands, not only were there dramatically fewer young victims of crime, but there were fewer young people committing crime too.
    The Conservatives said the street crime initiative was a gimmick. They were wrong. They got it wrong last time they were in power, they got it wrong this time and everyone knows that they would get it wrong again. Of course, a month ago in the House of Lords, when we said that asylum seekers who commit crimes—
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 372.

    Division No. 2]

    [9:59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Amess, David

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Evans, Nigel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bacon, Richard

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Baldry, Tony

    Westminster)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Flight, Howard

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Flook, Adrian

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forth, rh Eric

    Bercow, John

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garnier, hon. Edward

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brady, Graham

    Goodman, Paul

    Brazier, Julian

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Grayling, Chris

    Burns, Simon

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Burnside, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Burt, Alistair

    Gummer, rh John

    Butterfill, John

    Hague, rh William

    Cameron, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Barnet)

    Heald, Oliver

    Chope, Christopher

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hermon, Lady

    Collins, Tim

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Conway, Derek

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Hunter, Andrew

    Howden)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dodds, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    746

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Ruffley, David

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Selous, Andrew

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Shepherd, Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Simmonds, Mark

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Loughton, Tim

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Spring, Richard

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Maclean, rh David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Streeter, Gary

    Malins, Humfrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Maples, John

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Mates, Michael

    Syms, Robert

    Maude, rh Francis

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Tredinnick, David

    Coldfield)

    Trend, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trimble, rh David

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Norman, Archie

    Tyrie, Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Viggers, Peter

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Watkinson, Angela

    Paice, James

    Whittingdale, John

    Paterson, Owen

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Pickles, Eric

    Wiggin, Bill

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Wilkinson, John

    Randall, John

    Willetts, David

    Redwood, rh John

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    (Macclesfield)

    M-Kent)

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Mr. David Wilshire and

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Mr. Mark Francois

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Ainger, Nick

    Blunkett, rh David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Borrow, David

    Allan, Richard

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Darwen)

    Breed, Colin

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Brennan, Kevin

    Austin, John

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Baird, Vera

    Wallsend)

    Baker, Norman

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Banks, Tony

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Barnes, Harry

    Bryant, Chris

    Barrett, John

    Burden, Richard

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Burgon, Colin

    Battle, John

    Burnett, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Burnham, Andy

    Beard, Nigel

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Cairns, David

    Benn, Hilary

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Bennett, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Berry, Roger

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Best, Harold

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Betts, Clive

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Blackman, Liz

    Caton, Martin

    747

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chidgey, David

    Grogan, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Chryston)

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Abingdon)

    Clelland, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Harvey, Nick

    Coaker, Vernon

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Rhymney)

    Cohen, Harry

    Healey, John

    Colman, Tony

    Heath, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hendrick, Mark

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Corston, Jean

    Heppell, John

    Cotter, Brian

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cousins, Jim

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Crausby, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Holmes, Paul

    (Copeland)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Sefton E)

    David, Wayne

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Davidson, Ian

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Urmston)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Denham, rh John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Hutton, rh John

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Illsley, Eric

    Doran, Frank

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Doughty, Sue

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Highgate)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Edwards, Huw

    Jamieson, David

    Efford, Clive

    Jenkins, Brian

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Fisher, Mark

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Flint, Caroline

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    & Rye)

    Keetch, Paul

    Foulkes, rh George

    Kemp, Fraser

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Galloway, George

    Inverness)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Gardiner, Barry

    Kidney, David

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Gerrard, Neil

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Bow)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Godsiff, Roger

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Goggins, Paul

    Lamb, Norman

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    748

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Prescott, rh John

    Leslie, Christopher

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Levitt Tom (High Peak)

    Dinefwr)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Linton, Martin

    Purchase, Ken

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rammell, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Bellshill)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rendel, David

    McDonnell, John

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    McFall, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    NW)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McKechin, Ann

    Rooney, Terry

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McNulty, Tony

    Ruane, Chris

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McWalter, Tony

    Salmond, Alex

    McWilliam, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sawford, Phil

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Atcham)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Shettleston)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Finsbury)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Lunesdale)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, rh Alun

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

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Kincardine)

    Miller, Andrew

    Spellar, rh John

    Mole, Chris

    Squire, Rachel

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Moore, Michael

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morgan, Julie

    Stevenson, George

    Morley, Elliot

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Lochaber)

    Mountford, Kali

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mudie, George

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stringer, Graham

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Stunell, Andrew

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Owen, Albert

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Picking, Anne

    Thurso, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Plaskitt, James

    Trickett, Jon

    Pollard, Kerry

    Truswell, Paul

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Kemptown)

    E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    749

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Winnick, David

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    C)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Wishart, Pete

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woodward, Shaun

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Woolas, Phil

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Watts, David

    Baillieston)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Weir, Michael

    Yarmouth)

    White, Brian

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Willis, Phil

    Joan Ryan

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
    "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech distracts from sound policies which deal effectively with crime and its causes by proposing further untried quick fixes and measures which threaten civil liberties and the rights of defendants; believe that Government proposals for health and social care unfairly punish social services for Government failure, fail to provide proper democratically accountable decentralisation and create inequitable distinctions in funding between foundation hospitals and others; regret the lack of provision for free personal care for elderly and disabled people and the failure to tackle the pension crisis; note that the Government has failed to put the environment at the heart of its legislative agenda and address the crisis in the public transport system; note the 7 per cent. real terms reduction in funding per student by Government since 1997, and the failure to rule out top-up fees, allow the Welsh Assembly to operate its own student funding arrangements for Wales or re-open the Tomlinson Inquiry into A Level grade fixing; regret the continued failure of the Government to provide for a referendum on a fair voting system for the House of Commons; and regret the absence of the promised Bill to protect the Civil Service from politicisation and of Government measures to tackle the steep inequalities which continue to afflict the most disadvantaged members in society."—[Simon Hughes.]
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 319.

    Division No. 3]

    [10:15 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Baker, Norman

    Abingdon)

    Barrett, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Heath, David

    Breed, Colin

    Holmes, Paul

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Burnett, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Inverness)

    Lamb, Norman

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Chidgey, David

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Cotter, Brian

    Atcham)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Moore, Michael

    Doughty, Sue

    Öpik, Lembit

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Dinefwr)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Rendel, David

    750

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Salmond, Alex

    Weir, Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Kincardine)

    Willis, Phil

    Wishart, Pete

    Stunell, Andrew

    Younqer-Ross, Richard

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

    Thurso, John

    Tom Brake

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coaker, Vernon

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Colman, Tony

    Allen, Graham

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Cooper, Yvette

    Darwen)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Corston, Jean

    Austin, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Bailey, Adrian

    Crausby, David

    Baird, Vera

    Cruddas, Jon

    Banks, Tony

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Barron, rh Kevin

    (Copeland)

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    David, Wayne

    Benn, Hilary

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Berry, Roger

    Dawson, Hilton

    Betts, Clive

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blackman, Liz

    Denham, rh John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blunkett, rh David

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Borrow, David

    Dodds, Nigel

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Doran, Frank

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Wallsend)

    Edwards, Huw

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Efford, Clive

    Bryant, Chris

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Burden, Richard

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Burgon, Colin

    Fisher, Mark

    Burnham, Andy

    Flint, Caroline

    Burnside, David

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Foster, rh Derek

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Cairns, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    & Rye)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Caton, Martin

    Galloway, George

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Challen, Colin

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clapham, Michael

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Goggins, Paul

    Chryston)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clelland, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Grogan, John

    751

    Hain, rh Peter

    McDonnell, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McFall, John

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hanson, David

    McIsaac, Shona

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McKechin, Ann

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rhymney)

    McNulty, Tony

    Healey, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heppell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hermon, Lady

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Hinchliffe, David

    Shettleston)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Merron, Gillian

    Sefton E)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Mole, Chris

    Urmston)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Julie

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Mountford, Kali

    Hutton, rh John

    Mudie, George

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Illsley, Eric

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Highgate)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) O'Brien,

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Bill (Normanton)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Olner, Bill

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Owen, Albert

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Plaskitt, James

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Khabra, Piara S.

    E)

    Kidney, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prescott, rh John

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Purchase, Ken

    Bow)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Rammell, Bill

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Leslie, Christopher

    Bellshill)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    NW)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Linton, Martin

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rooney, Terry

    Love, Andrew

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Ruane, Chris

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sawford, Phil

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    752

    Sheerman, Barry

    Trimble, rh David

    Sheridan, Jim

    Truswell, Paul

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kemptown)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Finsbury)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Watts, David

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    White, Brian

    Spellar, rh John

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Squire, Rachel

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Winnick, David

    Lochaber)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    C)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Woolas, Phil

    Stringer, Graham

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Baillieston)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Yarmouth)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Trickett, Jon

    Joan Ryan

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 60.

    Division No. 4]

    [10:27 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Wallsend)

    Ainger, Nick

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Bryant, Chris

    Allen, Graham

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Burgon, Colin

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Burnham, Andy

    Darwen)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cairns, David

    Austin, John

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Baird, Vera

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Banks, Tony

    Caton, Martin

    Barnes, Harry

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Barron, rh Kelvin

    Challen, Colin

    Battle John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clapham, Michael

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Benn, Hilary

    Chryston)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Berry, Roger

    Clelland, David

    Betts, Clive

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Coaker, Vernon

    Blizzard, Bob

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blunkett, rh David

    Cohen, Harry

    Borrow, David

    Colman, Tony

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Connarty, Michael

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cooper, Yvette

    Brennan, Kevin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    753

    Corston, Jean

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Crausby, David

    Urmston)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

    Hutton, rh John

    (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Highgate)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    David, Wayne

    Jamieson, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Denham, rh John

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Efford, Clive

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Fisher, Mark

    Bow)

    Flint, Caroline

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Foster, rh Derek

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    & Rye)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Galloway, George

    Linton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCabe, Stephen

    Goggins, Paul

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hain, rh Peter

    McKechin, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McWilliam, John

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Rhymney)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Healey, John

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Heppell, John

    Shettleston)

    Hermon, Lady

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Martlew, Eric

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Mole, Chris

    Sefton E)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Morgan, Julie

    754

    Morley, Elliot

    Squire, Rachel

    Mountford, Kali

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Stewart, David (Inverness E &

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Lochaber)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stringer, Graham

    Olner, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Owen, Albert

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Picking, Anne

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Pond, Chris (Graveshami

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Pound, Stphen

    Trickett, Jon

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Truswell, Paul

    E)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prentice Gordon (Pendle)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

    Prosser Gwyn

    Kemptown)

    Purchase Ken

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rapson Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Ballshill

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Rooney, Terry

    Watts, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    White, Brian

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Sheerman, Barry

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Sheridan, JimSimon, Siôn

    C)

    (B'ham, Erdington)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Skinner, Dennis

    Baillieston)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Yarmouth)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Finsbury)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

    Wyatt, Derek

    Lunesdale)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Spellar, rh John

    Joan Ryan

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

    Baker, Norman

    Abingdon)

    Barrett, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Heath, David

    Breed, Colin

    Holmes, Paul

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Burnett, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Burnside, David

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Inverness)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Lamb, Norman

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Chidgey, David

    Atcham)

    Cotter, Brian

    Moore, Michael

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Dodds, Nigel

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Dinefwr)

    Doughty, Sue

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    755

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Trimble, rh David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Salmond, Alex

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Kincardine)

    Willis, Phil

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Wishart, Pete

    Stunell, Andrew

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Tom Brake and

    Thurso, John

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    POLICE
    That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Health Products
    10.38 pm
    Andrew Selous: I rise to present a petition, signed by several hundred of my constituents from the town of Dunstable and the surrounding area in South-West Bedfordshire, concerning choice in health products.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons:
    The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies, and fears that the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons require that the Secretary of State for Health do 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.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Renewable Energy
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    10.40 pm
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I want to put to the House tonight a straightforward and relatively simple argument about the way we live now and the future of our energy supplies.
    The way we live now is straightforward to describe. Some 90 per cent. of us live in urban areas—that is, in built-up areas of more than 10,000 people. We are one of the most urbanised countries in the western world. We got into that position as a result of the transportability of energy supplies, which allowed the urban areas to which we were moving to be powered.
    That urban growth has been supported all along by more sophisticated methods of energy supply. At most stages in the advance of that sophistication, the means to transport energy from the large centres of energy production to the large centres of consumption—domestic or industrial—were developed by non-market means. The national grid, the national gas pipelines, the road system and much of the modern railway system were all integral to the ability to deliver that energy over substantial distances. All were developed by non-market means, usually through some form of direct or indirect state assistance.
    As a result, energy in huge quantities flows through these delivery systems, making it possible to service our grossly over-centralised urban way of life. That is also why this energy is cheap: the development costs of delivery have been written off or discounted, and the sheer volume of supply permits economy of scale.
    So the next question is, what about the future of our energy supplies? That looks decidedly worrying. In short, we cannot go on with this system. It is not sustainable, for three reasons.
    First, it is estimated that by 2050 or so the world is likely to run out of mineral energy supplies. We might last a bit longer if we countenanced a nuclear-powered future, but we must remember that that, too, would be dependent on mineral supplies, and would also leave behind an environmental residue that would be impossible to sustain.
    Secondly, even if we could use all the mineral energy supplies known to us, or even find some more, the act of burning them could not be sustained by the planet in terms of the CO2 emissions that that burning would generate.
    Thirdly, well before 2050, the diminishing availability of what is left of mineral energy supplies will ensure one of two things—and probably will ensure both. Either the price will rise dramatically, or there will be conflict over security of supply. The United Kingdom is poorly placed to secure its own supplies. Indeed, the recent performance and innovation unit report on energy strategy suggests that, by the middle of that run-in period—exactly when conflicts on security are likely to become intense—we will be dependent on gas for 70 per cent. of our energy. It also suggests that 90 per cent. of that gas will have to be imported, probably from parts of the world that even now are not exactly stable.

    757
    Before 2050, therefore, we will have to have in place, an energy economy that delivers to our urban areas supplies of energy comparable with those of today, but predominantly from non-mineral sources. The opportunity is there, in principle, and renewables, of course, are secure. They can be obtained from all around us, and not by means of the transport of liquid fuel over vast distances. However, it is literally a race against time for our urban areas, and at present we are not winning it.
    As the saying goes, what is to be done? Much is being done, I know, by the Government. We have a climate change levy, we have a renewables obligation, and we have a target for the percentage of renewables as the source of electricity by 2010. At present the target is set at 10 per cent., but the PIU report suggests a target of 20 per cent. by 2020.
    That is good progress. Many of the mechanisms are in place, but we are not there yet. We will have difficulty in obtaining the delivery of 10 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2010, let alone the more ambitious target of 20 per cent. by 2020 if the PIU report is accepted. Moreover, we have to set that against the argument that I have advanced about the availability and security of mass energy supplies, and against the recommendations of the royal commission on environmental pollution. The commission stated that, in order to have a serious chance of stabilizing our atmosphere against global warming in the long term, we must reduce our CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050.
    This suggests for both reasons that the 20 per cent. target by 2020 is probably modest and that we should perhaps be looking at 35 per cent. by 2030, 50 per cent. by 2040 and 70 per cent. or more by 2050. That looks logical so far, but two powerful objections have been raised against it.
    First, it is suggested that we simply cannot generate enough energy from renewable sources to substitute the quantities that we are consuming from mineral sources. A renewables energy economy, it is claimed, would return us to the age of the handcart. That is simply not true. The sun provides 15,000 times the energy use of the planet's human population every year, even if we discount the effect of that energy tied up in plant growth or the effect of tides and wind. The question is how to get hold of this energy, how to deliver it, and at what cost.
    Secondly, it is suggested that even if the energy were available, the logistics of installing the capacity to generate it would be unacceptable in terms of how our landscape would look and what we would have to put up with. For example, figures have been quoted showing that to replace a medium-sized nuclear power station it would be necessary to cover an area the size of East Sussex with the vegetation necessary to fuel the equivalent biomass power stations. Alternatively, we would have to cover the landscape with wind farms or much of our coastline with wave and tidal power plants. If the choice were between no power and power derived by these means, I guess that some people might be persuaded that covering Sussex with elephant grass or coppiced willow would not be a bad thing, but there is some substance in the complaint. We know, for example, that the siting of onshore wind farms is running into serious planning problems.
    The second objection highlights an aspect of our future energy policy that has been neglected. The planning of the infrastructure of future energy supply
    758
    will be as important as what it consists of or how much it costs. Indeed, if the prognoses about the future of mineral energy supplies are right, planning probably will be the main issue, precisely because renewable energy is all around us. We will be looking at a different kind of energy economy—not one that unloads large quantities of liquid stored energy in one place or pipes it ashore in one place, but an economy of thousands of energy sources jointly contributing to the provision of energy in situ or exporting from a localised source to the national grid.
    What are we doing to plan the emergence of such an economy? We are, it is true, bending the market with the exemption of renewables from the climate change levy. That will, we hope, tilt the market towards them, as will the renewables obligation. Within that, we appear to be standing by the market to mature the renewable technologies that will—eventually, we hope—provide most of our energy supplies. All this is supposed to happen in less than 50 years, when we are still relying for most of our current energy supplies on the generation—even in nuclear energy—of energy that derives from steam technology, a method that is 200 years old.
    We say that we will not pick winners among renewables, and, in effect, that within the overall tilt towards renewables that the levy and the obligation provides, we will rely on the market to bring particular renewables to market. It will make them work when they are market-ready and the volume of supply drives costs down, but the market will not, I fear, bring the range of renewables necessary to market if it is left to its own devices, any more than it has brought previous energy technologies to market.
    Here is what Anthony Giddens, no less, has to say about markets. He says it in a book entitled, coincidentally, "The Third Way and its Critics", but that should not be held against the quote. He says:
    "Market economies generate externalities, whose social implications have to be dealt with by other means. Environmental damage, for instance, can't be dealt with purely by market mechanisms".
    What we are doing by not picking winners is exactly that—we are not dealing with the externalities of the market by other means. For we are envisaging a renewables expansion that essentially picks where renewables are to be generated from—that is, from rural areas, not the urban areas in which 90 per cent. of us live.
    We will, we hope, generate power from wind farms, from tidal power and from biomass—all very important technologies and potential winners, but only in combination with other forms of renewables that we can obtain from urban sources, which on present logic we are not going to do. That is strange as we already deal with, and are considering dealing more rigorously with, another market-led commodity that often pops up in the wrong parts of the country and at the wrong price: housing.
    We are in danger of bypassing the huge energy resource represented by urban generation, of which there could be two kinds—or, more precisely, two and half kinds. The first two are fully renewable and the half is almost renewable.
    The first two derive from the sun, which shines on every roof in every town. Most houses could supply up to half their internal energy requirements from installed

    759

    photovoltaics and/or from evacuated-tube solar water heating. The half is the potential of combined heat and power, which, increasingly, can be installed locally or even, with sterling engine technology, house by house. Of course, I realise that CHP is not strictly a renewable source—although it may be, depending on the fuel that is used—but it represents, as the PIU report notes, a low-cost option for carbon abatement.
    For example, small CHP plants on landlocked sites behind a close of houses have the proven ability to supply all those houses with heat and power and to export some energy to the profit of the close. The capacity is immense.
    Neither solar technology nor CHP would consume Sussex. They would not keep the population awake at night, nor would they block our estuaries or clutter our coastlines; yet because wind and biomass, for example, are currently deemed cheaper to bring to market, or because the market in energy pricing is stifling the development of CHP, I suspect that we shall produce a lopsided and possibly publicly unacceptable future for renewable development.
    We can and should be able to consider non-market mechanisms, which are not hugely expensive, to right the balance of renewable development between rural and urban supply. There are several such mechanisms. I shall describe two of them.
    We might introduce building regulations for new housing that require each new house to generate a stated percentage of its likely energy consumption from its own construction. That would mean that builders had the option, in essence, to embed photovoltaics or to power an estate development with CHP. The Government have recently, with little fanfare, amended the building regulations to require environmentally friendly boiler design and low emissivity glass in double glazing. Between them, those changes will save almost as much CO2 as the whole of the 10-year transport plan. In principle, it is not difficult to do.
    We might also enable local authorities or community groups to become legal energy generators of CHP and allow local authorities to set up, oversee and trade in energy through local CHP plants. In Southampton, there is currently a proposal, supported by a single regeneration budget grant, for 3,000 homes in the west of the city to be heated by a CHP plant, but the city requires a commercial company to make the project work. A small legislative change and some priming assistance would make a huge difference and offer a window for the development of local and micro CHP.
    I know that the Government are committed to winning the battle of climate change in the UK. I know, too, that they are committed to producing an energy economy that is a key instrument in winning that battle. That is why they have my full support for that, among other aims. However, I do not want to have to tell my grandchildren in 30 years that we could have done something about climate change but we did not because the means of doing so were contrary to market conditions. I should acknowledge that I stole that line from the distinguished writer on energy matters, Dr. Hermann Scheer.
    760
    Dr. Scheer is right, however. If we rely on the market, we shall not gain from the cities and towns in which we live the immense benefit of providing our heat and power from the resources around us. That could be a disaster for all of us, whether we are urban or rural dwellers. With some relatively straightforward instruments, we can put it right.
    10.54 pm
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on securing the debate. He has a long-standing interest in renewable energy, especially solar power—an issue on which, as we have just heard, he speaks with great expertise, and perhaps with rather more expertise than me. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction cannot be here tonight, but I will do my best to respond for the Government.
    We are at a critical stage in the development of renewable energy. As my hon. Friend says, the Government have set ambitious targets for renewables. Our current target nationally is that, by 2010, 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs will be supplied from sources that are eligible for the renewables obligation.
    We introduced the obligation on 1 April this year and it sets out a secure basis for the development of renewables by providing a market for renewable energy for the next quarter of a century. The value of support provided to the UK renewable energy industry through the obligation is estimated to reach £1 billion a year by 2010—a massive commitment by any standards.
    Although the obligation is helping industry to take forward renewable technologies that are close to being commercially competitive—for example, onshore wind generation—we are also putting in place programmes of support for emerging technologies. The Government have committed nearly £250 million in capital grants over the next three years, together with £19 million a year for renewables research and development, mainly focused on offshore wind generation, energy crops and solar photovoltaics.
    I am well aware that the 10 per cent. target is challenging and that we are starting from a low base—at present, less than 3 per cent. of our electricity is generated from renewables—but the Government are determined to achieve the target. The 10 per cent. target would represent an annual saving of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions—a very worthwhile contribution to the UK climate change programme and to meeting our Kyoto target—but the 2010 target is not the end of the story by any means.
    As my hon. Friend said, in June last year, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit to carry out a major review of strategic energy policy issues for Great Britain up to 2050. The PIU energy report was published in February and contained recommendations about bringing environmental policy to the heart of energy policy, including setting a 20 per cent. renewables target for 2020, but the energy review also stressed the importance of maintaining security and keeping options open.
    The Government welcomed the report as a valuable input to necessary wider debate on energy and have been undertaking a consultation with energy stakeholders

    761
    and the public during the summer. That will lead to an energy White Paper, which will be published at the start of the new year. I cannot be expected this evening to speculate about the White Paper's contents, except to say that it will address the role of renewables into the future.
    As my hon. Friend says, solar photovoltaic technology is perhaps the most suitable renewable for use in urban areas because it is clean, silent, can be mounted on buildings and requires no extra land area. It also generates electricity at point of use, thus avoiding losses through the transmission and distribution network. It is also largely maintenance free and can be integrated into roofs, cladding and atriums, making buildings more architecturally attractive.
    The Department of Trade and Industry has supported the development of photovoltaics—PV—through a number of initiatives: the research and development programme, the domestic and large-scale field trials, the major PV demonstration programme and some parallel initiatives. For a number of years, the DTI has had a modest PV research and development programme, which has concentrated on addressing some of the technical and non-technical barriers to the deployment of PV, such as the lack of objective information. More recently, the programme has begun to support the development of components and systems by UK industry, and improvements in the costs and performance of PV cells and modules.
    The research and development programme also involves putting about £10 million over three to four years into a series of domestic and large-scale field trials. The domestic field trial is supporting 30 projects in social and private housing schemes, new build and refurbishment, totalling about 500 homes and 750 kW peak capacity. The large-scale field trial for public buildings is supporting about 15 projects in buildings, such as council offices, sports stadiums, visitor and leisure centres, schools and universities.
    In March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched the £20 million first phase of the major PV demonstration programme, which aims to install PV systems on 3,000 dwellings and 140 non-residential buildings within three years, with an average grant of 50 per cent. After the first six months, £2 million of grants had been allocated and the first dozen installations completed. If the first phase is successful in bringing down costs and building a UK industry, it is expected that it will expand into a full 10-year, £150 million programme, with a target of 70,000 to 100,000 roofs.
    My hon. Friend also raised the potential of combined heat and power. The Government share his view of its significance. CHP has an important role to play in meeting our climate change goals, cutting fuel poverty and increasing the diversity and competitiveness of our energy supply, bringing considerable economic and environmental benefits. As with electricity generated from renewable sources, the Government have ambitious targets for combined heat and power. We remain committed to our target of at least 10,000 MW of good-quality CHP by 2010. Again, that is a challenging target—the current capacity is around 4,700 MW on around 1,550 sites, representing about 6 per cent. of electricity generated in the UK. With continued
    762
    monitoring, support measures and by taking into account the views of the CHP industry, however, that target can be achieved.
    Both solar PV and combined heat and power are being encouraged by the Government and are playing a part in meeting our targets. However, achievement of our targets for renewables will require a step change in the development of renewables. That requires us to realise the potential of all our sources of renewable energy—we cannot rely on any one source. The renewables obligation is a market-led measure and will remain so. We have no plans to attempt to determine the contribution of particular forms of technology. As hon. Members will be aware, different renewable technologies are at different stages of development. Currently, the largest single contribution of electricity from renewable sources comes from hydroelectricity.
    Moving a little ahead, in the period up to 2010 the major expansion is likely to come from wind power. Onshore wind is a proven technology and is close to being commercially competitive. I acknowledge concerns about individual projects but each project is subject to planning consents, and environmental and other considerations are taken into account on a case-by-case basis. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction opened Bowbeat wind farm near Peebles, the largest in Scotland and one where local interests have been very supportive. The Minister will shortly be launching a consultation paper setting out options for putting in place a robust framework to make sure that we make the most of the UK's rich potential in terms of offshore wind. Last month, he announced the first two grants for two offshore wind farms. A grant of £10 million went to each of the two projects: National Wind Power's North Hoyle Project off the coast of north Wales, and PowerGen's Scroby Sands wind farm off the Lincolnshire coast. Together, those projects have the capacity to provide 100,000 homes with clean electricity, and another eight applications are in the pipeline.
    We cannot therefore afford to ignore the contribution of other renewable technologies if we are to achieve the increase in renewables-based electricity that we want. Looking further into the future, wave and tidal power have the potential to make a significant contribution, although the various forms of technology have yet to be proven commercially.
    The renewables sector is doubly important for the UK, not only because of the urgent need for offshore renewable energy to meet targets, but as a tremendous opportunity for UK industry. Increased activity brings opportunities for jobs and investment.
    The UK developed an immensely profitable supply chain industry for oil and gas, and we now have the same opportunity to develop a world-class UK renewables industry and supply chain that will create large numbers of jobs in this country. Renewables UK, the new organisation that I set up earlier this year, is working hard to catalyse change. It aims to create renewables jobs and bring renewables investment to the UK. The unit's overall aim is to maximise UK jobs and investment in renewables both domestically and worldwide by promoting enterprise, innovation and

    763
    competitiveness in the UK supply chain. That applies as much to solar photovoltaics as it does to other forms of technology.
    Several of my ministerial colleagues have met the larger companies from the United States, Japan and Europe, and I am happy to say that there are signs that one or two of them may be interested in setting up small operations in the UK. However, that is likely to happen in the longer term, as most of the bigger players would wish to see a market of 30 MW a year before committing themselves to assembly plants here.
    The total installed capacity in the UK by 2005 is unlikely to be more than 20 MW. However, we are working with companies under the research and development programme to develop building-integrated solar products such as Intersolar, Marley and Pluswall. We are also attempting to encourage electronics companies to get involved in the manufacture of charge controllers. The installed capacity of solar photovoltaics in the UK at the end of 2001 was 2.7 MW, so the main contribution of solar photovoltaics to renewable electricity is likely to come well beyond 2010.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems associated with planning consents for renewables, especially wind farms. I share his concerns. Department of Trade and Industry officials are currently in consultation with those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on revisions to the planning policy guidance note that sets out policy on development plans for renewable energy projects. Our aim is to update and improve the planning guidance for local planning authorities, so that it aids their decision-making on applications for renewable energy projects. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will go out to a
    764
    full three-month public consultation with planning policy statement 22 on renewable energy around the turn of the year.
    I should like to close my remarks by emphasising the importance of renewable energy and by again thanking my hon. Friend for using this debate to enable this important issue to be aired. Renewable energy contributes to all four strands of our energy policy. First, it contributes to security of supply, which, in today's society, is fundamental. Our industries and, indeed, our homes are dependent on reliable energy supplies. Secondly, it provides competitively priced affordable energy for business and individuals. Thirdly, it gives protection for the most vulnerable by first reducing and then ending fuel poverty. Finally, it reduces the impact of fossil fuels on the environment where renewables play perhaps their most essential role.
    I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are committed to renewable energy. This is an exciting time for renewables and it presents us all—government at both national and local level, and industry—with opportunities and with challenges. What is going on with solar photovoltaics and with combined heat and power are good illustrations of the challenges ahead and of what can be achieved. However, they are not the only examples, or of course the only renewables. Our task in meeting the demanding targets that we have set requires the vision to carry forward our objectives and to turn potential into reality. There are many barriers in our path, but the rewards are immense: reliable sources of clean energy, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a developing renewables industry. We all need to work together to lead the way into a renewables-based future.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o 'clock.

DEFENCE

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of replacing Ministry of Defence Green Goddesses with an equivalent number of modern fire appliances.[81723]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister owns and maintains the Green Goddess fleet. Although the Office has considered the possibility of replacing Green Goddesses, there has been no specific assessment of the cost of replacing the Green Goddesses with an equivalent number of modern fire appliances.

  Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many persons constitute the capacity of Catterick barracks; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many(a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police,(ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case; 80690]

  (2) how many persons constitute the capacity of Bindon barracks, Hameln; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police,(ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case; [80669]

  (3) how many persons constitute the capacity of the Army barrack at Deepcut, Surrey; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were
  114W
  subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police, (ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case; [80671]

  (4) how many persons constitute the capacity of Cavalry barracks, Hounslow, Middlesex; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police, (ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case. [80688]

  (5) how many persons constitute the capacity of Army barracks in Bielefield, Germany; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police,(ii) were the subject of an external investigation (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest, and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case; [80670]

  (6) how many persons constitute the capacity of Drumadd barracks, Northern Ireland; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police, (ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case. [80687]

  (7) how many persons constitute the capacity of Quebec barracks, Osnabruck; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police, (ii) were the subject of an external investigation, (iii) were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and(iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case; [80668]

  (8) how many persons constitute the capacity of Browning barracks, Aldershot, Hampshire; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments form

  115W
  the permanent staffing component of this sum; how many officers and other personnel from what regiments are regularly accommodated on a temporary basis; how many (a) suicides and (b) other deaths have occurred in each year since 1990; how many of these incidents were firearms-related; which of these incidents (i) were subject to investigation by the Royal Military Police, (ii)were the subject of an external investigation, (iii)were the subject of a Coroner's inquest and (iv) gave rise to courts martial or criminal proceedings; and what the outcome was in each case. [80689]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally or in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Combat Helmet
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce an improved combat helmet for the forces. [80702]

  Dr. Moonie
  Plans for the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme include the provision of a helmet with improved ballistic protection. We are also looking at a replacement for the in-service helmet to equip those soldiers who will not have FIST.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of HM armed forces in each of the past five years were(a) charged and (b) found guilty at courts martial for each category of serious crimes of violence up to that of murder; and how many of those found guilty (i) are in prison and were (ii) dishonourably and (iii) honourably discharged from the services and (iv) have resumed their military careers. [80613]

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

  Firefighting Training
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what basic training is given to(a) soldiers, (b) sailors and (c) airmen in firefighting in the normal course of their training. [82012]

  Dr. Moonie
  The degree of firefighting training given to Service personnel depends upon the role that they are expected to perform during normal military duties. All service personnel are given basic fire awareness training including use of fire extinguishers, raising the alarm, means of escape and general fire precautions. Inaddition, more comprehensive training is given to those personnel who work in an environment where there may be a requirement to deal with fire.

  Navy personnel, as part of the Basic Sea Survival Course, are trained in the procedural teamwork of shipboard firefighting. On board ship, theoretical training is given on Naval Battle Control of Damage together with Intermediate Sea Survival techniques. Firefighting teams on board ships receive two weeks of specific training in firefighting techniques while Navy aircraft handlers also receive ongoing training in core
  116W
  firefighting skills and, depending on their rank, training in firefighting leadership, command and control and technical expertise.

  Specialist RAF firefighters in Trade Group eight receive comprehensive training in domestic (structural) firefighting, including breathing apparatus search and rescue procedures. Additionally, all RAF firefighters receive specialised training in aircraft crash fire fighting and rescue techniques and procedures, including the use of cutting equipment. Progressive career training develops increasing levels of leadership and command and control skills and enhanced technical knowledge appropriate to each rank.

  HMS Trafalgar
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the repair work to HMS Trafalgar to begin; and how long it will be out of commission. [81113]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is too soon to say when the repair work on HMS Trafalgar will start or how long she will be out of commission. First, we need to assess the full extent of the damage and this work cannot begin until she is in dry dock in Devonport Dockyard. However, she was in any event due to undergo a planned maintenance and docking period starting in Spring 2003 and completing in early 2004.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support the United Kingdom link provide for the military protection and support of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq; and which other nations are expected to provide the major elements of such protection and support. [80961]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) has not made any request for the United Kingdom to provide for the military protection and support of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. We are not aware of such a request having been made to other nations. The Government is committed to assist UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq Action Team to fulfil their mandate effectively.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80778]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is continuously reviewing, and seeking ways to improve, the security of its communications and information systems. Electronic protective measures employed to safeguard classified data include the use of firewalls to protect systems, the identification and authentication of users and audit of user activities.

  The Ministry of Defence, in common with any organisation that is connected to the Internet, is subject to widespread and frequent attempts to probe its electronic boundaries. It is Ministry of Defence policy not to make detailed comment on the protection

  117W
  measures applied to communications and information systems, or on techniques such as computer hacking, as these could assist potential enemies to penetrate these elements of national security.

  During October 2002, no incidents of computer hacking were reported. So far this year 10 incidents of computer hacking have been reported, of which one was a website defacement. None of these had any significant impact on the conduct of military operations or other core Defence business.

  Office Technology
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the corporate headquarters office technology system; and what his assessment is of its level of usage by MoD staff. [80972]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Corporate Headquarters Office Technology System (CHOTS), first introduced in the Ministry of Defence in the early 1990s and rolled out progressively since, is MOD's workhorse computing platform for office automation within the Head Office of the Department, and is installed in or linked to major Commands and HQ locations, at 23 main sites and 128 minor sites both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It comprises some 13,000 workstations and supports over 25,000 user accounts, and is used predominantly for the preparation of documents, spreadsheets and presentation material, for e-mail preparation, transmission and reception, and for internal web site hosting and browsing. The system enjoys a high level of usage by MOD staff, running at typically 80per cent. of capacity. Typical average e-mail traffic within the system is presently in the region of 2.25 million per month.

  Retired Officers Scheme
  Dr. Andrew Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Retired Officers scheme. [81662]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Retired Officer Scheme has served us well for more than four decades, but a continuing manning deficit coupled with the emergence of increasingly stringent employment legislation has caused us to examine alternative means of capitalising on the valuable experience of those retiring from the Armed Forces. In addition to this source of expertise we would also like to attract people with suitable experience from industry, the Civil Service, and from the wider Defence environment. After full consultation it has been decided that there will be no further recruitment into the Retired Officer Scheme. Instead, people will be recruited both internally and externally into Military Support posts within the mainstream Civil Service. Some former RO posts that may require a uniquely military background, or a specific military qualification, will become the responsibility of the respective Service Secretaries. Serving Retired Officers will be invited to assimilate into the new arrangements, although they will be free to remain as established Retired Officers should they wish to do so.

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the arrangements are for the investigation of the cause of death of service personnel serving overseas in(a) Germany, (b) Bosnia, (c) Kosovo, (d) Afghanistan and (e) other principal countries of posting; by what means he ensures the protection of rights to an independent, prompt and effective investigation under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [80647]

  Dr. Moonie
  Rules governing jurisdiction for investigation of un-natural deaths of Service personnel outside the United Kingdom are detailed in the Queen's Regulations for each service. These state that the position on jurisdiction is as follows:
  Wholly with the service authorities where an offence has been committed against service law only but subject, in a foreign country or independent country with the Commonwealth, to the law of that country or the terms of a treaty or agreement permitting the service authorities to exercise such jurisdiction;

  wholly with the civil authorities where an offence has been committed solely under the local law;

  with both the Service authorities and the civil authorities where an offence has been committed against both Service law and the law of the country or colony concerned; or

  in the case of a force which is forming part of a United Nations force occupying former enemy territory, jurisdiction generally lies exclusively with the authorities of the force.

  Investigations are conducted by the Special Investigations Branch (SIB) of the relevant UK Military Police, where appropriate in conjunction with the local civilian police force.

  Where the body is returned to the UK it automatically becomes subject to an inquest by HM Coroner or (in Scotland) the Procurator Fiscal. All cases of sudden death are investigated to Home Office standards using accepted best practice.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Domestic Violence
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to help victims of domestic violence. [81539]

  Mrs. Roche
  Tackling domestic violence is a major priority. We have improved access to housing for women fleeing violence and made their support a priority for the new Supporting People programme. We will shortly publish new, practical guidance to local authorities on preparing for Supporting People, and are putting in place plans for further action, which will be announced shortly.

  Housing Shortage
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional help will be given to cities and towns in the north of England which have an acute shortage of affordable housing. [81549]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated £193 million of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for
  119W
  2003–04 to the northern regions. This represents an increase of 24 per cent. on the current year for the provision of affordable housing.

  Grant Distribution System
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department will announce the level of floors to grant changes as a result of the Government consultation reviewing the formula grant distribution system. [81551]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will announce our proposals for the levels of grant floors to Parliament as part of the provisional 2003–04 local government finance settlement. We expect to do that around the beginning of December, subject to parliamentary business.

  Affordable Housing
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new affordable housing units were built in rural areas in each of the last five years. [81552]

  Mr. McNulty
  Latest available information on the number of new dwellings constructed within local authority districts covering rural areas by both registered social landlords and local authorities in England is:

  Number

  1996–97

  4,340

  1997–98

  4,100

  1998–99

  3,240

  1999–2000

  2,940

  2000–01

  2,970

  Equivalent information for 2001–02 is not currently available.

  21. Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new affordable homes were built in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months. [81561]

  Mr. McNulty
  Over 24,500 new homes were constructed by both registered social landlords and local authorities in the UK during 2000–01, the latest period for which full data are available.

  Housing Standards
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce legislation to improve housing standards and standards of management of private rented accommodation. [81553]

  Mr. McNulty
  As announced in the Queen's Speech last week, the Government intend to publish a draft Housing Bill this session. The Bill will make clear our commitment to introduce the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation, the selective licensing of landlords in areas of low housing demand and replace the existing housing fitness regime with the evidence-based Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Taken together this provides a package of measures that targets poor property condition and management 120W
  standards in the parts of the private rented sector which accommodate some of the most vulnerable in our society.

  Additionally, this Bill will demonstrate how we intend to make the home buying and selling process more transparent and certain, and so reduce the stress and expense suffered by hundreds of thousands of consumers each year when home sales fall through or are delayed.

  Climate Change
  John Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on climate change talks he has held since July. [81556]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have raised climate change issues in a number of meetings with senior international figures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) represents the UK in international climate change negotiations.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what initiatives he intends to take to reduce the number of empty homes in England. [81557]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking forward the recommendations of the Select Committee on Empty Homes report of March 2002. We are working to provide local authorities with effective powers and guidance to enable them to reduce the number of long-term empty homes in England and maximise opportunities to convert commercial property.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to update the Revised Guidance on Securing the Better Use of Empty Homes, issued in July 1999; [81938]

  (2) what updates and revisions have been made to the Revised Guidance on Securing the Better Use of Empty Homes issued by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in July 1999. [81695]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have not issued any updated material since the Revised Guidance was issued, but we plan to issue a new version early next year.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work programme of the Social Exclusion Unit. [81558]

  Mrs. Roche
  The SEU is contributing to the ODPM's aim to create thriving, inclusive, sustainable communities, with current projects looking at:
  young runaways;

  transport and social exclusion; and

  the educational attainment of children in care.

  Mr right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will decide on any new projects in due course.

  Regional Government
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing an elected North West Regional Assembly. [81559]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The costs of establishing elected regional assemblies will vary from region to region, mainly due to the different sizes of their electorates, but we expect them all to fall into a range of around £15million to £30 million a region, including the costs of a referendum and of the first assembly elections. The North West is likely to fall towards the upper end of this range.

  Local Authorities (Taxation)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to grant local authorities more power to raise taxation. [81560]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 16 July 2002, Official Report, column 236W. We also announced yesterday that we will be granting local authorities new powers to restrict council tax discounts on second homes and long-term empty properties.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations his Department has received from Eddisbury constituency residents about local government funding in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the arguments in those representations. [81033]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The county of Cheshire is one of the constituent authorities of the F40 education funding campaign, from whom a very large number of letters were received as part of the recent consultation on local government grant distribution. Our records show that five letters have been received directly from residents of Eddisbury constituency in the last 12 months.

  British-Irish Council
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future programme of the British-Irish Council. [81562]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I will be leading the UK delegation to the next British-Irish Council summit in New Lanark, Scotland on 22 November. The Government remain fully committed to the Council.

  Boundary Commission
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Boundary Commission reviews are planned ahead of the referendums on regional assemblies. [81565]

  Mr. Raynsford
  If the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill introduced in the House on 14 November 2002 is enacted, we intend to direct the Boundary Commission to undertake local government reviews of existing two-tier local government arrangements in those regions where there is deemed to be interest in holding a referendum on an elected 122W
  regional assembly. The committee would be required to recommend the unitary structure that it considered most appropriate for the area.

  Census Data
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about use of Census data in setting next year's council budgets. [81566]

  Mr. Leslie
  We distribute grant in support of local authority expenditure by means of a formula that uses the best available data. The Registrar General has advised that the 2001 Census provides the most accurate possible census result. We therefore expect to use population data from the 2001 Census in the grant formula for 2003–04.

  Fire Dispute
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in solving the firefighters' dispute. [81567]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Informal discussions took place yesterday involving the FBU and the Deputy Prime Minister, and the FBU and the Local Government Employers. The Local Government Employers are ready to talk, and we urge the FBU to return to formal negotiations.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Green Goddess fire engines and associated equipment will be in Staffordshire during the firefighters' industrial dispute; and where they will be deployed. [81051]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Emergency cover in Staffordshire is currently planned to consist of 12 Green Goddesses, five breathing apparatus teams (BARTs), and one rescue team equipped with specialist equipment (a REST), manned by military personnel. The contingency arrangements also effect thousands of the police, NHS and local authority staff. The table sets out where the Green Goddesses, BARTs and RESTs will be based.

  Location

  Number of Green Goddesses

  Number of BARTs

  Burton-on-Trent

  2

  1

  Cannock

  2

  1

  Cobridge

  2

  1

  Lichfield

  2

  1

  Longston

  2

  1

  Stafford

  2

  0

  Note:

  The REST will be based at Stafford

  The provision of Ministry of Defence emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to minimise call-out response times and maximise 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

  123W
  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.

  British Summer Time
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will extend the British summer time arrangement to operate throughout the year; and if he will make a statement. [80753]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to extend British summer time throughout the year. The start and end dates of summer time are harmonised across EC member states through a European Directive. The Directive stipulates that, in each member state, clocks are put forward annually by one hour during the period between the last Sunday in March and the last Sunday in October.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment his Department has made of the carbon-absorbing capacity of new forests and the impact this will have on the Kyoto protocols; and if he will make a statement. [80882]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  New forests reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, because the trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, despite an initial loss of soil carbon due to disturbance during planting, the input of organic matter from trees via litter on the forest floor increases the amount of carbon in the soil over time. We estimate that new forests planted in the UK since 1990 will remove about 0.6 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/yr) during the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, contributing about 0.3 per cent. towards our 12.5 per cent. emissions reduction commitment. Taking into account the possible contribution from the Clean Development Mechanism as well as new forests planted in other developed countries, new forests could contribute the equivalent of a reduction of about 1.5 per cent. of base year emissions towards the commitments averaged over all countries which ratify the Kyoto Protocol. However the actual outcome will depend on how the countries choose to meet their commitments, on actual rates of planting, and on detailed application of the rules for sinks accounting agreed in Marakkesh.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost is to his Department of the central London road user charging scheme for(a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81878]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Any additional costs to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average Band council tax was in(a) Norfolk, (b) Essex and (c) Cambridgeshire in(i) 1997–98 and (ii) 2002–03. [81111]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average area Band D council tax in Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire in 1997–98 and 2002–03 was:

  £

  1997–98

  2003–03

  Norfolk

  620

  983

  Essex1

  645

  995

  Cambridgeshire2

  590

  948

  1 1997–98 figures for Essex include Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. These authorities became unitary authorities on 1 April 1998.

  2 1997–98 figures for Cambridgeshire include Peterborough. Peterborough became a unitary authority on 1 April 1998.

  In 1997–98 and 2002–03 the median council tax band in Norfolk was Band B, and in Essex and Cambridgeshire the median council tax band was Band C. The average area council tax for these bands was:

  £

  Band

  1997–98

  2002–03

  Norfolk

  B

  483

  765

  Essex1

  C

  573

  884

  Cambridgeshire2

  C

  525

  843

  1 1997–98 figures for Essex include Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. These authorities became unitary authorities on
  1 April 1998.

  2 1997–98 figures for Cambridgeshire include Peterborough. Peterborough became a unitary authority on 1 April 1998.

  Development Land
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the efficacy of his definition of(a) previously developed land and (b) brownfield sites; and what plans he has to alter that definition. [81936]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are a number of definitions in use. The technical agreement for the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions public service agreement 2001– 04 defined previously-developed land (PDL) by reference to the definition of PDL in planning policy guidance note 3 housing (PPG3) and brownfield land as all land included in the National Land Use database (NLUD-PDL). The practical application of the definition of PDL is kept under review by the NLUD Board and has been considered in the course of ongoing research on the implementation of PPG3. There are no plans to alter the definition.

  Fire Station Flooding (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for how many days parts of York's Tower Street fire station were flooded during November 2000; for how long these parts of the fire station were out of use thereafter; how much it cost to repair the building; whether these costs were covered by insurance; how much it cost the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service in revenue terms to deal with the disruption of their use of the premises; and
  125W
  what assessment he has made of the economic cost to the wider community of the disruption to the use of parts of the fire station. [80998]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disroportionalte cost. The matters raised are for the North Yorkshire fire and Rescue Authority.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes have been compulsorily purchased using central Government funding in the last two years. [81935]

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

  Homelessness
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1)how many persons were homeless in(a) December 2001 and (b) January 2002; [81708]

  (2)how many persons were homeless during (a) December 2000 and (b) January 2001; [81939]

  (3)how many homeless persons were living in (a) bed and breakfast hotels, (b) hostels and (c) other temporary accommodation in (i)December 2001 and (ii) January 2002; [81706]

  (4)how many homeless persons were living in (a) bed and breakfast hotels, (b) hostels and (c) other temporary accommodation in (i)December 2000 and (ii) January 2001; [81941]

  (5)how many homeless persons were living in (a) bed and breakfast hotels, (b) hostels and (c) other temporary accommodation in (i)December 1999 and (ii) January 2000; [82395]

  (6)how many persons were homeless during (a) December 1999 and (b) January 2000. [82392]

  Mrs. Roche
  The precise information requested is not collected centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Summary information on local authorities activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on a quarterly, rather than monthly, basis, and it relates to households rather than persons. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of these households resident in various types of temporary accommodation at the end of each quarter.

  National and some regional information on local authorities activity is provided in a quarterly statistical release published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This includes information for recent quarters and years on the number of households accepted as homeless (Table 2), as well as those in various types of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast and hostels (Table 6). Copies are available in
  126W
  the House Library, and also via the ODPM website. The latest edition, which was published on 11 September 2002, presents statistics up to the end of June 2002.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what responses relating to the local government finance consultation have been received from(a) Chiltern District Council and (b) Buckinghamshire County Council; [81172]

  (2) what response relating to the local government finance consultation has been received from Buckinghamshire county council in relation to education funding; and when it was received. [81174]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Responses to the consultation (including views on education funding) were received from both Buckinghamshire county council and Chiltern district council. Both were received by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 30 September.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responses relating to the local government finance consultation have been received from(a) South Buckinghamshire district council and (b) Wycombe district council. [82383]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Detailed responses to the Formula Grant Distribution consultation were received from both South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe district councils before the formal close of the consultation on 30 September 2002.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services delivered by(a) South Buckinghamshire district council, (b) Wycombe district council and (c) Buckinghamshire county council; [82384]

  (2) what impact changes in the local government grant will have on public services in South Buckinghamshire. [82381]

  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 around the start of 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.

  Urban Deprived Areas Fund
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much of the Post Office fund for urban deprived areas has been spent; and on what. [80486]

  Mrs. Roche
  None. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to launch the scheme in the near future, with receipt of first applications from 31 January 2003.

  Water Charges (Private Landlords)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to make private landlords responsible for the payment of water charges on shorthold tenancies. [81047]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to legislate to change the responsibilities of landlords and tenants for water charges.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Europe Convention
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the deposition which he presented to the Secretariat of the convention in his capacity as Her Majesty's Government's representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [80406]

  Mr. MacShane
  A copy of Professor Dashwood's draft treaty, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales presented to the Future of Europe Convention, has been placed in the Library. It is also available on the Convention Website (http://european-convention.eu.int).

  Departmental Language Training
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of language training courses for employees of the Foreign Office in the last financial year. [81497]

  Mr. Rammell
  The cost of language training courses for employees of the Foreign Office was £2,147,493.

  This includes all the costs for language tuition required for employees' jobs as well as future career development.

  Detained British Citizens
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations the UK Government has made on British citizens held by the United States at the Guantanamo Base in Cuba; [81668]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the US Government concerning the continued detention of people captured in the conflict in Afghanistan. [81667]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the specific issue of the British detainees held by the United States on several occasions with the US Secretary of State, most recently on October 15.

  We remain in regular contact with the US about the situation of the British detainees. In addition we have also encouraged them more generally to move forward with the process of determining the future of all the detainees.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EU Foreign Ministers concerning the European arrest warrant. [81496]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no formal meetings with other EU Foreign Ministers concerning the European arrest warrant, although the matter may have arisen informally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office has responsibility for this matter.

  Hungary
  Mr. Andrew Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Hungary concerning Law LXXIV, 2001 (PA IS3); what assessment he has made of the compatibility of this law with(a) European Union membership; and (b) Council of Europe membership; what representations he has made to other European Union member states and the European Commission concerning the acceptability of Hungary as a member state; what representations he has made to the Council of Europe concerning the acceptability of Hungary as a member of the Council; and if he will make a statement. [80494]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have made no representations to the Government of Hungary or any other government or international body concerning Law LXXIV, 2001 (PA 153), "amendments of certain legislation regulating financial affairs", amending law CXXIV of 1997. We do not connect it to membership of the EU or the Council of Europe.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on illegal immigrants and the exploitation of migrant workers in Northern Ireland. [80820]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is an offence to facilitate the entry of an illegal entrant; or to harbour one and to employ one who does not have permission to work. The Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) is primarily responsible for dealing with such offences. There has been one conviction for facilitation in the past 18 months. United Kingdom Immigration Service works closely with PSNI and also with the Irish immigration authorities to gather evidence, and where appropriate, prosecutions will be brought.

  I am aware of a recent BBC documentary highlighting cases of illegal workers in Northern Ireland and of the method by which they are brought to the province. The issues raised in that programme are not unique to Northern Ireland. Where reliable information exists indicating immigration offenders are at a particular address, United Kingdom Immigration Service staff in Northern Ireland take action against illegal workers there, as they do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  129W
  During the past 12 months 68 illegal workers have been removed from Northern Ireland. Further enforcement visits to identify other illegal workers are planned.

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have(a) been refused and (b) been granted asylum in the last 12 months; and what definition of child is used for this purpose. [80532]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data are only available for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), defined as principal applicants who are, or appear to be, under 18, claiming asylum in their own right and without a guardian or relative in the United Kingdom.

  In the first six months of 2002, 3,070 initial decisions were made on applications lodged by UASCs aged under 18 at the time of initial decision. Of these decisions, 470 cases were refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain, 295 were granted asylum and 2,310 were granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Comparable data for the six months prior to this are unavailable and would be produced only at disproportionate cost by examining individual case records.

  Reliable information on initial decisions made on applications from accompanied children is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is therefore available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Information on unaccompanied minors is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library and from the RDS website http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  EU Migrant Statistics
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures showing the(a) population density and (b) inflow of migrants in the most recent available year in each country of the EU. [80707]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Peter Lilley, dated 20 November 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the population density and the number of migrants for each country in the European Union. (80707)

  The attached table, provided by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Commission, shows the population density and the number of immigrants in each country in the European Union.

  The immigration figures shown in the table are provided by the member states and are based on national definitions. Differences in the definition of migrants by different countries can be very great. These differences mean that it is hard and occasionally misleading to draw conclusions about the comparative scale of migration in the countries concerned.

  130W

  Table 1:Population density and number of immigrants, European Union countries

  Country

  Population density1 (Persons per sq. km)

  Number of immigrants2 (Thousands)

  Austria

  97.1

  81.7

  Belgium

  337.7

  368.5

  Denmark

  124.6

  52.9

  Federal Republic of Germany

  230.9

  841.2

  Finland

  17.1

  16.9

  France

  5109.1

  357.8

  Greece

  80.5

  412.6

  Ireland

  55.3

  46.2

  Italy

  192.5

  3185.1

  Luxembourg

  172.6

  11.8

  Netherlands

  5475.2

  132.9

  Portugal

  5112.5

  518.4

  Spain

  80.1

  362.5

  Sweden

  21.7

  58.7

  United Kingdom

  246.6

  364.4

  1 The population density figures are as of 1st January 2002

  2 The number of immigrants are for the year 2000 unless otherwise shown

  3 The figures are for the year 1999

  4 The figures are for the year 1998

  5 Figures are provisional

  Note:

  The definitions and data sources used to record immigration vary greatly across the countries of the European Union

  Source:

  Eurostat

  Human Trafficking
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to combat human trafficking and associated sex-slavery in the UK; and what assessment he has made of the size of this problem in(a) the UK and (b) London. [80535]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have set out our strategy to tackle trafficking of human beings, in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, published earlier this year. There are four main strands to the strategy:
  strengthening the law;

  tackling the criminals through intelligence and enforcement;

  international co-operation and prevention in source and transit countries; and

  dealing appropriately with the victims of trafficking.

  Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic due to the hidden nature of the act. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study `Stopping Traffic' published in 2000, indicated that the number of women and children trafficked into the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation, was likely to be in the range of 140 to 1,400 per year.

  Illegal Immigration (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve precautions against illegal immigration in East Sussex. [80679]
  131W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service is committed to maintaining secure borders throughout the United Kingdom and countering evasion of the immigration control. A close watch is kept on the situation in East Sussex to assess regularly the risk of persons entering the United Kingdom illegally and to ensure that any necessary action is taken. Ports in East Sussex are not currently considered to be at high risk from illegal immigration. The Immigration Service deal with illegal entrants and, in consultation with the Police and other control Authorities, will assist in the identification and prosecution of those who facilitate illegal entrants.

  Admissions of spouses, fiancé(e)s for a limited period prior to settlement1, excluding EEA nationals2, 1990 to 2001—United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Category and nationality

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Husbands

  Europe2

  —

  —

  370

  350

  310

  380

  Americas

  —

  —

  890

  780

  880

  970

  Africa

  —

  —

  580

  640

  740

  610

  Indian sub-continent

  1,680

  2,160

  3,720

  3,530

  3,070

  3,020

  Other Asia

  —

  —

  330

  270

  300

  330

  Oceania

  —

  —

  640

  530

  550

  560

  Other nationalities

  —

  —

  130

  110

  40

  30

  All nationalities2

  4,860

  5,040

  6,660

  6,200

  5,890

  5,900

  Male fiancés

  Europe2

  —

  —

  110

  80

  80

  90

  Americas

  —

  —

  190

  140

  150

  150

  Africa

  —

  —

  80

  80

  100

  90

  Indian sub-continent

  500

  420

  290

  250

  150

  140

  Other Asia

  —

  —

  70

  60

  60

  60

  Oceania

  —

  —

  100

  70

  70

  70

  Other nationalities

  —

  —

  30

  30

  10

  10

  All nationalities2

  1,060

  940

  860

  720

  610

  610

  Wives

  Europe2

  —

  —

  930

  940

  740

  900

  Americas

  —

  —

  1,600

  1,520

  1,570

  1,640

  Africa

  —

  —

  820

  830

  980

  940

  Indian sub-continent

  5,040

  5,310

  5,360

  5,040

  5,050

  5,060

  Other Asia

  —

  —

  1,540

  1,460

  1,600

  1,760

  Oceania

  —

  —

  880

  740

  800

  760

  Other nationalities

  —

  —

  380

  220

  80

  60

  All nationalities2

  10,900

  10,900

  11,500

  10,800

  10,800

  11,100

  Female fiancées

  Europe2

  —

  —

  260

  330

  240

  310

  Americas

  —

  —

  350

  290

  380

  370

  Africa

  —

  —

  100

  100

  100

  90

  Indian sub-continent

  490

  410

  380

  300

  260

  250

  Other Asia

  —

  —

  440

  340

  380

  390

  Oceania

  —

  —

  120

  90

  90

  100

  Other nationalities

  —

  —

  60

  40

  10

  10

  All nationalities2

  1,830

  1,790

  1,720

  1,500

  1,460

  1,500

  Category and nationality

  1996

  19973

  1998

  1999

  20004

  20014

  Husbands

  Europe2

  420

  605

  620

  645

  660

  495

  Americas

  880

  975

  1,090

  1,145

  1,000

  610

  Africa

  710

  1,085

  1,490

  1,610

  1,515

  1,310

  Indian sub-continent

  3,540

  5,865

  7,520

  4,600

  6,240

  5,410

  Other Asia

  340

  405

  430

  460

  450

  455

  Oceania

  530

  630

  730

  835

  725

  560

  Other nationalities

  30

  35

  35

  25

  15

  20

  All nationalities2

  6,460

  9,600

  11,910

  9,325

  10,605

  8,855

  Immigration Policy
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign spouses and fianc(e)s were admitted to live in the UK with their British spouses in each year from 1990. [80708]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information on the number of spouses admitted to the United Kingdom in each year from 1990 is given in the table.

  It is not possible to identify separately those people who were admitted to live in the United Kingdom with a spouse who was a British citizen from those admitted to join a spouse who had settled in the United Kingdom but was not a British citizen.
  133W

  Category and nationality

  1996

  19973

  1998

  1999

  20004

  20014

  Male fiancés

  Europe2

  90

  130

  105

  120

  100

  60

  Americas

  160

  195

  175

  140

  160

  105

  Africa

  80

  105

  140

  130

  100

  85

  Indian sub-continent

  100

  185

  215

  220

  240

  235

  Other Asia

  70

  70

  90

  75

  55

  65

  Oceania

  80

  95

  125

  100

  90

  60

  Other nationalities

  5—

  5

  5

  5

  5

  —

  All nationalities2

  580

  785

  855

  795

  750

  610

  Wives

  Europe2

  1,040

  1,165

  1,410

  1,990

  1,745

  1,345

  Americas

  1,670

  1,740

  1,950

  2,520

  1,955

  1,255

  Africa

  1,070

  1,370

  1,895

  2,300

  2,235

  2,165

  Indian sub-continent

  5,740

  6,645

  8,010

  6,525

  8,700

  8,495

  Other Asia

  1,880

  2,250

  2,665

  2,980

  3,310

  3,480

  Oceania

  790

  900

  1,100

  1,305

  1,145

  1,060

  Other nationalities

  50

  50

  35

  50

  45

  60

  All nationalities2

  12,200

  14,120

  17,070

  17,670

  19,140

  17,860

  Female fiancées

  Europe2

  400

  485

  560

  665

  670

  445

  Americas

  400

  445

  450

  490

  510

  255

  Africa

  120

  105

  150

  130

  130

  115

  Indian sub-continent

  250

  200

  305

  285

  310

  295

  Other Asia

  430

  520

  710

  740

  725

  595

  Oceania

  110

  130

  145

  140

  110

  70

  Other nationalities

  10

  5

  10

  10

  10

  5

  All nationalities2

  1,710

  1,880

  2,330

  2,460

  2,475

  1,775

  1 Husbands and wives seeking settlement, and fiancé(e)s, are given leave to enter for a limited period (apart from certain wives who are entitled to settlement on arrival). Settlement is granted after a year's probationary period; for those admitted as fiancé(e)s the probationary period starts after marriage.

  2 Excludes EC nationals up to 1993 and EEA nationals since 1994.

  3 Figures prior to 1997 rounded to three significant figures, figures from 1997 rounded to five.

  4 A change in procedures may have resulted in some under-recording in the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

  5 Negligible ie five or fewer.

  '—' Not available

  Refugee Accommodation
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(1) if he will make a statement on progress on the Government's assessment of the Refugee Council 'core and cluster' model of accommodation centre; and if he will make a statement on the methods of evaluation of the different models of accommodation centre for people seeking asylum being planned by the Government; [81044]

  (2)if he will define the different models of accommodation centre that the Government is planning for people seeking asylum; [81043]

  (3)if he will make it his policy to adopt the Refugee Council care and cluster model of accommodating centres. [81042]

  Beverley Hughes
  As I announced in the House of Commons on 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 150W we remain committed to developing large, self-contained, out of town facilities in order to thoroughly test the on-site provision of services at accommodation centres. However, in order to test an alternative model, one of the trial centres will be smaller than 750 places and for single men only and may be located in or on the edge of an urban area. We have also made clear that our minds are not closed to other models and, in particular that we will continue to work with the Refugee Council on their "core and cluster" proposal. This would involve a series of hostels clustered around
  134W
  a central services core. No decisions have yet been made on the Refugee Council proposals. We will undertake a thorough evaluation of the accommodation centre trial. It will include a combination of management information, consultation with relevant people and more formal research carried out by independent researchers under contract to the Home Office. The evaluation conclusions will be publicly available, and provided to Parliament.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to relax regulations on the use of terminally anaesthetized animals for training surgeons; [81126]

  (2)what steps he is taking formally to consult individuals and organisations on the format, layout and language of the Home Office statistics of scientific procedures on living animals [81124]

  (3)what plans he has to remove from the Home Office statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, animals from GM strains which are bred but not otherwise used in regulated procedures; [81121]

  (4)what plans he has to ensure that designated research establishments using animals are inspected at least once a year by an inspector from another area; [81137]
  135W
  (5)what steps he is taking to encourage his EU counterparts to make development and validation of replacements for animal experiments a priority; [81134]

  (6)what steps he is taking to ensure that ethical review processes relating to research using animals have external lay members, whose term of office is time-limited; [81131]

  (7)what plans he has to repeal section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in favour of a specific justification for each class of information that needs to be kept confidential; [81122]

  (8)what steps he is taking to provide improved statistics on animal suffering pursuant to animal experimentation; [81125]

  (9)what steps he is taking to engage in a systematic and visible search for methods involving the reduction, refinement and replacement in toxicology; [81133]

  (10)what steps he is taking to enable visiting scientists and students in higher education to carry out work under the licenses of an established licence-holder in research using animals; [81128]

  (11)what plans he has to subject the Home Office Inspectorate for the regulation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to periodic review by a body other than the Inspectorate itself; [81136]

  (12)what plans he has to (a) strengthen the secretariat of the Animal Procedures Committee and (b) separate it from the Home Office regulators; [81129]

  (13)what steps he is taking to encourage the Home Office Inspectorate to convene a regular forum to discuss specific scientific and welfare issues related to the use of animals in experiments; [81123]

  (14)what steps he is taking to ensure a welfare assessment of new strains of animals used in experiments; [81120]

  (15)what steps he is taking to simplify and reduce the length of project licenses involving animal-related research; [81127]

  (16)what steps he is taking to promote the adoption of replacements and the incorporation of refinements into animal test guidelines; [81132]

  (17)what plans he has to delegate interim authority from his Department to the local ethical review process when approving routine or minor amendments relating to research using animals; [81130]

  (18)what steps he is taking to promote the commercial advantages of reduction, refinement and replacement in toxicology; [81135]

  (19)what plans he has to make public the substantive details of anonymised project licences, describing the expected benefits of animal-related research and the harms to the animals involved after they have been approved and funded. [81138]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  These matters are all the subject of recommendations in the report published on 24 July 2002 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. The report contained a total of seven conclusions and thirty-one recommendations, all 136W
  of which are being carefully and thoroughly considered. The Government will respond to the report within the six months that is provided for and there will then be a debate in the House of Lords.

PRIME MINISTER

  Northern Ireland
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the theft of sensitive documents appertaining to Northern Ireland from police and government Departments. [80915]

  The Prime Minister
  The police are investigating this matter at the moment. I do not want to say anything that might jeopardise that investigation.

  Bishops
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the bishops on whom he has advised appointment since 1997. [81500]

  The Prime Minister
  I have advised on the following bishoprics since May 1997:

  Diocesan Bishops

  Bath and Wells

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Chichester

  Coventry

  Ely

  Exeter

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Norwich

  Ripon and Leeds

  Sheffield

  Southwark

  Southwell

  Suffragan/Area Bishops

  Barking

  Basingstoke

  Bedford

  Beverley

  Birkenhead

  Bolton

  Brixworth

  Buckingham

  Burnley

  Colchester

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Dover

  137W

  Dudley

  Dunwich

  Ebbsfleet

  Edmonton

  Grantham

  Grimsby

  Hertford

  Hull

  Hulme

  Jarrow

  Knaresborough

  Lancaster

  Ludlow

  Lynn

  Maidstone

  Middleton

  Penrith

  Pontefract

  Ramsbury

  Repton

  Richborough

  Sherborne

  Shrewsbury

  St. Germans

  Stockport

  Taunton

  Thetford

  Tonbridge

  Warrington

  Whitby

  Willesden

  Children and Young People
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Ministers in each Department with responsibility for(a) programmes, (b) policy and (c) legislation which makes specific reference to children and young people under the age of 18, indicating their titles and responsibilities. [80470]

  The Prime Minister
  Providing opportunities for the welfare and development of children and young people is a priority for Government. We have introduced a range of programmes which include legislation to support children and young people. These are delivered by a number of Ministers across Government. For example, Sure Start and the children's fund in the Department for Education and Skills, children's trusts in the Department for Health, and a range of Home Office initiatives to prevent offending, which include support to parents and families. The Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions also have significant responsibilities affecting children and young people including child support and the children's tax credit.

  The children and young people's unit was established in July 2000 as a cross-cutting unit to support Government work across the full 0–19 age range. The unit reports to John Denham, Minister of State in the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Education
  138W
  and Skills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer chairs the Cabinet Committee on children and young people's services.

  The Government recently reaffirmed its commitment to addressing the needs of the most vulnerable children by announcing a new ministerial committee, chaired by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to oversee the development of a Green Paper on children at risk. A Green Paper will be published early next year on the whole issue of children at risk, including how to ensure that they do not take up crime, and their family, mental health and educational problems.

  These initiatives are all in addition to mainstream services which cover young people, such as social services, the health service and schools. Other ministerial responsibilities in this area are set out in the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", copies of which are available from the Vote Office, the Libraries of the House, and the Cabinet Office website:www. cabinet office.gov.uk/central/indexilmr.htm.

  Downing Street (Refurbishment)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans are in place to refurbish(a) 10 and (b) 11 Downing street; what the estimated cost will be; and what mechanism exists for public scrutiny of this project. [81595]

  The Prime Minister
  While there are, currently, no plans to refurbish 10 and 11 Downing street, maintenance and redecoration work across the Downing street estate is part of a continuing programme. No. 10 now, as in the past, is maintained to standards appropriate to its status as a Grade 1 listed building, in consultation with English Heritage and other experts as appropriate. Bills and invoices in connection with such work are subject to audit in line with Treasury requirements.

  Engagements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 November. [82220]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today. I will be travelling to Prague this afternoon to attend the NATO summit.

  Environmental Matters
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the environmental matters raised by(a) him, (b) his special envoys and (c) his officials in discussions with foreign powers since the last General Election. [80848]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government at all levels has raised a range of environmental matters during discussions with foreign governments since 2001. These include air quality, chemicals, climate change, energy, forests, biodiversity, sustainable development, agriculture and water issues.
  139W
  Since October 2001, I and other Ministers have attended major events and meetings which have addressed key environmental issues. These include:

  9–13 November 2001:WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar

  3–7 December:International Conference on Fresh water, Bonn, Germany

  13–15 February 2002:Global Ministerial Environment Forum (Cartagena, Colombia)

  15–16 March:European Council, Barcelona

  18–22 March 2002:Financing for Development Conference—Mexico

  7–19 April 2002:Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity(CBD/COP6), The Hague,

  12–14 April:G8 Environment Ministerial Meeting, Canada

  27 May—7 June:4th Preparatory Committee meeting for WSSD, Indonesia

  21–22 June:European Council, Seville

  26–28 June:G8 Heads of State Summit, Kananaskis Canada

  26 August—4 September:World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa (High Level Segment 2—4 September)

  24 October—1 November:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Eighth Conference of the Parties (UNFCC/COP8), Delhi.

  The environment is a key priority for the UK Government. We shall continue to work closely with foreign governments on all environmental matters.

  French Beef Ban
  Andrew George
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) President Chirac and (b) the French Government in respect of the costs to United Kingdom farmers following the French refusal to lift the British beef import ban. [81945]

  The Prime Minister
  I have raised the ban with both President Chirac and Prime Minister Raffarin on a number of occasions and am gratified that France has at last complied with EU law and lifted its ban on British beef. Any bids for compensation must come from those affected but we will support such cases if they arise.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent steps he has taken to persuade(a) the US and (b) the Australian governments to sign and ratify the Kyoto Agreement. [80858]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that the Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets and timetables, is the only existing international framework for tackling climate change and takes every opportunity to urge all countries that have not yet ratified it to do so as soon as possible.

  The Government are encouraged that although Australia will not be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, it intends to meet its Kyoto Protocol target.

  We welcome the US's recognition that climate change is a serious problem andthe fact that they are taking domestic action, although this will not result in the absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that the US would have been committed to make under the Kyoto Protocol.

  Media Team
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost has been of works to 12 Downing Street to establish a base for his media team. [81596]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1370W. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as well with details once the account has been finalised, and I will place a copy in the Library.

  Ministerial Meetings
  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1997(a) Ministers and (b) Government officials have met (i) Lord Currie, (ii) Lord Brooke, (iii) Karl Milner, (iv) Denise Kingsmill, (v) Jaap Kroese, (vi) Michael Frye and (vii) Professor Roderick Floud; and what was discussed at each meeting. [82346]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers and Government officials have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  National Security
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what mechanism, consistent with national security, he has put in place to enable parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of monies spent across government in response to the events of 11 September 2001. [81581]

  The Prime Minister
  The resources allocated by departments to meet requirements post-September 11 are subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and accountability as any other departmental funding.

  Swamarurayan Hindu Mission
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the petition given to him by Dr. I. P. Patel, the trustee of the Swamarurayan Hindu Mission.[81498]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received the petition and I will be replying in due course.

  Visits (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82407]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 7 November 2002,Official Report, columns 441–43W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Facilities (Wokingham)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the reasons for not approving the recent Wokingham Unitary Council bid for a PFI to
  141W
  build new buildings for a secondary school and a special school, together with other community facilities; and if he will make a statement. [81755]

  Mr. Miliband
  The PFI bid submitted by Wokingham council was one of 53 received from local education authorities (LEAs) for the 2003–04 financial year. Each proposal was evaluated by officials against the published criteria, and then scored and ranked. The Wokingham bid was ranked below the top 21 that we were able to support. My officials have provided the LEA with detailed feedback and have offered to provide further advice on the preparation of a future bid.

  EU Education, Youth and Culture Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education, Youth and Culture Council held in Brussels on 11 to 12 November; what the Government's stance on the issues discussed was, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [80715]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport attended the culture and audiovisual session of this council, with Elaine Murray, the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in the Scottish Parliament. I attended the education session on 12 November. There was no youth business.

  In the culture and audiovisual session the Council adopted a resolution on European added value and mobility of persons and circulation of works in the cultural sector (document 13129/1/02); and a resolution on interactive media content in Europe (document 12911/02). The Council also adopted conclusions on the Television Without Frontiers Directives (document 12934/02).

  In the education session, the Council adopted a resolution on enhanced co-operation in vocational education and training (document 13137/02).

  The Council also held a discussion on the EU level education work programme, focusing in particular on the national level reforms that were linked to it, as well as the vocational education and training aspects of the work programme. I stressed the need to keep the work straightforward and to obtain concrete and practical results in terms of sharing good practice, while respecting the differences between our various education systems. I also supported the work on improving the understanding and getting better recognition of each others' qualifications. There was a high degree of consensus with many other delegations making the same points.

  The Council held its first discussion of the Commission's Erasmus World proposal for a new programme to attract overseas students into the EU. I welcomed the broad aim of the proposal and stressed the need for the programme to be of high quality.

  The Council received information from the Commission on the evaluation of the European Year of
  142W
  Languages in 2001, and on their proposed action plan to promote language learning and linguistic diversity, due to be published in 2003.

  A copy of the Council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the postcodes in respect of which universities can claim extra payments for each student normally resident therein. [81819]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Funding Council to reply to your question and to place a copy of his reply in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will consult(a) students and (b) parents of students living in Buckinghamshire on the findings of the review of higher education. [81192]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]We plan to publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education in January. We have already taken steps to stimulate debate about the range of issues affecting the future of higher education; once the strategy document is published, there will be further opportunity for all interested parties to respond.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the participants are in his Department's Review Group for Higher Education. [81315]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 November2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is leading a review including representatives from his Department, HM Treasury and Inland Revenue.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members of each learning and skills council have resigned since the establishment of the councils; and how many of those were representatives of(a) business, (b) trade unions and (c) education providers, expressed as (i) a number and (ii) a percentage. [81088]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]There are currently over 700 members of local Learning and Skills Councils. The information requested is provided in the table.

  It is not possible to calculate the percentages as the number of council members is constantly changing.
  143W

  Region/local LSC

  Council members from business

  Council members from trade unions

  Council members
  from education providers

  Others

  Total

  National Council

  2

  —

  —

  2

  4

  South East

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Surrey

  2

  —

  1

  1

  4

  Kent and Medway

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Hampshire Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Sussex

  3

  1

  2

  1

  7

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  3

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  North East

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  County Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tees Valley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  The Black Country

  2

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Shropshire

  2

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  North West

  Lancashire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Greater Manchester

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Cheshire/Warrington

  2

  1

  —

  3

  6

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Greater Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Humberside

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South West

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The West of England

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  London

  London North

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  London East

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  London West

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  London Central

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  London South

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  144W 145W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the members of each of the learning and skills councils represent(a) the business sector, (b) the trade unions and (c) the public sector. [80993]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is provided in the following table. Members of local LSCs are not delegates of particular sectors but have been appointed for their understanding and experience of the wide variety of relevant interests in post-16 learning.

  Percentage

  LLSC

  Business sector

  Trade unions

  Public sector

  South East

  Berkshire

  44

  6

  44

  Hampshire, Portsmouth,

  Southampton and IOW1

  43

  7

  43

  Kent and Medway

  31

  12

  56

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and

  Buckinghamshire1

  54

  7

  47

  Surrey

  31

  6

  56

  Sussex

  38

  —

  62

  East of England

  Bedfordshire and Luton1

  47

  7

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  44

  —

  44

  Essex1

  40

  7

  47

  Hertfordshire

  44

  6

  56

  Norfolk

  44

  6

  31

  Suffolk

  44

  12

  50

  North East

  County Durham

  56

  6

  31

  Northumberland1

  83

  8

  8

  Tees Valley

  50

  6

  37

  Tyne and Wear

  44

  6

  37

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  31

  6

  44

  Leicestershire1

  47

  13

  33

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  37

  6

  44

  Northamptonshire

  37

  6

  50

  Nottinghamshire

  37

  6

  44

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull1

  47

  7

  27

  The Black Country1

  40

  7

  47

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  50

  6

  44

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire1

  54

  8

  31

  Shropshire

  50

  6

  37

  Staffordshire

  44

  6

  37

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington1

  57

  —.

  43

  Cumbria

  56

  6

  31

  Lancashire1

  47

  7

  40

  Greater Manchester

  50

  12

  31

  Greater Merseyside

  44

  6

  37

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  South Yorkshire1

  40

  13

  53

  North Yorkshire

  37

  6

  50

  Humberside1

  53

  —

  40

  West Yorkshire1

  43

  7

  43

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  50

  6

  37

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole1

  54

  7

  40

  Gloucestershire1

  47

  13

  40

  Somerset

  50

  6

  31

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  37

  6

  50

  West of England1

  40

  7

  40

  146W

  Percentage

  LLSC

  Business sector

  Trade unions

  Public sector

  London

  London Central1

  53

  6

  33

  London East

  50

  6

  25

  London North1

  47

  6

  33

  London South1

  36

  7

  43

  London West1

  47

  13

  26

  1 Councils with outstanding vacancies. Figures provided liable to some distortion

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of members of each learning and skills council represent(a) manufacturing, (b) engineering and (c) service industries. [80994]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not available. Members are appointed to local councils for their understanding and experience of the wide variety of relevant interests in post-16 learning.

  Pupil Capacity
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional funding was made available to schools in(a) the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and (b) Wokingham district to increase pupil capacity after 18 July. [81757]

  Mr. Miliband
  None. Guidance for the 2003—04 Basic Need round, to support the provision of new pupil places, was issued at the end of July. It invited local education authorities to make bids by 30 September. Neither the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead nor Wokingham district made applications. The Department will be announcing Basic Need allocations to LEAs in December.

  School Places
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent estimate he has made of the additional number of school places that will be required in(a) the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and (b) Wokingham district as a result of the Government's plan for housing. [81758]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for local education authorities to plan and keep under review the supply of school places in the light of proposed housing development, so as to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet demand. The regional planning guidance for the South East assists local education authorities in the region to do this. Where an LEA can demonstrate overall growth in the need for school places it may apply to my Department for capital funding.

  School Sport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many hours of the school week are devoted to sport in UK primary and secondary schools; [80978]

  (2) what proposals he has to lengthen the time devoted to sport in schools in the UK. [80979]
  147W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Physical Education (PE) is compulsory within the National Curriculum in England at all Key Stages for all pupils. Schools must provide physical education (PE) in accordance with the subject's programme of study. Guidance on curriculum planning, including for PE, published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Department for Education and Skills, recommends that the programmes of study require a minimum of 75 minutes per week at Key Stages 1 and 2, and 90 minutes per week at Key Stage 3.

  The Government are committed to all children in England having at least two hours of high quality PE and school sport a week, within and outside of the curriculum. A joint Department for Education and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport Public Service Agreement target—published 15 July—seeks to enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by 5 to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of schoolchildren who spend a minimum of two hours each week on PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum from 25 per cent. in 2002 to 75 per cent. by 2006. £459 million will be invested over the next three years to deliver this target. Spearheading action will be a significant expansion of the specialist sports college and school sport co-ordinator programmes.

  Evidence from the Youth Sport Trust, Sport England and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority indicates that a quarter of schools in England-those within school sport co-ordinator partnerships-are offering children aged 5 to 16 access to at least two hours' PE and school sport. All these partnerships will complete an annual data collection exercise this month. This will provide robust, comprehensive and in-depth information on the number of pupils with access to two hours' PE and school sport. Early messages from this will be available before the end of the year. The House will be informed of the results.

  Sexual Relationship Education
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training provision is planned for teachers regarding sexual relationship education; and if he will make a statement. [80545]

  Mr. Miliband
  In April 2003, we will roll out a professional development programme for teachers of Personal, Social and Health Education(PSHE). The programme will recognise effective teaching of the generic skills of PSHE, with Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) being addressed as a specialist module based on knowledge and understanding. The development of the programme supports our view that effective SRE is essential if young people are to make responsible and well-informed decisions about their lives. We expect up to 500 teachers to participate in the first year of the programme.

  From September 2002, those awarded qualified teacher status must demonstrate that they are familiar with the national curriculum framework for PSHE, including sex and relationship education, for the age range they are trained to teach. The new standards for initial teacher training also open up opportunities for trainees to have PSHE as a specialism.

  Top-up Fees
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of university top-up fees on the drive to increase participation in higher education. [81505]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish in January a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. It would not be right to say now what options we are considering or what analyses we have undertaken.

  Truancy (Essex)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the levels of truancy in Essex in each year since 1997. [80891]

  Mr. Miliband
  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence in maintained primary and secondary schools in Essex since 1997.

  Year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1996–97

  0.4

  0.8

  1997–98

  0.4

  0.8

  1998–99

  0.4

  0.9

  1999–2000

  0.3

  0.9

  2000–01

  0.4

  0.8

  2001–021

  0.4

  0.9

  1 Early statistics

  The 1997 figures for Essex are not directly comparable with the later years because of the local government reorganisation that took place in 1998.

  University Fees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he plans to introduce a differential fees regime between university applicants who originate from independent schools and those who originate from maintained schools; and if he will make a statement. [80752]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have no such plans.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission (1) what the policy is of the Commission in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees; [81890]

  (2) what the estimated cost is to the Commission of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for (a) 17 February 2003 to 31March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81889]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The Commission is keeping an eye on developments, but has no current plans to reimburse employees.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Consultation (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the business organisations in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire with which she consults on matters of relevance to the business sector. [81175]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]The Government Office for the South East, who are responsible for carrying out work on behalf of my Department, liaise with local business support organisations such as the Thames Valley Economic Partnership, Local Chambers of Commerce, local Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors, when they need to survey opinion on Office of the DPM issues affecting business.

  GOSE also has good links with the Regional Development Agency (SEEDA), and the local business link (Business Link Solutions) who have close relationships with the business sector.

  GOSE is also encouraging the business sector to become involved in the local strategic partnerships. The Chiltern district council's LSP has both a local business, Amersham International, and a representative form Aylesbury Chamber of Commerce as members.

  BAE Systems
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations have taken place to determine how BAE Systems spare parts were supplied to the Zimbabwean Defence Forces earlier this year; and whether she has established if such spare parts were granted on export licence by the UK Government. [81322]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on 4 November 2002, Official Report, column 11.

  Since the introduction of the UK arms embargo on 12 May 2000, no standard individual export licences or open individual export licences have been issued, for the proposed export of spare parts for the Hawk aircraft, where the end users were in Zimbabwe.

  I refer the hon Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the then Foreign Secretary, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on 12 May 2000, Official Report, columns 493–94W.

  Broadband
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made to increase access to higher bandwidth broadband in rural areas. [81361]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Satellite services make broadband available across the country. Added to this some 67 per cent. of the 150W
  households in the UK now have access to a mass-market terrestrial broadband service. This is ahead of countries such as France and Italy.

  The market continues to make progress in extending the availability of affordable broadband through such initiatives as the demand registration schemes run by BT and by Liberty Broadband. We believe that the market-led progress will continue as new technologies including additional wireless services become available and satellite services become more affordable.

  We believe, however, that in some areas Government may have a role to play. Some schemes including European structural funds have already made an impact on the availability of broadband (e.g. the ACTNOW project in Cornwall).

  The Government has also committed £30 million for pilot projects to help regional development agencies and devolved administrations learn what will work in extending availability and take-up. These funds are starting to make an impact in rural communities such as Buckfastleigh in Devon and Alston in Cumbria.

  There is scope for further impact to be made in increasing private sector investment and the availability of broadband by the use of public sector demand. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday that the outcome of the Spending Review 2002 shows that a total of approximately £6 billion will be invested in electronic government—including £1 billion towards high-speed broadband connectivity. Existing funds for regional economic development(and RDAs will have £1.8 billion in 2003–04 for this purpose) can also make a contribution where lack of broadband is a barrier to economic development. That is why I announced in June the intention to establish a regional broadband unit to use the public sector's spending power to boost availability and take-up in rural areas.

  Mr. Derek Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how and in what way SEEDA has allocated its broadband funds; and what SEEDA's criteria are in allocating funds for broadband provision in the poorest wards in Kent. [81766]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]SEEDA programmes are targeted at both supply and demand side issues including direct touch involvement in mainstream technologies (Fibre, DSL, Wireless and Satellite), new technologies (powerline transmission, VDSL, third generation mobile and metro Ethernet), application pilot programmes and broadband promotion. In addition SEEDA is working with other national, regional and local stakeholders.

  SEEDA's criteria for allocating funds are shaped by the Regional Economic strategy and its Corporate plan as agreed with partners. Both documents identify the 119 most deprived wards in the Region as priority areas, requiring special attention and investment. Of these, 48 are in Kent and 6 in Medway.

  Chemicals Policy Review
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies her Department has made of the possible effects of the European Commission's Chemicals Policy Review on the
  151W
  international competitiveness of (a) the UK chemical industry itself and (b) the rest of the UK manufacturing industry. [81102]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Environment, has overall responsibility for the EU Chemicals Strategy, including responsibility for the assessment of the regulatory impact of those proposals. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is actively involved in the development of policy on this issue. In May 2001, the Government prepared a preliminary regulatory impact assessment of the proposals in the European Commission's White Paper "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy", COM(2001) 88. A further regulatory impact assessment will be required when proposals for the European Commission's legislation are available, and DTI will be fully involved in determining the scope and content of that assessment. It will include an assessment of the implications of the proposed legislation for the international competitiveness of the

  Electricity supplied by fuel, 1972 to 20011

  Percentage

  Total GWh

  Gas2

  Other fossil fuels

  Nuclear

  Renewables excluding hydro

  Hydro

  Total

  1972

  245,15

  —

  87.8

  10.5

  —

  1.7

  100

  1973

  262,63

  —

  89

  9.3

  —

  1.7

  100

  1974

  254,14

  —

  86.6

  11.5

  —

  1.9

  100

  1975

  253,71

  —

  87.6

  10.4

  —

  1.9

  100

  1976

  257,70

  —

  85.9

  12.1

  —

  2

  100

  1977

  263,61

  —

  84.9

  13.1

  —

  2

  100

  1978

  268,80

  —

  86

  12.1

  —

  1.9

  100

  1979

  280,16

  —

  86.2

  11.9

  —

  1.9

  100

  1980

  266,31

  —

  86

  12.1

  —

  1.9

  100

  1981

  259,93

  —

  85.2

  12.8

  —

  2.1

  100

  1982

  255.083

  —

  82.6

  15.2

  —

  2.2

  100

  1983

  259,36

  —

  80.6

  16.9

  —

  2.5

  100

  1984

  264,14

  —

  79.9

  17.9

  —

  2.3

  100

  1985

  277.922

  —

  78.2

  19.3

  —

  2.4

  100

  1986

  281,46

  —

  79.1

  18.4

  —

  2.4

  100

  1987

  282,51

  —

  80.7

  17.1

  —

  2.2

  100

  1988

  288.599

  —

  78.3

  19.3

  —

  2.4

  100

  1989

  294,32

  —

  75.9

  21.6

  0.2

  2.2

  100

  1990

  300.128

  0.1

  77.8

  19.5

  0.2

  2.4

  100

  1991

  302,76

  0.2

  76.8

  20.7

  0.3

  2

  100

  1992

  300,80

  1.1

  73.2

  23

  0.3

  2.3

  100

  1993

  303,81

  7.6

  63.4

  26.7

  0.4

  1.9

  100

  1994

  308,98

  12.2

  59.3

  25.9

  0.6

  2.1

  100

  1995

  319,90

  19.8

  52.4

  25.2

  0.6

  2

  100

  1996

  334,78

  24.7

  47.4

  25.6

  0.8

  1.5

  100

  1997

  334,10

  32.8

  37.9

  26.7

  1

  1.7

  100

  1998

  345,29

  33.7

  37

  26.2

  1.2

  1.9

  100

  1999

  351,44

  39.7

  31.6

  24.9

  1.4

  2.3

  100

  2000

  360,97

  40.2

  34.5

  21.7

  1.5

  2.1

  100

  2001

  368,45

  37.8

  36.3

  22.5

  1.6

  1.7

  100

  1 Electricity supplied is here measured on a "gross" basis, ie hydro includes production from pumped storage stations and "other fuels" include the electricity supplied for use in pumping at pumped storage stations.

  2 Prior to 1995 figures are for Combined Cycle Gas Turbines only.

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Equal Treatment at Work Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she next expects to meet representatives of small businesses to discuss the impact of the equal treatment at work directive. [81564]
  152W
  UK chemicals industry and other manufacturing sectors that use chemicals in their processes and products. The Government has already consulted interested stakeholders about the specification for the regulatory impact assessment. In addition, the Government will consider what further analysis may be needed to ensure that the wider implications for competitiveness (for example, at the macro-economic level) are taken into account.

  Energy Generation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of England's energy needs have been delivered by(a) gas generation, (b) other fossil fuel generation, (c) nuclear generation, (d) renewable sources, excluding hydro power and (e) hydro power in each year since 1972. [80852]

  Mr. Wilson
  The available information is shown in the following table and covers electricity supplied in the United Kingdom as whole. Figures are not compiled on an England basis.

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I hold regular meetings with the small business community. These meetings offer many opportunities for business to ask questions about this area of equal treatment legislation.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the amount of energy within each OECD country generated from renewable sources in each year since 1990 and what the change in total energy consumption was in each case, taking 1990 as a baseline figure of 100. [81592]

  Mr. Wilson
  The available information is shown in tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library, and cover electricity generated from renewable sources, and electricity consumption in each OECD country. The data are compiled by the International Energy Agency.

  Thailand
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) BAE Systems and (b) the Government of Thailand regarding (i) proposed sale of defence equipment to Thailand and (ii) the promotion of Thai poultry exports. [81039]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with BAE Systems on this issue. However, this Government fully supports UK industry in its legitimate defence exports. In relation to the Kingdom of Thailand, HMG is supporting BAE Systems to work with the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand to assist with the modernisation of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. In this connection, I understand they have set in motion the negotiation on a major programme of offset, technology transfer and inward investment, collectively known as "Economic Compensation", to be undertaken to provide Thailand with substantial and sustainable investment in areas such as agriculture, health, education and industrial participation.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the Prime Minister of Thailand, Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra, in May of this year. At that meeting, she told him she was grateful for Thailand's efforts in implementing safeguards in relation to its exports of chicken and shrimp.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will conduct a study of the relationship between high value rented properties and the adequacy of housing benefit as part of the trials being carried out on changes to housing benefit.[81550]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We use local reference rents to ensure that the overriding principle that people receiving should not have their rent met in full if it exceeds the broad average for the area is adhered to. Local reference rents and the localities to which they apply are set by independent rent officers to reflect local housing market conditions. Requests for re-determinations are rare which indicates that local references rents do not cause widespread problems for benefit recipients.
  154W
  The new standard local housing allowance will be based on local reference rents and will be piloted in up to 10 pathfinder local authorities selected to reflect a wide range of housing market conditions, including areas with high value rented properties. In consultation with independent researchers, we are drawing up a rigorous evaluation strategy to test the effectiveness of the allowance in enabling housing benefit recipients in the deregulated private rented sector to make informed choices over their accommodation.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce a de minimis rule in implementing the housing benefit changes due in April 2003, whereby a small charity, with less than 10 units, may continue to have its 'support' costs included in housing benefit payments. [81563]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Housing benefit is intended to help people on low incomes to pay for rented accommodation. It is not intended to provide the full range of support services vulnerable people need to enable them to live independently in the community. The Supporting People arrangements to be introduced in April 2003 will bring together resources from several existing programmes, including housing benefit, to create a coherent funding and planning framework for housing-related support services, based on a grant to local councils. The new arrangements will promote greater choice and flexibility for service users.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Industry
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next plans to meet the representatives of the water industry. [81650]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has meetings with representatives of the water industry from time to time but has no such engagements in her diary now.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the system of water metering. [81649]

  Mr. Morley
  The Water Industry Act 1999 sets in place the Governments policies on water metering.

  The Government have no plans to amend that legislation.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the bovine TB gamma interferon tests are being held. [81070]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]Defra will be aiming to recruit approximately 660 herds in Wales and the following six English counties:Staffordshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire.

  The project commenced in early November and the first herds are now being recruited.

  BSE
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure her Department receives EU funding related to BSE. [81145]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has written to the European Commission seeking a review of the recent decision not to grant funding for the UK's TSE and other animal disease eradication and control measures in 2003. We await a response.

  Composting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many proposals for composting initiatives have been turned down by the Environment Agency on the grounds of the Animal By-Products Order which prohibits the composting of kitchen and catering waste. [80511]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra and the local authorities are the competent authorities with respect to the Animal By-Products Order and it is not the responsibility of the Environment Agency to enforce the requirements of the Order. The agency set out its position with respect to the Order in a position statement which was published in October 2001.

  Where the agency receives applications which may be affected by the Animal By-Products Order, it makes applicants aware of the Order and notifies the local authority concerned.

  Consultancies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b)advertising and marketing companies, (c)management consultancies, (d) accounting companies, (e) banking firms, (f)individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies or companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [80867]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diversification
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many, and what proportion, of farms have diversified in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [81151]

  Mr. Morley
  A research study on diversification is currently being undertaken for my Department and is due to be published soon. This will include a regional breakdown and an assessment of past and future trends in the level of diversification.

  I will write with details of the report once it has been published.

  Environment Agency Cars
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cars are owned or leased by the Environment Agency for their employees. [81013]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency owns or leases 3,150 cars for its employees.

  Flooding
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on home values and insurance costs of the published maps of the Environment Agency showing properties at risk of flooding. [81025]

  Mr. Morley
  No assessment has been made of the impact of these maps on insurance costs. The Environment Agency have always made it clear that their maps show the indicative floodplain area, not flood risk or definitive flood boundaries, and are based on land topography taking no account of the defences which are in place. The insurance industry is aware of this, and of the need to use the maps with considerable caution.

  It is advisable for any prospective purchaser of a property on a flood plain to obtain further specific detail of flooding risk from the Environment Agency. This should be done as part of the normal conveyancing process.

  The agency are developing a National Flood and Coastal Defence Database, with funding from Defra. The aim of the project is to provide a single, easily accessible definitive store for all data on flood and coastal defences which should assist insurers when making commercial decisions based on risk. Additionally, new maps indicating flood risk are being developed, to which the insurance industry will have access.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Department's budget is for flood relief measures in 2002–03. [81017]

  Mr. Morley
  Following a recent re-allocation of budgets within Defra, those for funding of flood and coastal defence measures undertaken by operating authorities have been increased to £124 million. Defra also provides funding of £4.5 million for the Storm Tide Forecasting Service and £2.5 million on research and development.

  Environmental Policy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms exist to ensure environmental policy set by her Department is reflected in decisions taken by(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) the DfID and (c) the DTI. [81590]

  Mr. Meacher
  Policy proposals that specifically relate to environmental or sustainable development issues are considered by the Ministerial Committee for the Environment (ENV), Ministerial Sub-Committee on
  157W
  European Issues (EP) or World Summit on Sustainable Development (MISC18) Cabinet Committees as appropriate. The Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers ENV(G) also considers the impact on sustainable development of Government policies. FCO, DFID and DTI are represented on all of these committees and play a full part in them.

  In addition, Cabinet Office guidance for all Cabinet Committees requires that all Cabinet papers or letters to colleagues explain how proposals meet the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development, and specifically, any significant costs and benefits to the environment.

  At working level, the Guidance Checklist for Policy Makers housed on the CMPS Policy Hub is the main mechanism for ensuring that all Departments are aware of environmental appraisal requirements. DEFRA and DTI are among Departments currently piloting new integrated policy appraisal tools which aim to ensure that environmental impacts are considered alongside social and economic impacts.

  Farmers
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average age of(a) entrant, (b) current and (c) departing farmers was in each of the last 15 years, broken down by region. [81152]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the age of farmers is collected four times each decade as part of the EC Farm Structure Surveys. The information readily available is given in the table. Information is not collected on the ages of entrant and departing farmers.

  1990

  1993

  1995

  1997

  2000

  England

  53

  53

  54

  53

  54

  North

  52

  53

  53

  53

  53

  Yorks/Humberside

  52

  52

  53

  53

  54

  East Midlands

  53

  54

  54

  53

  54

  East Anglia

  53

  54

  54

  54

  54

  South East

  54

  54

  55

  54

  55

  South West

  53

  53

  54

  53

  54

  West Midlands

  53

  54

  54

  54

  55

  North West

  53

  52

  54

  53

  54

  Source:

  EC Farm Structure Surveys

  Footpaths
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the orders to be drafted relating to Bisham No. 9 footpath, when they will be published and if she will make a statement. [81756]

  Alun Michael
  Two orders will be drafted:
  (a)an order under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 to create a new footpath over the alternative route proposed by the Ramblers Association, and

  (b)an order under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 to extinguish the part of footpath Bisham No.9 which will be rendered redundant by the new path.

  158W
  We are currently consulting the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead about the technical aspects of the orders and we expect to publish them next month. The orders will be open to objection and any objections duly made must be considered by the Secretary of State.

  Funding Applications
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many late applications for EU and other funding, broken down by category, have occurred in her Department and its predecessors since 1997; and if she will list them by amount. [81144]

  Alun Michael
  Such detailed information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with details as soon as it has been collated.

  Global Warming
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated total cost of global warming to the British economy was in each year since 1997. [80875]

  Mr. Meacher
  Estimates for the total cost of global warming to the British economy during this period are not available. The Department has however sponsored preliminary research by Environmental Resources Management Ltd. to estimate the cost of adapting to climate change in key sectors such as water and flooding. Copies of this report have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  In addition, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that weather damage claims associated with the current climate cost an average of £710 million per year over the period 1998–89 to 1998–99. The damage costs associated with extreme weather are likely to rise as such events become more frequent in future due to climate change.

  Green Ministers
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Green Ministers have met since June 2001. [81769]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the general election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV. It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  However, progress made by ENV(G), and its parent committee ENV, on the contribution of all Departments to sustainable development is made public annually through the Sustainable Development in Government Report (the successor to the Greening Government reports). The next report is due to be published shortly. In addition, key developments during the year are posted on the Sustainable Development in Government website, http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ sdig/index.htm (launched in July 2002). The Environment Audit Committee is of course already free to call for reports and evidence at any time.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average(a) consumption of energy by and (b) emission of greenhouse gases from the average family house was in each year since 1997. [80865]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  Average UK household energy consumption (GJ)

  Average UK household carbon dioxide emissions (tones CO2)

  Average UK household greenhouse gas emissions (tones CO2 equiv)

  1997

  77.2

  5.66

  6.27

  1998

  78.9

  5.73

  6.44

  1999

  78.1

  5.60

  6.22

  2000

  78.9

  5.63

  6.36

  2001

  81.3

  6.07

  —

  The greenhouse gas figures are higher than those for CO2 alone since they include indirect emissions of methane attributable to household use of gas and of coal-and gas-generated electricity.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions which emanate from(a) the US, (b) other OECD countries and (c) developing countries; and what this represents in each category as emissions per person. [80876]

  Mr. Meacher
  The International Energy Agency has published global greenhouse gas emissions estimates by country for 1995. These data suggest that in that year the United States and other OECD countries accounted for around 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of global greenhouse gas emissions respectively. Developing countries accounted for around 45 per cent. Emissions per capita were around 7, 3 and 1 tonnes of carbon equivalent per person averaged over the US, other OECD countries and developing countries respectively. These estimates include all greenhouse gases covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. They do not include the countries with economies in transition in Central and Eastern Europe which in 1995 accounted for the remaining 10 per cent. of global emissions, with emissions per capita of about 3 tonnes of carbon equivalent.

  Hunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions her Department has held with the authors of the Joint Universities Study on Deer Hunting (The physiological response of red deer (Cervus elaphus) to prolonged exercise undertaken during hunting, 1998) about the physiological effects on deer which(a) escape after being hunted and (b) are hunted and shot; [80834]

  (2) what estimates her Department has made of the size of the annual cull of (a) foxes, (b) hares, (c) deer and (d) mink; [80836]
  160W
  (3)what plans she has to establish a national strategy for the management of (a) foxes, (b) hares, (c) deer and (d) mink; [80835]

  (4)what studies her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the economic damage caused by the deer population to root crops and grass by grazing, trampling and lying; and what assessment her Department has made of trends over the last 10 years; [80829]

  (5)what studies her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the economic cost of agricultural damage caused by (i) foxes, (ii) hares, (iii) deer and (iv) mink; [80832]

  (6)what studies her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the (i) fox, (ii) hare, (iii) mink and (iv) deer (1) red, (2) fallow, (3) roe, (4) sika, (5) muntjac and (6) Chinese water deer populations in England and Wales; and what estimates have been made of current populations compared to those 10 years ago; [80828]

  (7)what studies her Department has commissioned into the agricultural damage caused by badgers; [80833]

  (8)what studies her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the predation of (i) water voles and (ii) fish by mink; [80831]

  (9)what studies her Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into negative physiological effects on (i) foxes, (ii) hares and (iii) mink which escape after being hunted. [80837]

  Alun Michael
  Our objective in respect of(a) foxes,
  (b) hares, (c) deer and (d) mink is to permit their humane management where they are in conflict with agriculture, forestry, food, fisheries or property interests.

  Evidence relating to the physiological responses of hunted deer was presented to the Department at the Hunting with Dogs, Hearings on the Evidence (9–11 September 2002) by Professor Roger Harris of University College Chichester. His written and oral evidence related to his own studies and those of Professor Bateson and the Joint Universities Group. Professor Bateson's work was also presented to the inquiry led by Lord Burns and discussed at length with the Burns inquiry.

  The following studies have been evaluated by the Department to assess the economic cost of agricultural damage caused by:

  (i) Foxes

  Dr. Piran White of the University of York presented evidence on the costs of agricultural damage associated with foxes to the Hunting with Dogs, Hearings on the Evidence (9–11 Sept 2002). This was based on two particular publications:White P.C.L, Groves, H.L, Savery, J.R., Conington, J. and Hatchings, M.R. (2000) Fox predation as a cause of lamb mortality on hill farms. Veterinary Record 747:33–37:and Moberly, R.L (2002) The costs of foxes to agricultural interests in Britain. PhD Thesis, University of York.
  161W
  The Countryside Alliance submitted written evidence to the hearings that included details of surveys to assess the impact of fox predation among sheep breeding flocks in England and Wales undertaken by Produce Studies Ltd.

  Previous data on the occurrence of fox killing on sheep farms, was submitted by The Game Conservancy Trust (Reynolds 2000). A review of literature by the Central Science Laboratory has included:Lloyd, H.G. (1980) The red fox. Batsford, London. MacDonald, D.W. (1984) A questionnaire survey of farmers' opinions and actions towards wildlife on farmlands. In Agriculture and the Environment (ed D. Jenkins) ITE Publications. MacDonald, D.W. (1987) Running with the fox. Unwin Hyman, London 224pp. Reynolds, J.C. (2000) Fox control in the countryside. The Game Conservancy Trust. The then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funded the Central Science Laboratory to conduct a literature review on 'The impact of the fox in Rural and Urban Britain'. The report reviewed the literature on:population status and distribution, trends in the fox populations, economic and environmental damage by foxes, methods of fox control and management, and their effectiveness.

  (ii)Deer

  The Department has funded "A review of Lowland deer" (CSL and R.J. Putman). This literature review covered the distribution and status of lowland deer in England and Wales, damage caused by deer, management of deer, particular problem areas and priorities for future deer research.

  (iii)Mink

  The Department funded the Central Science Laboratory to review the ecological and economic impacts of mink in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  A Report to Scottish Natural Heritage. Moore, N.P., Robertson, P.A. and Aegerter, J.N. (2000) Feasibility study into the options for management of mink in the Western Isles.

  Stephen Harris et al. (1995) estimate the following pre-breeding population sizes for mammals in Great Britain. There is no 10-year comparison or population data arising from research funded by the Department or available elsewhere.

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total GB

  Fox

  195,000

  23,000

  22,000

  240,000

  Brown hare

  572,250

  187,250

  58,000

  817,500

  Mink

  46,700

  52,250

  9,750

  >110,000

  Red deer

  12,500

  347,000

  <50

  360,000

  Fallow deer

  95,000

  <4,000

  <1,000

  100,000

  Roe deer

  150,000

  350,000

  50

  500,000

  Sika deer

  2,500

  9,000

  0

  11,500

  Muntjac deer

  40,000

  <50

  <250

  40,000

  Chinese water deer

  650

  0

  0

  650

  Source:

  Harris, S., Morris P., Wray S. and Yalden D. 1995. A Review of British Mammals:population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. J/VCC, Peterborough.
  162W
  The Department has also funded the following range of studies on deer.

  Desk and limited field studies to analyse the major factors influencing

  regional deer populations and ranging behaviour.

  Field and desk studies to develop tolerable damage levels for different habitats and species of deer.

  And work is under way on the quantification of wild deer damage to agriculture crops and pastures.

  The Department collects no data on numbers of foxes, deer, mink or hares killed each year, but the most recent information on numbers of foxes, deer, mink and hares killed by hunting with dogs may be found in the Burns Report.

  The Department has not commissioned any studies into the predation of water voles and fish by mink, but is aware of research undertaken in this field by others.

  In 1997 the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commissioned the Central Science Laboratory to carry out a one-year project to assess badger damage to agriculture and forestry in England and Wales, involving a questionnaire survey backed up with damage assessments on the ground.

  A badger culling field trial is being carried out as part of Defra's extensive bovine tuberculosis (TB) research programme. The trial has been designed to find out what role, if any, badgers play in the transmission of bovine TB to cattle and whether badger culling is an effective or sustainable bovine TB control mechanism.

  The Department is currently funding the research project, 'Quantification of wild deer damage to agriculture, crops and pastures'. There are no data available to assess trends over the last 10 years.

  The Department is not aware of any scientific studies that have examined negative physiological effects on foxes, hares or mink which escape after being hunted. However, observations on the behaviour of such animals were given to the Hunting with Dogs, Hearings on the Evidence (9–11 Sept 2002). A copy of the transcript and videos of the proceedings are available in the House of Commons Library.

  In June 2001 Defra let a GB wide research contract entitled "Design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project" to the British Trust for Ornithology and the Mammal Society. The overall aim is to design and pilot a winter monitoring project involving both visual recording of mammals and the recording of their signs using a volunteer network. This is intended to form a building block for an integrated standardised mammal-monitoring system that embraces the full range of important species, and will help assess long-term trends. Certain species, such as the fox, have been targeted for monitoring, but all other mammals signs encountered should be recorded. As yet no population comparisons have been undertaken of the species being monitored. The pilot scheme concludes in November 2003.

  Insurance Schemes (Livestock Farmers)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent
  163W
  discussions she has had on extending insurance schemes to livestock farmers with respect to infectious diseases. [81153]

  Mr. Morley
  The Defra animal disease insurance working group, which includes representatives of the insurance and farming industries, completed a series of meetings in May. Defra officials are now working on detailed proposals for a consultation exercise next year.

  Local Heritage Initiatives
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department and agencies on local heritage initiatives in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02; and (c) 2002–03 to date; and if she will break down (i)category and (ii) region in each year. [81142]

  Alun Michael
  Available information on this will be included in the letter which I am about to write to the hon. Member following his parliamentary question 79728 tabled on 1 November. I will place a copy of my letter in the House of Commons Library.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vehicles(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department have access to, broken down by vehicle type; what the annual operating costs were in each of the last three financial years; how much it costs to convert a car so that it is suitable for a Government Minister; and if she will make a statement. [82023]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State has access to one car, a Vauxhall Omega, and the Ministers in Defra have access to one car each—two Ford Mondeos and two Vauxhall Vectras.

  Defra has not yet had a full financial year. However from June 2001 (when the Department was created) to the end of March 2002, spend on the five ministerial cars was in the region of £309,000. So far this financial year the Department has spent £207,000 for the five ministerial cars.

  The Department has not paid to have any of the cars converted for use by a Government Minister.

  Ministerial and Staff Cars
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cars are(a) owned and (b) leased by DEFRA for Ministers and staff to use. [81015]

  Alun Michael
  The Department leases six cars from the Government Car service and owns 349 vehicles (including vans) for Defra Ministers and staff to use.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the 2002–03 budget is for cars and car travel by(a) Ministers and (b) staff of Defra. [81016]

  Alun Michael
  The standard annual cost of the five Defra Ministerial cars is in the order of £283,000 for 2002–03.164W
  So far this year Defra has only purchased one car at a cost of approximately £10,700. There is not a yearly set budget for the purchase of Defra cars or for car travel more generally. We do not hold centralised records of car travel in the Department.

  Organic Farming Schemes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farmers and (b) farms are involved in the organic farming schemes, broken down by region. [81148]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information is held by beneficiary. The number of beneficiaries under the Organic Farming Scheme and the Organic Aid Scheme by region is as follows:

  Region

  Total

  East Midlands

  178

  Eastern

  160

  London

  1

  North East

  51

  North West

  149

  South East

  285

  South West

  873

  West Midlands

  256

  Yorks/Humber

  120

  Grand total

  2,073

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding schemes are available for organic farming; and how much is available in each scheme. [81149]

  Mr. Meacher
  Support for farmers converting to organic farming is currently available under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) which is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP).

  Subject to the agreement of the European Commission, as set out in the Action Plan to Develop Organic Food and Farming in England, from 2003 we intend to extend aid to farmers who have completed conversion. The budgets for the OFS from this year to the end of the life of the ERDP is as follows.

  Year

  £ million

  2002

  20

  2003

  22

  2004

  22

  2005

  23

  2006

  23

  We also provide other support, for example through the Department's research and development programme, which includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming, and through the provision of free advice to prospective organic farmers by the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS). Spending on organic R&D is expected to be just over £2 million and expenditure on OCIS around £350,000 in the current financial year.

  Pets
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of pets' passports and electronic tagging of pets coming into the UK. [80582]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the Pet Travel Scheme began on 28 February 2000 we have continually assessed its operation. When necessary, we have provided additional clarification and guidance to overcome difficulties or confusion, in particular where this resulted in animals failing to comply with the scheme's requirements. I am pleased to say that as a result of this and our continuing evaluation of our PETS publicity, the number of animals that do not pass PETS checks has fallen significantly since the scheme began.

  The Advisory Group on Quarantine, whose report was the basis for the introduction of the scheme, considered carefully the necessary means of identifying pets. It decided that electronic identification was the best way forward. This system has worked well and under the proposal for a harmonised system of pet movement in the community, may, in the future, be adopted as the sole means of identification.

  Quarantine
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many exceptions to the six month quarantine rule have been made for animals coming into the UK in each of the last 10 years; [80580]

  (2) what the grounds are for exemptions of the six month quarantine rule for animals entering the UK.[80581]

  Mr. Morley
  Exemptions from quarantine were not granted before 1999. With the impending introduction of the Pet Travel Scheme the Government was prepared to grant exemption from quarantine in exceptional situations. To qualify for consideration for exemption we require that the applicant, or his or her child, must have a life-threatening illness, which makes it a strong possibility that they will not survive for more than six months. Evidence of the life-threatening illness is subject to independent medical scrutiny. Exceptionally, we have also granted exemption on national security grounds.

  The following table shows the number of cases, in England, which have been exempted from the six months quarantine requirement in the last four years. The figures from 2000 exclude those animals which comply with the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme.

  Year

  Number of cases in which exemption from guarantine was granted

  1999

  4

  2000

  5

  2001

  3

  20021

  1

  1 To 20 November

  Rural Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was 166W
  spent by her Department and agencies on rural housing enablers in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 to date; and if she will break down the spending by (i) category and (ii) region in each year. [81141]

  Alun Michael
  Total spend on the Rural Housing Enabler Programme by the Countryside Agency on behalf of DEFRA in 2000–01 to 2002–03 by region is as shown in the table. A breakdown of the type of activity undertaken is not available centrally.

  £

  Region

  2000–011

  2001–02

  2002–032

  North West

  15,785

  31,920

  42,340

  East Midlands

  31,571

  78,279

  72,126

  East of England

  47,357

  65,154

  92,127

  North East

  15,785

  16,639

  23,167

  South West

  15,786

  49,060

  208,794

  South East

  31,572

  23,500

  106,412

  West Midlands

  15,786

  51,495

  20,976

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  47,358

  46,481

  68,640

  Total

  221,000

  362,528

  634,582

  1Figures are based on number of projects in each region and mean cost. Total actual spend for 2000–01 was £221,000

  2Forecast

  Rural Regeneration
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on methods used by her Department to measure rural regeneration in the United Kingdom. [81903]

  Alun Michael
  The Government will be breaking new ground by measuring rural regeneration through its impact on rural productivity as part of the new rural economy Public Service Agreement target which commits Defra in conjunction with other Government Departments to "reducing the gap in productivity between the less well performing quartile of rural areas and the English median by 2006." As GDP data—typically used in measuring productivity—is not available at small area level my officials have developed a proxy productivity measure of the aggregate earnings of taxpayers of working age divided by the number of people of working age. A set of districts, facing problems of lower productivity, will be used to track change. This will be supplemented by other related indicators, such as business start-ups.

  More details will become available shortly when the technical notes are published on Defra's website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Sewage Sludge
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she takes to ensure each batch of sewage sludge spread on agricultural land is not unacceptably contaminated by heavy metals. [80842]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI 1263), as amended in 1990 (SI 880), impose controls on the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land, including statutory limits on the amount of heavy metals that can be added to the soil and on the concentration of heavy metals in the soil after
  167W
  application. The regulations, which are enforced by the Environment Agency, require regular testing and analysis of sewage sludge before it is applied.

  Slurry Contamination
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average fine was for slurry contamination in 2001–02, broken down by region. [81147]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows, by Environment Agency region, the average fine for offences prosecuted in 2001–02 under Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 involving all types of agricultural pollution including slurry pollution.

  Enhancement to the agency's national enforcement database planned for the first quarter of 2003 will allow provision of information on specific pollutants such as slurry, but information is not currently held at this level of detail.

  Region

  Average fine (£)

  Anglian

  3,000

  Midlands

  4,275

  North-east

  1,500

  North-west

  3,000

  South-west

  3,000

  Southern

  1,750

  Thames

  5,750

  Welsh

  2,500

  Soil Strategy (England)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the final Soil Strategy for England. [81832]

  Mr. Meacher
  I expect to publish a Soil Action Plan for England before the end of the year. The action plan will include specific commitments to move forward measures proposed in the draft strategy.

  Veterinary Practices
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the disciplinary process for veterinary surgeons in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [81154]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (VSA) responsibility for disciplining members of the veterinary profession in the UK falls to the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. There are no plans to change this procedure at this time.

  Water Leaks
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much water was estimated to be lost from company supply pipes, broken down by each water supplier, in(a) 2001, (b) 1997 and (c) 1992. [80874]

  Mr. Morley
  Water company leakage data is published annually by the Director General of Water Services in the 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water' reports. The reported total leakage 168W
  figures, which include companies' distribution losses and customers' supply pipe losses, for 1992–93, 1997–98 and 2001–02 (in Megalitres/day) were as follows:

  1992–93

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Water and Sewerage Companies

  Anglian

  273

  240

  224

  Dwr Cymru (Welsh)

  383

  329

  245

  North West

  945

  579

  452

  Northumbrian

  276

  184

  161

  Severn Trent

  570

  399

  340

  South West

  158

  101

  83

  Southern

  161

  99

  92

  Thames

  803

  906

  865

  Wessex

  137

  110

  79

  Yorkshire

  505

  377

  297

  Water only companies

  Bournemouth and West Hants

  27

  26

  22

  Bristol

  64

  59

  55

  Cambridge

  16

  14

  14

  Dee Valley

  19

  12

  11

  Essex and Suffolk

  96

  82

  73

  Folkestone

  14

  9

  8

  Mid Kent

  40

  36

  29

  Portsmouth

  33

  32

  30

  South East

  90

  108

  75

  South Staffs

  87

  82

  71

  Sutton and East Surrey

  35

  26

  24

  Tendring Hundred

  6

  6

  5

  Three Valleys

  205

  173

  157

  Industry total

  4,845

  3,989

  3,414

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Bookmakers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason bookmakers are required by the Horse Race Betting Levy Board to have their accounts signed by a registered auditor, where their turnover is between £250,000 and £1 million. [80137]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Levy Board requires bookmakers to have their annual declaration for 2001/02 signed by a registered auditor where their horserace betting turnover exceeds £275,000. The Board relies upon the auditor's certification as confirmation of its accuracy. The turnover figure of £275,000 equates to approximately £5,300 per week, above which a betting shop business is deemed to be sufficiently substantial to require audit confirmation.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many bookmakers registered with the Horse Race Betting Levy Board have recorded turnovers of(a) less than £250,000, (b) £250,000 to £1 million and (c) above £1 million in 2001–02. [80138]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of bookmakers registered with the Horserace Betting Levy Board falling into the three specified turnover bands in 2001–02 was as follows:

  Turnover band

  Number of bookmarkers

  (a) Less than £250,000

  338

  (b) £250,000 to £1,000,000

  826

  (c) Above £1,000,000

  239

  169W

  BBC
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the proportion of the BBC's programming that is public service broadcasting. [80431]

  Dr. Howells
  It is the responsibility of the BBC governors to ensure that the Corporation's public service remit, as set out in the charter and agreement, is delivered across the full range of BBC public services.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether it is her policy that the licence fee should remain the main source of finance of the BBC. [80435]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's policy is that the television licence fee will remain the main source of BBC funding at least until the expiry of the BBC's current Royal Charter at the end of 2006. Future funding arrangements will need to be considered as part of the Charter review process, which will commence in 2004.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when she intends to publish the review of BBC News 24 conducted by Mr. Richard Lambert; and if she will make a statement. [81660]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Tuesday 19 November 2002]I am currently considering my response to Mr. Lambert's review of BBC News 24 and will publish the review as soon as possible.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many car parking spaces are available to(a) employees of her Department and (b) visitors to her Department within the proposed central London road user charging zone. [81868]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Tuesday 19 November 2002]The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has four offices within the central London charging zone with accommodation for over four hundred staff. There are a total of 13 parking spaces available to the Department, five of which are reserved for official cars and a further space reserved for a member of staff with a disability. The remaining seven spaces are available for booking by staff on a day to day basis where a need can be shown and for visitors and contractor's vehicles. One of those spaces is being converted for cycle storage by the installation of fixed cycle racks; another of the seven spaces is regularly used for the parking of three motorcycle and scooters.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81848]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Tuesday 19 November 2002]It is general departmental travel planning policy that staff should not be encouraged to use cars to commute to and from work. Also, the cost of daily travel between home and the permanent place of work lies with staff, not the employer. However, staff on 170W
  official business who are required to drive their own vehicles, or hire vehicles, within the charging zone will be reimbursed.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated cost is to her Department of the central London road user charging scheme for(a) 17th February 2003 to 31st March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81887]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Any additional costs to my Department as a result of the congestion-charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs, which have to be met from budgets for official travelling and other costs.

  Employees (Over-50s)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people employed in her Department are aged over 50. [81687]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 72 staff aged over 50 currently employed within DCMS.

  Greek Culture Minister
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her recent discussions with the Greek Culture Minister, Evangelos Venizelos. [80492]

  Tessa Jowell
  Mr. Venizelos outlined his plans for Greece's Presidency of the European Union in the first half of 2003 and explained the preparations that are being made for the Athens Olympics in 2004.

  Mr. Venizelos also mentioned a proposal put forward by the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Simitos, to the Prime Minister about reuniting the Parthenon sculptures in the planned new Acropolis Museum on a long-term loan basis with reciprocal loans to the British Museum. I explained that it is a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum to decide on any loans or reciprocal exchanges.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80766]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department takes IT security very seriously. Along with our work to ensure BS799 compliance we have carried out a number of reviews of IT security using independent external reviewers. We continue to keep this area under review.

  We have no evidence of any digital attacks on the Department's systems to date during 2002.

  Kensington Palace
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what rent is received from Prince Michael of Kent in respect of his apartment at Kensington Palace; and what the estimated open market rent of this property would be. [80877]
  171W
  Dr. Howells
  Prince and Princess Michael of Kent pay £69.00 per week for their apartment at Kensington Palace. The open market rent for this property is not relevant because it is situated within the security cordon and cannot be offered on the open market.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of how much of the media is owned by(a) Continental European and (b) USA investors. [80727]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]The Government have not made an estimate of how much of the UK media is owned by Continental European or USA investors.

  Regional Museums
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department intends to start providing government funding for regional museums; if she will list the museums in Yorkshire and the Humber which will receive support in the first year of the new scheme; and how much funding each of those museums will receive. [81482]

  Dr. Howells
  We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06. Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museums' education.

  Funding will be allocated by Resource to 'regional hubs' led by major regional museums. Resource will announce the configuration of the Hubs before the end of this year and the funding allocation in the new year.

  Sports Budget
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list lottery funded sports projects where there have been(a) extensions to the timeframe and (b) alterations to conditions of funding. [80962]

  Mr. Caborn
  The standard terms and conditions of awards made by Sport England from the lottery sports fund do not include any requirements in respect of the timing of the completion of the project. Sport England does not collect statistical information on cases which involve variations to case-specific funding conditions. However, within the parameters of public accountability and their financial directions, Sport England operates flexibly in partnership with the applicant to enable the project to fulfil its objectives and achieve the outcomes upon which the award decision was based. It works with the applicant to help them to build the best scheme possible in a realistic timeframe.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) UK Sport's and (b) Sport England's Exchequer budget for sport and related projects was in each of the last three years; how much budgetary underspend there was; and what funding was carried over under end-year flexibility arrangements. [80964]
  172W
  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's Grant-in-Aid from the Department for the last three years was as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  1999–2000

  37.873

  2000–01

  37.973

  2001–02

  43.162

  Sport England carried over £350,000 from 1999–2000 to 2000–01 under the end-year flexibility arrangements.

  UK Sport's Grant-in-Aid for the last three years was:

  £million

  Year

  1999–2000

  12.60

  2000–01

  12.75

  2001–02

  17.60

  UK Sport carried over £827,000 from 2001–02 to 2002–03 under the end-year flexibility arrangements.

  TV Licence Evasion
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for TV licence evasion there were in each of the last 20 years. [80441]

  (2) what proportion of those prosecuted for TV licence evasion were on income-related benefits in each of the last 20 years. [80443]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information relates to all offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and 1967, though the great majority of these involve licence fee evasion. Information is not recorded on the circumstances of individual offenders. The numbers of defendants proceeded against in the magistrates' courts and found guilty in all courts in England and Wales, for the years 1981 to 2000, were:

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1981

  51.754

  49,645

  1982

  64,140

  61,882

  1983

  69,908

  67,496

  1984

  80,578

  77,211

  1985

  84,806

  80,632

  1986

  138,890

  128,646

  1987

  134,472

  120,374

  1988

  142,306

  124,283

  1989

  141,335

  123,672

  1990

  147,490

  126,416

  1991

  163,964

  138,701

  1992

  195,921

  170,285

  1993

  194,868

  168,706

  1994

  188,711

  162,859

  19951

  130,956

  113,795

  1996

  188,108

  164,848

  1997

  92,728

  76,984

  1998

  96,616

  76,605

  1999

  68,778

  55,813

  20002

  121,137

  105,725

  1 In 1995 there was a shortfall in the data for offenders found guilty for Wireless Telegraphic Act offences (57,400).

  2 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

  Bicycle Allowance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many Members claimed a bicycle allowance in the last year for which figures are available. [80878]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Four Members claimed a bicycle allowance in the financial year 2001–02.

TRANSPORT

  Accidents
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths arose from(a) road and (b) rail accidents in each year since 1972 to date, expressed (i) in absolute terms and (ii) per person mile travelled. [81577]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table provides the number of deaths that arose in Great Britain from road and rail accidents expressed in absolute terms and per billion passenger miles travelled.

  Deaths in road accidents relate to those occurring on the public highway (including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in collision with a pedestrian is involved.

  Rail deaths include passenger deaths in train accidents and accidents occurring through the movement of railway vehicles. Staff deaths, trespassers, suicides and deaths occurring at railway premises that do not involve the movement of trains (for example, falling down steps) are excluded.

  Deaths in road and rail accidents

  Roads

  Rail

  Deaths

  Deaths per billion passenger miles traveled

  Deaths

  Deaths per billion passenger miles traveled

  1972

  7,763

  31.6

  27

  1.3

  1973

  7,406

  28.8

  42

  1.9

  1974

  6,883

  27.5

  25

  1.1

  1975

  6,366

  25.5

  69

  3.1

  1976

  6,570

  25.3

  29

  1.4

  1977

  6,614

  25.0

  27

  1.3

  1978

  6,831

  25.2

  45

  2.1

  1979

  6,352

  23.6

  50

  2.3

  1980

  6,010

  21.4

  25

  1.1

  1981

  5,846

  20.5

  35

  1.7

  1982

  5,934

  20.3

  18

  0.9

  1983

  5,445

  18.5

  27

  1.3

  1984

  5,599

  18.2

  39

  1.8

  1985

  5,165

  16.5

  31

  1.4

  1986

  5,382

  16.5

  32

  1.4

  1987

  5,125

  14.7

  39

  1.6

  1988

  5,052

  13.7

  68

  2.7

  1989

  5,373

  13.5

  31

  1.3

  1990

  5,217

  13.0

  35

  1.4

  19911

  4,568

  11.5

  30

  1.2

  1992

  4,229

  10.7

  16

  0.7

  1993

  3,814

  9.6

  14

  0.6

  1994

  3,650

  9.1

  15

  0.7

  1995

  3,621

  9.0

  8

  0.3

  1996

  3,598

  8.8

  14

  0.6

  1997

  3,599

  8.7

  22

  0.8

  1998

  3,421

  8.2

  17

  0.6

  1999

  3,423

  8.2

  43

  1.5

  20002

  3,409

  8.2

  17

  0.6

  2001

  3,450

  8.2

  37

  30.2

  174W
  1 From 1991, rail figures changed to financial years (there were eight deaths between January and March 1991).

  2 Figures for road passenger miles travelled in 2000 and 2001 have been produced on a new basis. The effect on the estimated rate of deaths per billion passenger miles travelled is negligible.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Air Traffic (Demand)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted by his Department since 1997 or is planned on increases in air passenger numbers for the United Kingdom which(a) have taken place, and (b) are projected. [81409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1997, the results of research on increases in air passenger numbers have been published in "Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000, published by the Department in May 2000 and in the national airport consultation documents, published in July this year.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted by his Department or is planned on the causal processes responsible for(a) past and (b) potential future increases in air passenger numbers and air freight; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; [81416]

  (2) what (a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the causal processes and mechanisms responsible for (i) past and (ii) potential future increases in air passenger numbers and air freight. [81417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's air traffic forecasts "Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000", published in May 2000 considers the key economic drivers behind past and projected future increases in air passenger numbers. In addition the factors underlying growth of air passenger are freight traffic are addressed in the consultation documents on regional air services and airports published in July 2002. Supporting material on freight can be found in documents 39,40 and 67 referred to in Annex C of the South East Consultation document. The Department has had no specific discussions or representations on this question, although it may be covered in the responses to the national airport consultation which closes on 30 November.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the past and potential effect on passenger numbers of the inter-relationship between consumer-driven and producer-driven aviation demand; [81423]

  (2) what research has been conducted by his Department or is planned on the past and potential effect on passenger numbers of the inter-relationship between consumer-driven and producer-driven aviation demand. [81422]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's air traffic forecasts, published in 2000 considers the factors underlying growth of business and leisure air traffic. No research on the inter-relationship between consumer-driven and producer-driven demand has been conducted or is
  175W
  planned, but insofar as producer-driven demand leads to higher GDP than would otherwise be the case, the resulting higher incomes will tend to lead to more leisure travel. The Department has had no specific discussions or representations on this issue, although this subject may be covered in the responses to the national airport consultation which closes on 30 November.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted by his Department, or is planned, on the role of advertising and promotion in(a)the past and potential future growth of air traffic and (b) past and potential future modal shift between air transport and other modes. [81426]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No research has been conducted or is planned on the role of advertising or promotion in either the growth of air traffic or modal shift between aviation and other forms of transport.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the role of advertising and promotion in (i) the past and potential future growth of air traffic and (ii) past and potential future modal shift between air transport and other modes. [81427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has undertaken no work and have had no specific discussions or representations on the role of advertising and promotion in relation to these questions, although this subject may be covered in the responses to the national airport consultation which closes on 30 November.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted by his Department or is planned on the role of emissions trading within the aviation industry; [81428]

  (2) what (a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the role of emissions trading within the aviation industry. [81429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Last year the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) endorsed the development of an emissions trading system for international aviation that would involve trading with other sectors. It requested its Council as a matter of priority to develop guidelines for the structural and legal basis of such a system consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. My Department has since discussed this at various meetings under ICAO's auspices. It has also discussed it with several UK stakeholders as part of meetings on wider issues. Representations made so far have all been broadly supportive. Further discussions of both kinds are expected. The ICAO work is still at a relatively early stage. The Department itself has not conducted research on this subject, nor is it planning to do so.

  Aircraft Noise
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions his Department has had
  176W
  or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the past and potential future impact of (i) changes in noise levels permitted from individual aircraft and (ii) changes in the size of aircraft upon (a) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (b) past and future (1) economic, (2) environmental and (3) social impacts. [81418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The full information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The assessment of options for the future of UK aviation contains information on economic, social and environmental impacts. This information is set out in the national airport consultation documents published in July 2002. A complete set of those documents and supporting material is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the past and potential future impact of (i) compensation and (ii) noise insulation schemes being made available to householders near airports upon (a) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (b) past and future (1) economic, (2) environmental and (3) social impacts; [81421]

  (2) what assessment and research has been made by his Department, or is planned, of the past and potential future impact of (a) compensation and (b) noise insulation schemes being made available to householders near airports upon (i) past increases and future total passenger and freight numbers and (ii) past and future (a) economic, (b) environmental and (c) social impacts; [81420]

  (3) what (a) compensation and (b) noise insulation schemes are available to householders near airports; what the total level of compensation and financial support has been in each year since 1992; what plans there are to change the nature of the schemes. [81419]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government consider that providing for the effective management of the impacts of airport development will be a key element of a sustainable airports policy. Indeed, this is identified as one of three central issues in the current consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom". The document includes proposals for a range of measures aimed at controlling or mitigating local impacts —including the effects of noise from aircraft —and, where that is not possible, providing adequate compensation. The Government are seeking consultees' views on those proposals and inviting other ideas for dealing with this issue.

  We will study carefully what consultees say in their responses when we come to take decisions for the White Paper next year.

  The SERAS study considered the economic costs of aircraft noise, based on observed impacts on property prices. The results are presented in paragraph 14.31 of the consultation document, which is available in the Libraries of the House along with all the SERAS technical reports.
  177W
  In terms of the current position on compensation and noise insulation schemes, I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 15 October 2002, Official Report, columns 721– 22W, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 25 April 2002, Official Report, columns 388–89W. Information on costs paid under noise insulation schemes is not kept centrally.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published a series of five booklets entitled, "Compulsory Purchase and Compensation", which are available free from Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB (tel. 0870 1226 236) —product code 01PD0458/1-5.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what UK legislation covers the maximum level of noise from aircraft(a) registered, (b) landing and (c) flying through airspace in the United Kingdom; and what plans there are to amend the legislation. [81424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Noise certification requirements are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), under Annex 16 Volume I of the Chicago Convention. The Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 1452) and the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 798) transpose these requirements, certain European aircraft noise Directives, and noise certification requirements for microlight aircraft developed by the Civil Aviation Authority, into UK legislation. Taken together, this legislation requires noise certification of most types of civil aircraft taking off or landing in the UK. Civil aircraft overflying UK airspace without taking off or landing in the UK are unlikely to cause significant noise nuisance.

  EU Regulation 1592/2002 establishes with effect from 28 September 2003 the new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Article 15 (l)(h) of that Regulation will confer on EASA a duty to issue environmental certificates, which currently is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority for UK-registered aircraft. Future measures, such as those required to implement the ICAO Chapter 4 requirements for new types of jet aircraft from 2006, will be taken in this context. Detailed arrangements will be determined in due course.

  In addition, departure noise limits are specified by Notice under s78 of the 1982 Act for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. Some other UK airports apply their own operational noise limits.

  Airline Passengers (Shared Information)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on sharing information on airline passengers with the United States of America; what the Government's position is on the European Commission's policy on sharing information on airline passengers with the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [81112]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK Government fully support the United States' Governments efforts to combat terrorism and asserts that the drive to improve global security 178W
  should be realistic, achievable and practical. The UK Government notes the European Commission's view that some of the US Government's requirements for airlines to provide the US authorities with information about incoming passengers raises issues of compatibility with EC legislation. The UK Government support the Commission's request for urgent discussions with the US authorities.

  Airport Charges
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department or is planned of the regime of landing charges at airports in the United Kingdom. [81402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future of Aviation consultation document published in December 2000 stated in paragraph 221 the Department
  "will work with the CAA to develop modifications to the current regulatory regime to improve incentives for timely investment and improved quality of service".

  One proposal identified in paragraph 223 was to permit the CAA rather than the Competition Commission to undertake an investigation before they set the price cap, with the Competition Commission becoming an appeal body. This would bring the regime for economic regulation of airports into line with the system that exists for other regulated utilities. A further proposal identified was to give the CAA concurrent powers with the Director General of Fair Trading to enforce general competition law in the airports sector.

  CO2 Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average CO2 emission per air passenger has been in each year since 1990. [80845]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not available in the form requested. Table 2.8 on page 40 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 2002" shows that the total contribution by civil aviation to CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom remained steady throughout each year from 1990 to 2000 and comprised 1 per cent. in 2000, the latest year for which data are available.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the average carbon dioxide emissions per person per journey from London to Newcastle by(a) air, (b) rail, (c) lorry and (d) car. [81579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimates are as follows:

  kg

  (a) Air (average per passenger)

  49

  (b) Rail (average per passenger)

  16

  (c) Lorry (average per lorry)

  Articulated diesel

  403

  Rigid diesel

  461

  (d) Car (average petrol):

  Per car

  89

  Average per passenger

  56

  (e) Car (average diesel):

  Per car

  54

  Per passenger

  34

  179W
  Estimates are based on a journey distance of 270 miles. In the case of air travel and rail travel, they make no allowance for travel to the airport or railway station. In the case of lorries, it is assumed that fuel consumption for an articulated lorry is 0.35 litres per km, and for a rigid lorry, 0.40 litres per km. Emissions per passenger for travel by car will depend on the size of the vehicle, and the number of passengers. Estimates above are based on an average car and average car occupancy over all journeys of 1.59 passengers per car derived from National Travel Survey in the period 1999–2001.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of accidents caused by cyclists bumping into pedestrians on(a) pavements and (b) public carriageways in the last year for which figures are available. [80396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In Great Britain in 2001, there were 64 accidents reported to the police between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements, and 148 such accidents on public carriageways. These figures include only those accidents in which a pedestrian was injured.

  International Hub Airports
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research(a) has been conducted and (b) has been assessed by his Department, or is planned on the (i) economic, (ii) social and (iii) environmental costs and benefits which (A) have been obtained and (B) could potentially be obtained from international hub airports in the United Kingdom; [81412]

  (2) what research (a) has been conducted and (b) has been assessed by his Department, or is planned on the (i) economic, (ii) social and (iii) environmental costs and benefits which (A) have been obtained and (B) could potentially be obtained from changes in the number of international passengers passing through International hub airports in the United Kingdom. [81413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These issues have been covered extensively in the Government's recent airport studies. In particular, the SERAS study included a report by the consultants Booz Alien on issues relating to hub airports. The economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of various airport options, including some which could be international hub airports, are set out in the consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom". The economic benefits set out there do not include any benefits to international transfer passengers (i.e. those who are not travelling to or from the UK), but do take account of the benefits to travellers to and from the UK from air services which are made viable by international transfer passengers. The role of hub airports in a long-term sustainable airports policy is one of the central issues on which the Government are seeking views through the consultation. Copies of the consultation document and the SERAS technical reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Landing Charges
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regards the potential effect of changes in landing charges at airports in the United Kingdom upon passenger numbers at each airport; [81414]

  (2) what research has been conducted by his Department, or is planned, on the potential effect of changes in landing charges at airports in the United Kingdom upon passenger numbers at each airport. [81403]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The impact of a 50 per cent. increase in airport landing charges was considered as a sensitivity test in the Department's most recently published air traffic forecasts (Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000, published in May 2000). This showed that such an increase would have the effect of reducing forecast air passengers at UK airports by 7.5 per cent. in 2020, from 401 to 371 million.

  London Traffic
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average speed is of traffic in central London; what it was(a) five and (b) 10 years ago. [81031]

  Mr. Spellar
  Surveys of average traffic speeds were carried out in London until the year 2000 by the Department for Transport. Figures are not held specifically for all the years requested. Central, Inner and Outer London were surveyed in turn, and results for Central London were published for 1990, 1994, 1997 and 2000. Speeds in Central London for these years are shown in the following table:

  Central London average traffic speeds (mph)

  Year

  am peak (07:45 to 09:15)

  off-peak (10:00 to 12:00) (14:00 to 16:00)

  pm peak (16:45 to 18:15)

  1990

  10.3

  10.6

  10.3

  1994

  10.9

  10.9

  10.8

  1997

  10.0

  10.0

  10.2

  2000

  9.9

  9.0

  9.6

  Since 3 July 2000, Transport for London have taken over responsibility for running the London speed surveys.

  Modal Shifts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard the causal processes and mechanisms responsible for (i) past and (ii) potential future modal shifts between air transport and other modes of transport for (a) passengers and (b) freight transport, distinguishing between (1) internal and (2) international flights. [81399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This subject is likely to be covered in the responses to the national airport consultation which closes on 30 November. In preparation for the national consultation, the Regional Air Services Coordination Study [RASCO], available on www.airconsult.gov.uk describes work done by the Strategic Rail Authority on
  181W
  the potential for rail/air substitution so far as domestic passengers are concerned. "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom:South East", available on the same website, refers [pages 155–56] to Tier 2 documents Nos. 39,40, and 67 which deal with air freight. The service quality improvements resulting from use of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link are expected to result in some transfer of international air passengers to Eurostar.

  Multi-modal Study
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of demand management revenues in the funding process for new highway schemes proposed under the multi-modal study process. [81594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are considering the recommendations from a number of multi-modal studies and will make a statement in due course.

  Open Skies
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards an open skies agreement with the United States; what discussions have taken place or are planned; what representations have been received. [81407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Having earlier rejected UK proposals for the full liberalisation of the UK-US aviation market, in September the US Government rejected UK proposals for a partial liberalisation of the market. Although the US Government has not put forward any counter-proposals, they have indicated that for a limited deal to be acceptable it would have to include unrestricted fifth freedom rights for all-cargo services. They would not, however, be ready to open up the US domestic market to competition.

  The Secretary of State has asked for further work to be carried out on the possible impact on such a deal on UK airlines and UK business. We are involving a number of interests in this work.

  Quiet Lane Projects
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Quiet Lane projects across England that are fully operational. [81745]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are two national demonstration 'Quiet Lanes' projects, one in the North Norfolk coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and one in the West Kent Greensand Ridge. They have been developed by the Countryside Agency, working on behalf of Defra, in partnership with Norfolk and Kent county councils, Department for Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory. There are also eight further areas which are developing 'Quiet Lanes' projects.

  Radioactive Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many movements there were in each 182W
  year since 1985 of (a) high-level and (b) intermediate-level radioactive material, (i) by train, (ii) by road, (iii) by air and (iv) by ship. [80859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Department does not hold statistical information of the type requested.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is permissible to transport(a) high-level and (b) intermediate-level radioactive material, (i) on passenger ferries and (ii) through the channel tunnel. [80860]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The transport of radioactive material on passenger ferries is permissible subject to the safety requirements and restrictions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, Amendment 30 –00, as required by The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 SI 1997 No 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1755(M), "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form —Amendment 30–00 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (MDG) Code" and, where applicable, The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (INF Code) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 3216).

  Transport through the channel tunnel of radioactive material in/as Excepted Packages, solid non-combustible Low Specific Activity Material, solid non-combustible Surface Contaminated Objects and Type A Packages complying with RID 1/ADR2 is permissible only as authorised through Eurotunnel Freight by prior agreement between the manufacturer/producer and Eurotunnel. Radioactive material other than that in/as Excepted Packages is further restricted to new manufactured goods in their original packaging. In all cases material requiring two or more danger labels is not authorised.

  1 Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B. Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) ANNEX 1 Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) 2001 Edition.

  2 European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 2001 Edition.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been, in each year since 1972, involving the transportation of radioactive material(a) by air, (b) by road, (c) by rail and (d) by ship. [80862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1989 information on accidents and incidents involving the transport of radioactive material in the UK has been published annually. The reports covering events in each year have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Data on events prior to 1989 can be found in the following reports:

  1. Review of the Radiological Consequences Resulting from Accidents and Incidents Involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK from 1964 to 1988 (NRPB-M206)

  2. Accidents and Incidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK, from 1958 to 1994, and their Radiological Consequences. (NRPB-R282)

  These two reports are also available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Electrification
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the electrification of rail lines operated by diesel-powered rolling stock. [81593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our objectives are to deliver a reliable and safe railway focused on customer needs. The SRA will evaluate electrification projects against these objectives, giving due consideration to value for money and affordability.

  Railway Stations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations(a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 1972. [81587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Stations opened

  Stations closed

  1972

  4

  16

  1973

  5

  9

  1974

  1

  0

  1975

  3

  3

  1976

  8

  1

  1977

  5

  8

  1978

  12

  0

  1979

  9

  0

  1980

  4

  0

  1981

  5

  6

  1982

  10

  0

  1983

  8

  16

  1984

  14

  1

  1985

  18

  7

  1986

  27

  7

  1987

  25

  1

  1988

  25

  2

  1989

  16

  9

  1990

  21

  2

  1991

  6

  3

  1992

  15

  3

  1993

  15

  2

  1994

  17

  3

  1995

  10

  5

  1996

  4

  1

  1997

  4

  1

  1998

  1

  2

  1999

  1

  0

  2000

  1

  0

  2001

  0

  0

  2002

  1

  2

  Road Traffic
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change has been in road traffic levels in each year from 1997, taking 1997 as a base figure of 100; and what the projected levels are for each year to 2012. [81588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total road traffic in Great Britain is currently estimated to have grown by 4.9 per cent. over four years since 1997:

  Year

  1997

  1000.0

  1998

  101.5

  1999

  103.2

  2000

  103.5

  2001

  104.9

  184W
  The Department's publication "National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997" projects Low and High rates of traffic growth, to take account of uncertainty in future growth of the economy and future fuel price. These figures do not take account of the 10 year plan. Applying these forecast rates to the 2001 index gives projected road traffic levels:

  Year

  2002

  106.3 to 107.0

  2003

  107.8 to 109.1

  2004

  109.2 to 111.3

  2005

  110.7 to 113.5

  2006

  112.2 to 115.8

  2007

  113.4 to 117.9

  2008

  114.8 to 120.0

  2009

  116.2 to 122.2

  2010

  117.6 to 124.5

  2011

  119.0 to 126.7

  2012

  120.3 to 129.0

  South Central Franchise
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the franchise for South Central has been reduced to seven years. [81578]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It proved impossible to agree terms for a 20-year franchise which both the SRA and Go Via found affordable and acceptable. The altered circumstances of Railtrack since the Hatfield derailment had a bearing. The uncertain impact of other rail projects, notably Thameslink 2000, was also relevant.

  Transport Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he collates on the average cost of travelling one kilometre by rail in each of the OECD countries. [81580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A reliable comparison of fares requires comprehensive data on the range of different fares and discounts available, and the degree to which they are used. We do not collate such data, and are not aware that any other body does so either.

  Travel Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the real change in costs of travelling by(a) car, (b) train and (c) bus in each year since 1972, taking 1972 as a base figure of 100; and discounting inflation. [81589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information in the form requested is available only since 1974. The figures in the table have therefore been expressed on a base of 1974 = 100.

  Real Changes in the cost of transport:1974 = 100

  All motoring1

  Rail

  Bus

  1974

  100

  100

  100

  1975

  104.4

  109.2

  104.9

  1976

  101.2

  124.3

  114.9

  1977

  99.9

  125.0

  114.1

  1978

  99.7

  132.0

  119.4

  1979

  104.0

  128.8

  118.4

  1980

  103.8

  135.6

  127.0

  185W

  Real Changes in the cost of transport:1974 = 100

  All motoring1

  Rail

  Bus

  1981

  103.9

  138.6

  125.6

  1982

  101.0

  146.5

  133.3

  1983

  103.2

  148.5

  134.7

  1984

  100.7

  142.0

  131.1

  1985

  99.4

  142.4

  128.9

  1986

  94.7

  147.0

  135.2

  1987

  96.3

  148.4

  137.4

  1988

  95.9

  151.3

  140.1

  1989

  93.9

  153.2

  140.2

  1990

  91.0

  152.2

  135.1

  1991

  92.3

  158.8

  145.5

  1992

  95.0

  164.2

  150.2

  1993

  97.6

  173.0

  154.3

  1994

  98.5

  176.3

  154.6

  1995

  97.0

  178.1

  155.0

  1996

  97.5

  180.3

  156.9

  1997

  99.6

  178.9

  157.6

  1998

  99.3

  180.1

  157.3

  1999

  100.2

  183.8

  160.6

  2000

  101.0

  181.6

  162.3

  2001

  98.7

  185.3

  166.1

  1 Includes the cost of purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance.

  Travel to Airports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of journeys made to(a) Gatwick, (b) Heathrow, (c) Stansted and (d) Luton airports were made by (i) train, (ii) bus and (iii) other road vehicles in the latest year for which figures are available. [80846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2001, the percentage of journeys made by train to Gatwick was 21.2 per cent. (9 per cent. bus/coach and 69.8 per cent. other road vehicles). For Heathrow, the corresponding proportions were 21.5 per cent. train (ie rail and tube), 13.1 per cent. bus/ coach, and 65.4 per cent. other road vehicles. At Stansted, the proportions were: 27.3 per cent. train, 7.6 per cent. bus/coach, and 65.1 per cent. other road vehicles. The proportions recorded at Luton are 26.1 per cent. bus/coach and 73.9 per cent. other road vehicles.

TREASURY

  Employment (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of people in(a) Leeds and (b) Leeds, West constituency who are in (i) temporary and (ii) part-time employment. [81488]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to John Battle, dated 20 November 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about number of people in temporary and part-time employment in Leeds. I am replying in his absence. (81918)

  186W

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) gives estimates of temporary and part-time employment levels for Local Authority Districts. The latest available estimates are for the three month period ending August 2002. The Office for National Statistics publishes employment rates, but not levels for parliamentary constituencies.

  The estimate of the number of temporary employees in Leeds Local Authority District, for the three month period ending August 2002, is 20,000. The estimate of the number of people in part-time employment is 94,000. These estimates are from the LFS. They are not seasonally adjusted and have not yet been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Re-weighted LFS estimates for local areas using 2001 Census population information will be available from Summer 2003.

  Minimum Wage
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of people who no longer receive one or more of income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. [80607]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available.

  Banking Information
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if discussions with the Swiss Government regarding the exchange of banking information are on-going; and if he will make a statement; [80741]

  (2)whether he supports the imposition of sanctions on Switzerland if it does not agree to sharing banking information; [81035]

  (3)what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding Switzerland's banking secrecy laws; and if he will make a statement. [80742]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In accordance with the mandate agreed by ECOFIN Council on 16 October 2001, the presidency and Commission are continuing negotiations with the Swiss Government on the application of measures equivalent to the system that would apply under the draft Savings Directive to member states. The Chancellor and other EU Finance Ministers discuss progress at meetings of the ECOFIN Council. Any decision on what steps to take if a successful conclusion to the negotiations were not to be reached, would be made at that time.

  Climate Change Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to exempt the nuclear industry from the climate change levy. [80866]

  John Healey
  It has been the Government's policy since the climate change levy was announced not to exempt nuclear energy.

  Compliance Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete the studies into the compliance costs of excise duty and international trade, referred to in his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 600W; and if he will make a statement. [80639]
  187W
  John Healey
  These studies are still in progress. Ministers will consider the results at the completion of each study.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Extra Statutory Concession 3.5 in notice 48 (1999 edition) applies to advice given by Customs and Excise officials(a) in writing and (b) by telephone. [81659]

  John Healey
  The current (March 2002) edition of Notice 48 cancelled and replaced the December 1999 edition. Extra Statutory Concession 3.5 remains the same and provides that
  "If a Customs and Excise officer, with the full facts before him, has given a clear and unequivocal ruling on VAT in writing or, knowing the full facts, has misled a registered trader to his detriment, any assessment of VAT due will be based on the correct ruling from the date the error was brought to registered person's attention."

  The concession therefore applies in these terms not only to incorrect rulings in writing but also to incorrect oral rulings. Oral rulings include those given by telephone.

  Departmental Accounts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each year since 1997 and by Department, the total amount of fines levied against Government Departments for the incomplete return of departmental accounts. [81116]

  Mr. Boateng
  The accounts of Departments are presented to Parliament under the provisions of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, and prior to that, the Exchequer and Audit Department Acts 1866 and 1921. The legislation makes no provision for fines for incomplete returns.

  Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been claimed under the Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme since April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [81777]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the information is not yet available.

  EU Aviation Fuel Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of(a) the practicality and (b) the potential revenue stream arising from the introduction of taxation on aviation fuel used in domestic flights; [80840]

  (2) what progress is being made towards the introduction of an EU aviation fuel tax regime. [80841]

  John Healey
  The Government are aware of practical issues surrounding the taxation of aviation fuel used in domestic flights, including the encouragement of 'tankering' fuel from abroad. Revenue streams would depend on a variety of factors including the level of duty and degree of tankering. We will publish shortly an Air Transport White Paper that will examine the potential 188W
  for using economic instruments to encourage the aviation industry to take more account of its external costs.

  The European Council of Finance Ministers has asked the European Commission to pursue with the International Civil Aviation Organisation the possibility of taxing aviation turbine fuel.

  Euro
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if British entry to the euro is conditional upon reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. [80416]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on UK membership of EMU is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The Five Economic Tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the role of the Financial Services Authority in the collapse of the split capital investment trusts; if he will set up an independent inquiry into this issue; and if he will make a statement. [81792]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA is obliged under the terms of the Financial Services and Markets Act (2001) to produce an annual report assessing performance against its statutory objectives of maintaining confidence in the financial system, promoting public understanding of the financial system, securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers and reducing the potential for financial firms to be used for financial crime. It is through this mechanism that the FSA is primarily held accountable to Ministers and Parliament.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82194]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury makes no such grants.

  Higher-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics are compiled by the Inland Revenue on the geographical distribution of higher rate taxpayers; and if they can be broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) post code. [80991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for higher rate taxpayers are based on the Inland Revenue's Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI). The basic geographical unit on the SPI is post code and this is converted to various higher level geographical locations.

  We would not be able to provide reliable estimates of higher rate taxpayers by post code as the sample size would be too small.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been conducted(a) by his Department and (b) for his Department in the last five years concerning changes to income tax. [81700]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the Inland Revenue website—www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/research

  Maundy Money
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost is of manufacturing Maundy Money; and who bears that cost. [81583]

  Ruth Kelly
  The cost of manufacturing Maundy Money is commercially sensitive and it would not be appropriate to disclose it, as provided for under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Royal Household pays face value for the coins that Her Majesty distributes. There is a shortfall between this and the cost of production, which is largely made up by a limited number of discretionary sales of Maundy Money sets.

  Ministerial Cars
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application of the rules relating to company car taxation in respect of cars used by Ministers, and which are provided by the Government Car and Despatch Agency. [81139]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax treatment of travel and subsistence for the Speaker, Ministers and Opposition office-holders is covered by the specific provisions in section 200AA of the Taxes Acts.

  Mortgage Administration Services
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether all suppliers of mortgage administration services in the UK are subject to VAT; whether joint venture companies between UK mortgage lenders and US service providers have been granted exemptions from VAT; and if he will make a statement; [80484]

  (2) which member states of the EU impose VAT on outsourced mortgage administration services; and at what rates. [80485]

  John Healey
  Mortgage administration services are VAT exempt when supplied by the mortgage provider but are liable to VAT when provided by a third party. Supplies between two companies in a joint venture will be disregarded for VAT purposes if the companies are part of the same VAT group. Customs and Excise are currently taking action to prevent artificial structures involving joint ventures being used to bring third party companies within VAT groups. Little information is available on the VAT treatment of outsourced mortgage administration services in other member states, although the French advise that they would also charge VAT on outsourced loan administration services.

  National Insurance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of 190W
  unpaid national insurance contributions in fiscal years (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [80650]

  Dawn Primarolo
  National Insurance Contributions (N ICs) identified as due, but not paid and subsequently written off amounted to £218 million in 1998–99; £188 million in 1999–2000; and £180 million in 2000–01. This represents 0.4 per cent., 0.3 per cent. and 0.3 per cent. of the total NICs receipts for those years, respectively.

  NICs may be written off where pursuit is unlikely to be successful, for example because a company is insolvent; or where it is regarded as neither practical nor cost effective to pursue the debt, for example because the debtor has gone abroad.

  Office for National Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the recommendations that ONS made on each project on which the public sector classification committee has been asked to comment since 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [80117]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 20 November 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the recommendations that ONS has made on each project that the Public Sector Classification Committee (PSCC) has considered since 1 January. (80117)

  In some cases decisions are taken on projects that are confidential or market sensitive and these can not be revealed. There are other cases that the PSCC considers relating to issues raised internally. Where these do not lead to any advice being offered to other government departments I have not included them.

  Decisions on New Tax Credits and Network Rail and its borrowing are fully described on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk). There were three decisions of this type.

  The other projects on which ONS's PSCC has offered advice are listed below with a description of the advice offered.

  Support for insurance of terrorist risks to aviation industry

  Troika is classified as a public financial corporation until 1 November 2001, when it is reclassified as a private insurance corporation. Government guarantee is a contingent liability. Government receipts should be counted as dividends, payments as capital transfers. The Government's decision to temporarily waive fees gives rise to an imputed subsidy, but amounts involved were de minimis.

  Electricity Companies Renewables Obligation

  ONS intend to classify the amounts redistributed to generators as imputed tax receipts and subsidy payments. The general issue will be referred to Europe for discussion.

  Diamond Synchrotron

  Classification as a public corporation.

  Offshore Petroleum Licensing—20th round

  Receipts of fees and royalties follow usual classification as rents.

  Guarantees for loans to Railtrack plc in administration

  Upon specified conditions being met, the guarantees would be classified as contingent liabilities. The fee received by government is classified as a service fee and netted off government consumption. An imputed subsidy will be recorded for the benefit that arises from the guarantee.

  191W
  OFCOM

  Classified as central government, part of its income classified as quasi-corporate.

  Salvaged property (HMS Sussex)

  Goods classified as valuables. At the time the government was informed of the discovery an economic reappearance of an asset occurs. The value of these assets may later change when more information is known about them. Government payments to the salvage company are recorded as consumption. Receipts from sales are classified as disposal of valuables and recorded at price received, after deducting commissions/fees paid to auctioneers. If payments to the salvage company are made in the valuable rather than currency, it would still be treated as consumption, but balanced by an imputed sale of the valuable.

  PFI Contracts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) actual and (b) anticipated annual payments by Government for each year from 1997 to 2020 are in respect of PFI contracts already entered into. [81117]

  Ruth Kelly
  (a) Actual PFI expenditure can be found in notes to the individual resource accounts of Departments.

  (b) Detailed figures setting out estimates of future payments to be made under PFI contracts are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report each year. Table C 19 of Budget 2002 includes the latest projections of estimated payments for services provided under the Private Finance Initiative for the years 2002–03 to 2027–28.

  In line with past practice, these figures will be updated shortly.

  Social Capital
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures of social capital his Department uses to guide policy decisions; and if he will make a statement. [80410]

  Ruth Kelly
  Policy decisions are guided by a number of measures. The Treasury uses measures on individual facets of social capital as and when appropriate in policy making. Social capital is recognised to be a multi-dimensional concept and I understand there is an on-going research project by ONS aiming to develop an analytical framework that can be used to organise the available statistical information on social capital.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a copy of the report on the take-up of the working families tax credit within London in the Library. [81952]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such report exists.

  World Bank
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made to increase the number of executive directors representing southern governments on the Board of the World bank. [80935]
  192W
  John Healey
  The UK's White Paper on International Development, published in December 2000, highlighted the need for developing countries to have a more effective voice in international institutions. And at the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World bank, the Development Committee called on these institutions to prepare a joint paper on broadening and strengthening the participation of developing countries in International Financial Institution decision making for the spring meetings in April 2003. It is within the context of this broader discussion on increasing the voice of developing countries that we expect representation on the Executive Board to feature. The UK would welcome positive consideration of ways to increase the representation of developing countries on the Executive Board, and African countries in particular. We will be working with the IMF and World bank over the coming months to explore this further.

  World Bank and IMF
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to publish the minutes of the(a) World bank and (b) International Monetary Fund, and if he will make a statement. [80949]

  John Healey
  Enhancing the transparency of the IMF and World bank is a critical part of our work on strengthening crisis prevention, improving economic cooperation and promoting global stability and growth. Greater transparency can help strengthen policy frameworks, ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed at an early stage, and strengthen effectiveness and accountability.

  (a) There are currently no plans for the minutes of World Bank Board Meetings to be published. However, since April 2001 the bank has been moving towards making the Executive Board more transparent, and we fully support these efforts. Most important decisions, including those relating to selected policy, strategy and topical issues, are announced through press releases or at press conferences of senior bank officials. Chairman's Concluding Remarks (and Summings Up) on discussions of Country Assistance Strategies, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers/Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, Sector Strategy Papers and Heavily Indebted Poor Country documents are publicly available. Chairman's Concluding Remarks on discussions of other policy, strategy and topical issues can also be made publicly available—though this requires the agreement of the Executive Board. Approvals of individual lending operations are announced through issue of press releases and fact sheets providing summary data on the project.

  (b) The IMF has also made real progress in its publication policy in recent years. There has been a significant increase in the publication of Public Information Notices summarizing the surveillance (Article IV) discussions of the Board, of Article IV reports themselves, and of Chairman's statements, news briefs and press releases following Board discussions on the use of Fund resources and on policy issues. Nevertheless, the UK believes that the IMF can build on this progress and that there is considerable scope for further reform. The IMF's Transparency policy was discussed by the Executive Board in June 2002. At this

  193W
  discussion the UK supported the proposal that access to Executive Board minutes should be accelerated from 20 years to five years and pressed for even further acceleration. Unfortunately, this view was not shared by others on the Board and access to Board minutes was only reduced to 10 years.

  To promote greater transparency in the UK about our role in the IMF, we publish an Annual Report to Parliament on the UK and the IMF. This includes the voting record of the UK Governor and Executive Director, and provides an indication of the position we take at Board discussions. Only in the case of highly market sensitive information would we not provide this information. In our experience this is already strengthening public and parliamentary understanding of and support for the work of the IMF.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Coffee
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to diversify agricultural sectors away from coffee production in Sub-Saharan African countries. [80947]

  Clare Short
  Diversification requires the establishment of a more favourable environment at both domestic and international level. We are working to support a variety of activities within coffee producing countries in order to generate the economic growth, and other conditions, that provide enhanced opportunities for livelihood diversification. We are also working to improve trade access to OECD markets.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives of the(a) United Nations and (b) World bank regarding the coffee industry in (i) Central Africa, (ii) South America and (iii) India and Eastern Asia; and if she will make a statement. [80941]

  Clare Short
  My Department regularly interacts with different agencies of the United Nations, the World bank and other partners to discuss the economic situation, including performance of different industries and commodity, in the three geographical regions mentioned. These are complex issues and I do not intend to make a statement at this time.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to encourage international coffee roaster companies to carry out value added processing within developing countries. [80945]

  Clare Short
  Coffee processing involves the transformation of green coffee beans into a number of products including roast and ground, soluble (instant) coffee, decaffeinated coffee extracts and various speciality coffees. The decision to undertake coffee processing in the developing country of origin is a strictly commercial one. This decision is undoubtedly influenced by a number of considerations such as the domestic operating environment (e.g. reliability of supporting infrastructure), assurance of bean supply and quality requirements, transport costs, the buy-in strategies adopted by retailers, packaging and labeling 194W
  requirements as well as size of the domestic market and trade access to other markets. The UK, through its development programme and other endeavours at the international level, is supporting a range of actions designed to create a more favourable investment climate in many coffee producing countries.

  Africa (Health Budget)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's health budget for the current year for Africa is allocated directly to(a) hospitals, (b) clinics, (c) NGOs and (d) Governments; and if she will make a statement. [80551]

  Clare Short
  Last year (2001–02) DFID estimates its spend on health related activities in Sub-Saharan Africa was £108 million. This figure does not include money channelled through multilateral agencies.

  It is not easy to disaggregate this figure according to the categories listed, nor is it sensible. Where possible through provision of direct budgetary support, we support Governments' entire health systems. Where we provide assistance to other sectors, this too can contain `Health' spend, for example mainstreaming teaching on HIV/AIDs and reproductive health into a country's national curriculum.

  Angola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the reintegration of ex-soldiers into civil society in Angola. [80566]

  Clare Short
  The formal reintegration of ex-soldiers has not yet started in Angola. The Government of Angola is in the process of developing its Angola Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme (ADRP), with assistance from the World bank. Until the ADRP has been agreed, little progress will be made on putting in place appropriate social structures to receive the ex-combatants. It is therefore essential that the ADRP is finalised as soon as possible, in close collaboration with the international community. This programme should be consistent with the Government's own Norms for Return and Resettlement. It should also be set in a broader framework encompassing the return of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the progress of the National Reconciliation Programme in Angola. [80567]

  Clare Short
  Following the cease-fire in Angola, the National Reconciliation Programme has been replaced by the National Commission for the Social and Productive Reintegration of the Demobilised and Displaced. The new commission's detailed priorities have not been made clear to the international community; nor have the spending plans associated with them. With the help of the World bank, the Government of Angola is working on an immediate post-conflict recovery plan which the international community expects will be presented to donors at a conference organised by the Government of Angola in the first
  195W
  quarter of 2003. Until the international community has seen the document, it is difficult to comment on the Government's plans.

  Without national reconciliation, a fully inclusive national dialogue, and sustainable poverty reduction, the cease-fire is unlikely to be transformed into a lasting peace. We take every opportunity to make this clear to the Government of Angola. My Department is establishing an office in the British embassy in Luanda which will help to strengthen further HMG's efforts to ensure a peaceful transition in Angola.

  Charities and Donor Agencies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on co-operation with charities and donor agencies; what recent progress has been made; and what proposals she has for further co-operation. [80988]

  Clare Short
  My Department enjoys close relations with both charities (NGOs) and the wider donor community. The production of our first White Paper in 1997 laid the foundations for unprecedented inclusion of NGOs in policy and strategy consultation. Development charities have been helpful in enabling my Department to produce policy papers on issues such as the rights of the disabled, inclusion of the elderly in the development process and access to clean water.

  Consultation with NGO community lead to changes in the way my Department supported UK civil society. This included the replacement of our main funding channels for NGOs (the Joint Funding Scheme and block grants) by the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) and Partnership Programme Agreements (PPA). Under our CSCF we currently fund over 200 individual projects with around 80 UK civil society organisations at an annual cost in excess of £10 million.

  We currently have PPAs with 15 major UK development NGOs and propose a further round of negotiations next year. PPAs are strategic level engagements, which provide a framework for constructive dialogue and sharing of ideas on major development issues.

  My Department has regular engagement with other bilateral donors, where policies and views can be openly shared and regular DFID representation at the EC NGO co-financing meetings in Brussels where our interests as well as NGO's concerns can be raised and discussed.

  We have began a series of discussions with our counterparts at the Community Fund and Comic Relief in order to exchange information and ideas and hope to strengthen these links further through joint evaluations of co-funded projects.

  We are currently in the process of formalising a Strategic Funding Agreement with the main umbrella organisation representing the British NGOs working in development (BOND). This agreement further strengthens co-operation and mutual understanding between my Department and the NGO community.

  Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo concerning sexual crimes being committed against women by the armies; and what pressure her Department is putting on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to investigate such crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. [80561]

  Clare Short
  My Department is extremely concerned about the situation in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the unacceptably high levels of violent crimes, including rape, committed against women. We maintain links with a number of human rights organisations including Human Rights Watch and local rights organisations based in eastern DRC, which are involved in the monitoring, and provision of support, to women victims of crime. The high rates of rape and sexual violence have mostly occurred in areas that are not under Government control where militias are operating and disorder is widespread.

  Through our embassies in Kinshasa and Kigali, and through direct contact with local authorities when visiting the east, the UK Government have discussed the issue of rape, and the urgent need to address issues of justice, with representatives from all sides with whom we have contact. We do not have contact with the ex-Far and Interahamwe and local Mai Mai groups. We also support a number of civil society organisations that are working in eastern DRC to monitor and raise rights abuses with authorities, as well as providing some limited support to women victims.

  Eritrea
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian situation in Eritrea; and how much money her Department is giving to help the people of Eritrea. [80558]

  Clare Short
  We are being kept informed by reports from our embassy in Eritrea and propose to send out one of our humanitarian advisers in the next month on an assessment mission. We understand that the Eritrea Consolidated Appeal is due to be launched on 19 November, which should include information on failed rains and forthcoming food shortages. In total we have given £1,350,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross' 2002 Appeal for Eritrea. In addition, through our Small Grants Scheme, we have disbursed some funds to health centres run by the Catholic Church to buy food supplements for malnourished children under five, pregnant women and lactating mothers.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with(a) the Government of Eritrea, (b) the Eritrean Relief and Refugee Committee and (c) the UN over the humanitarian situation in Eritrea. [80559]

  Clare Short
  I met with the President of Eritrea at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and have since then had telephone
  197W
  conversations with him to discuss the situation in Eritrea and the region. I also have regular meetings with the Eritrean ambassador in London.

  Our ambassador in Eritrea, as well as one of his staff, have attended various UN and Eritrean Relief and Refugee Committee meetings to discuss the humanitarian situation in Eritrea and have reported back to DFID and FCO.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the current food needs of the people of Ethiopia; what proportion of these are being met by the international community; how much of these food needs are being met by Britain; and whether her Department intends to increase the volume of food being delivered to Ethiopia. [80577]

  Clare Short
  We are keeping the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia under continuous review, using the reports and assessments made by the Government and international agencies involved. WFP remain concerned about prospects for February and March, when needs are expected to be high, though they estimate that current pledges of food aid to be sufficient to meet needs until mid-January 2003. The Ethiopian Food Security Reserve is expected on current estimates to have sufficient stocks available until April.

  We are taking careful note of the WFP and Government of Ethiopia reports and appeals. As always we remain committed to playing our part in the international response to humanitarian need, which includes increasing UK bilateral contributions when necessary.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department last visited Ethiopia; and when she next intends to do so. [80578]

  Clare Short
  The last ministerial visit to Ethiopia from my Department was my visit to Ethiopia in November 2000. I plan to visit Ethiopia in January 2003 to attend the Economic Commission for Africa Big Table meeting, and for discussions with the Ethiopian Government.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-governmental organisations working in Ethiopia she has consulted regarding the current humanitarian situation in Ethiopia; and on what dates. [80600]

  Clare Short
  There is frequent in-country dialogue between DFID and non-governmental organisations, as well as other donors. Since mid-2002, when early warning signs of problems were emerging, the Ethiopian Government, donors and NGOs have been working closely together to assess the situation and frame an appropriate response. This dialogue will continue as we move into 2003. We also invited a range of NGOs to a meeting that we hosted in DFID on 20 November to discuss the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the UN's Emergency Unit for 198W
  Ethiopia regarding the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and the response of the international community to the humanitarian situation facing Ethiopia. [80601]

  Clare Short
  We regularly discuss the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia with the UN's Emergency Unit for Ethiopia. In 2002 we have funded the unit to enable them to strengthen their co-ordination role. We welcome the fact that the Ethiopian Government have led needs assessments and responses in 2002 and believe that the UN-EUE has played a valuable role in supporting them.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of her meeting with the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on 21 October. [80563]

  Clare Short
  President Lemierre and I met primarily to discuss the 2003 EBRD Annual Meeting in Tashkent, which the UK will chair. The people of Central Asia need progress with poverty reduction, regional stability and the fight against corruption. President Lemierre and I agreed that it was timely for the EBRD Annual Meeting to be in Central Asia, in order to focus attention on the challenges facing the region. The meeting will be a good opportunity for a full and open discussion of progress in achieving economic and political transition, tackling the region's poverty, improving the investment climate and increasing regional co-operation.

  Healthcare and Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of overseas aid has been directed to basic health care and education services for children, and how much this is in real terms, in each year since 1997. [80987]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 674W.

  HIV/AIDS
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made towards increasing the levels of HIV/Aids testing in Zimbabwe. [80936]

  Clare Short
  Zimbabwe has made progress in building and meeting demand for Voluntary Counselling and Testing for HIV (VCT). Access is rapidly increasing through the "New Start" network of VCT centres, a campaign implemented by Population Services International (PSI) and the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare. 99,000 clients have visited new start centres since the campaign started in 2000. PSI aims to more than double the yearly VCT client flows by the end of 2004 while maintaining high quality services and broadening access. USAID and DFID are PSI-Zimbabwe's major supporters, with DFID providing nearly £7 million of flexible support for VCT and other HIV prevention activities.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries which the Government assesses as having poor records on human rights, and in which CDC Capital Partners makes investments. [80565]

  Clare Short
  We believe in general that it is best to engage constructively with states on a broad range of human rights issues. Such an approach will help poor people to realise their rights and reduce violations. We do not maintain a list of countries with a "poor" human rights record. This is no part of the remit of CDC Capital Partners, which invests in businesses, not in governments.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80775]

  Clare Short
  1. DFID has taken a number of steps in recent months to review the security arrangements for the Department's IT systems. A review of the anti-virus (AV) arrangements is currently under way, and is expected to complete soon with any resulting changes implemented by the end of this year. Secondly, another review is considering the way in which classified information is handled and stored within the Department's IT systems. The review paper and conclusions are due to be put before the highest level IT Steering Committee (the KCC) later this month, with accepted recommendations being implemented progressively throughout 2003.

  2. DFID's IT systems were subjected to one digital attack during October. The new BugBear virus entered the system via a visiting user from our Dar-es-Salaam office accessing his HotMail account, and the virus subsequently infected 15 PCs. This entry point was immediately plugged when it was discovered.

  3. During the rest of 2002 there were two other digital attacks on the systems. In April DFID was infected with the Elkern virus. This entered DFID before there was a pattern file available to detect it. In all, one server and 500 PCs were affected—about one in six of the user population. The pattern file was applied as soon as it was available from the AV software supplier, and no re-infections have been reported. In November, a routine sweep of the databases revealed one occurrence of the Redlof/A virus, which had infected 26 files on one user machine.

  4. Virus detection is applied at the DFID Internet Gateway, before messages are allowed into the systems. Logging is not generally left switched on because the logfiles fill up very quickly. However, logging is periodically captured and examinded. During the period 8–15 November, 513 messages appearing at the gateway were found to contain viruses and were prevented from entering.

  5. There were no hacking attempts on DFID systems during the year.

  Paramedical Health Personnel
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the creation of paramedical health personnel to administer simple treatments in developing countries. [80552]

  Clare Short
  Health systems in many poor countries do not have the capacity to deliver drugs and care in a safe and effective way. The Government's long term strategy is to help poor countries develop functioning health systems with the capacity to provide a series of different outputs. Encompassing preventive, health promoting, acute and chronic curative care and services. Human resources are central to functioning health systems and our work with partner countries includes support for locally appropriate strategies and plans to ensure health systems have the right staff. In some cases, such strategies include the training and deployment of various staff to perform basic treatments. Since 1997, we have committed over £1 billion, to help developing countries put in place and strengthen effective health care systems. We are also working with the World bank, the World Health Organisation and other multilateral partners on this long term agenda.

  Per Capita Aid
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid her Department provides per capita to(a) Afghanistan; (b) Bosnia; and (c) Rwanda, and what proportion of this is disbursed (i) bilaterally and (ii) through the European Commission. [80572]

  Clare Short
  UK bilateral official development assistance (oda) to Afghanistan, Bosnia and Rwanda is set out in the table:

  UK oda (£ million)

  Population (million)

  UK oda per capita (£)

  2000

  Afghanistan

  8.4

  26.6

  0.32

  Bosnia

  4.7

  4

  1.18

  Rwanda

  34.8

  8.5

  4.09

  In addition we estimate the following amounts of UK funds were disbursed through the European Commission in each of the countries:

  UK imputed multilateral shares via EC (£ million)

  Per capita UK imputed shares via EC (£)

  2000

  Afghanistan

  2.2

  0.08

  Bosnia

  23.9

  5.98

  Rwanda

  6.0

  0.71

  Safe Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures will be taken by the Government to reach its targets for access to basic sanitation and in developing water efficiency plans. [81057]
  201W
  Clare Short
  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provide the focus of my Department's work. My Department is working to build an effective response by the international system to support developing countries in reducing poverty and achieving the MDGs. This includes supporting the United Nations Development Programme in monitoring progress towards the MDGs country by country.

  The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg extended the MDG target on access to water to include sanitation. It also made a commitment to develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005. My Department is working with developing countries, other development agencies and financial institutions to ensure that support is provided so that these commitments are kept and the MDG targets are achieved. In particular, we currently support several major multilateral initiatives including:

  The Global Water Partnership, a multi-donor funded international network to foster integrated water resource management.

  The Nile Basin Initiative, established by the riparian states with World bank support to realise the development potential of the Nile and to contribute to poverty and conflict reduction in the region.

  Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a multi-donor programme administered by the World bank. Its mission is to alleviate poverty by helping the poor gain sustained access to improved water and sanitation services.

  The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC), a concerted multi-donor organisation designed to raise awareness and the political profile of sanitation, hygiene and safe water.

  My Department is also participating in the EU Water Initiative which is aimed at creating strategic partnerships to achieve the WSSD goals on clean water and sanitation. It also promotes co-operation between countries sharing an international river basin in managing their water resources and aims to improve the efficiency of existing financing mechanisms for water infrastructure through better donor co-ordination.

  In addition to multilateral co-operation, our commitment to achieve the 2005 water management and 2015 water and sanitation targets includes bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, and Nigeria.

  My Department also funds resource centres dedicated to enhancing communication, knowledge transfer and co-operation between DFID, its partners and other organisations in the management of water resources as well as in the fields of environmental health, water supply and sanitation. Additionally, through the Knowledge and Research (KaR) programme, my Department is funding research projects that investigate key water resource management questions and cost effective means of delivering water, sanitation and hygiene services.

  Visceral Leishmaniasis Disease
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has 202W
  offered for the treatment of patients suffering from the outbreak of visceral leishmaniasis disease in Southern Sudan. [80940]

  Clare Short
  So far in 2002 we have provided a total of £743,048 to Medecins sans Frontieres for three urgent health care projects in southern Sudan, which include the treatment of people suffering from the outbreak of visceral leishmaniasis (also known as kala-azar).

CABINET OFFICE

  Car and Despatch Agency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office under what circumstances Ministers are allowed to use official cars provided by the Government Car and Despatch Agency when not on official business. [81118]

  Mr. Alexander
  Guidance to Ministers on the use of official cars is set out in "Travel by Ministers" copies of which can be found in the House Libraries and on the Cabinet Office website.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what has been the average cubic capacity of cars within the Government Car and Despatch Agency fleet in each year since 1997; [81140]

  (2) if he will list the consultants employed by the Government Car and Despatch Agency in2001 –02; and what the total cost of employing consultants was in this period. [81119]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Defence, Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he last met a representative of the National Assembly of Wales to discuss civil defence in Wales in cases of emergency. [81554]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees.

  However, Ministers do regularly meet in Cabinet Committees to discuss issues relating to emergency planning, consequence management and resilience in the UK. The National Assembly for Wales is invited to participate in these committees wherever appropriate.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many ministerial special advisers have been(a) appointed and (b) dismissed since the introduction of the EU Fixed Term Workers Directive; of those dismissed, how many had been employed as special

  203W
  advisers for over four years; and if he will estimate the additional cost if advisers had been employed on a permanent basis. [80899]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since the introduction of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 on 1 October 2002, Ministers have appointed seven special advisers. None have been dismissed. However two special advisers have had their contracts terminated, neither of whom had been in post for over four years. It is the Government's view that special advisers cannot be employed on a permanent basis for the reasons set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 732W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  11-plus Selection Procedure
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what alternative proposals he intends to put forward to replace the 11-plus selection procedure. [81266]

  Jane Kennedy
  No decisions have been taken about new transfer arrangements. In the responses to consultation a range of suggestions were made for future post-primary arrangements, including options involving academic selection, and my officials will be discussing these with our education partners and representatives of parents over the coming weeks. My aim is to develop a modern and fair education system which addresses the weaknesses of our current arrangements and enables all children to fulfil their potential.

HEALTH

  GPs
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that relevant NHS staff, with particular reference to general practitioners, are trained in the prescription, administration, review and recording of medicines for older people. [80114]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government do not specify the content of the general practice training curriculum. The General Medical Council's education committee has the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of medical education to ensure that students and newly qualified doctors are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for professional practice. The content and standards of postgraduate medical training in general practice is the responsibility of the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice. Their role is that of custodians of quality standards in postgraduate medical education and practice. They are independent of the Department. Both these bodies have a clear interest in ensuring that doctors are equipped to deal with the range of circumstances they will encounter in practice.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors have enrolled in the NHS since 1997. [80388]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pre-registration house officers are doctors who, having graduated from medical school, must successfully complete a year of work in the national health service in order to achieve full registration with the General Medical Council. The table shows the number of pre-registration house officers in England in the hospital sector, including those in both medical and dental specialty areas between 1997 and 2001. We do not collect data on the number of junior doctors enrolling in the NHS each year; the census is a snapshot of data as of 30 September in the appropriate year.

  Number of pre-registration house officers in England, 1997 to 2001—DH Medical and Dental Census

  Year

  Headcount

  1997

  3,398

  1998

  3,496

  1999

  3,606

  2000

  3,691

  2001

  3,742

  Locum Doctors
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many locum doctors from employment agencies have been found while working on temporary contracts in NHS hospitals to have already been removed or suspended from the GMC/GDC register in each of the last five years. [80401]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Contracts
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria for awarding contracts for the provision of NHS care from companies outwith the UK. [80900]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the case of overseas clinical teams working in the national health service, contracts are awarded on the basis of a number of criteria. The most important of these are clinical quality and competence, the capacity to deliver without compromising the provision of care in the provider's home nation, logistics and ease of access and value for money.

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health care companies from outwith the UK have contracts with the UK Government to provide care within the national health service; and if he will list the companies and countries involved. [80902]

  Mr. Hutton
  No contracts have been signed between the United Kingdom Government and overseas health care providers, as all such contracts are set up between overseas providers and national health service trusts. Three health care companies linked with overseas providers are currently providing acute elective care within the NHS:Netcare UK, Deluca Medical and Hessing Park Clinic. Netcare UK is a subsidiary of a
  205W
  South African company. Deluca Medical acts on behalf of a French private hospital group. Hessing Park Clinic is a German hospital group.

  Two trusts have signed contracts for service with individual doctors, rather than overseas health care companies. The first is working with doctors from South Africa, and the second is working with doctors from Ireland and Italy.

  NHS Treatment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it is his policy that patients, by phoning NHS Direct, are given the details of(a) an emergency dental service and (b) an NHS dental practitioner with whom they can register; [81672]

  (2) what his policy is on the (a) distance and (b) journey time that patients should travel as a maximum to reach (i) a general dental practitioner, (ii) a general medical practitioner, (iii) an emergency dentist and (iv) an accident and emergency unit. [81895]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]Patients wishing to access national health service dentistry are advised to contact NHS Direct where they will be informed of sources of treatment within locally agreed standards. During 2001 each health authority set its own standards for how far patients should have to travel for treatment depending on whether the requirement was for emergency or urgent treatment or routine access and whether the patient was based in a rural or urban area. These standards took into account local travel patterns. Primary care trusts have now assumed responsibilities for these standards.

  NHS Direct may also be able to inform patients of dental practitioners with whom they can register.

  There is no maximum travel time or distance set for registering with a general practitioner, but patients are required to reside within the practice area of the GP with whom they wish to register. Most people prefer to register with a GP near to where they live and travel times and distances are generally short except in some remote or rural areas.

  It is for health authorities and primary care trusts to plan the provision of local health services including the provision and location of emergency services. There is no maximum travel time or distance set for access to an accident and emergency unit.

  NHS Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts are running financial deficits; and what the likely aggregate amount is of the deficits this financial year. [81023]

  Mr. Hutton
  The audited information in respect of the financial performance of national health service trusts for 2002–03 will be published in their individual annual accounts. The audited information will be available centrally in autumn 2003.

  Overseas Nurses
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent changes the Government have made 206W
  to improve the system of registration for qualified overseas nurses who want to work in the NHS in England and Wales. [81010]

  Mr. Hutton
  Registration is the responsibility of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which was established on 1 April 2002.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the regulations whereby two or more prescription charges are payable when two or more medicines are prescribed in circumstances where medicines are in one pack and cannot be taken separately. [80130]

  Mr. Lammy
  Prescription charging arrangements are a devolved matter. In England a charge is payable for each quantity of a drug or item supplied. This rule applies regardless of whether the different drugs are supplied in one pack or more. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Smokies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to curtail the illegal production of smokies from sheep. [80868]

  Ms Blears
  Enforcement of this issue lies with local authority environmental health and trading standards officers. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is actively engaged in assisting local authority food law enforcement officers to combat the illegal production of smokies from sheep and goats. This assistance includes the issue of guidance to local authorities in June 2002 to clarify the legislation and the illegality of the product. A number of prosecutions have recently been initiated against producers, distributors and retailers of smokies. The FSA has also arranged a meeting with some of the local authorities involved with this issue and other stakeholders on 20 November 2002, to discuss the issue of smokies and the agency's co-ordinating role.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Violence
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will allow persons who(a) have a reasonable fear of domestic or other violence or (b) are deemed a security risk to be removed from the published version of the Electoral Register without losing their right to vote. [80785]

  Yvette Cooper
  I understand that the question of "anonymous registration" is being considered by the Electoral Commission in its current review of registration issues, and a consultation document is in preparation. The Government will consider any recommendations the Electoral Commission makes very carefully. Under regulations made in July electors can ask for their names to be removed from the edited version of the register that is for sale, but an Electoral Registration Officer currently has no discretion to omit the names of those who are entitled to be registered from the full version. While the Government are concerned to
  207W
  ensure that vulnerable people are not put at risk, the electoral register is a public document and anonymous registration may make it difficult for members of the public and political parties to check whether eligible names have been included and ineligible names have not.

  Correspondence
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the reason was for the delay in answering the letter of 9 January sent by the hon. Member for Ilford, North on behalf of Mr. Paul Michael Challis. [80508]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The delay was, as I stated in my letter to my hon. Friend dated 20 October, due to an administrative oversight. Once again, I apologise for the delay. I have asked that procedures for processing ministerial correspondence are reviewed in the light of this error.

  Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 to come into force. [80714]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subject to the approval of the Family Procedure Rule Committee of the rules of court required to give effect to the Act, and Parliament, the Government intend to bring the Act into force in January or February 2003.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps she has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80767]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is well advanced in its plans to implement an information security management system based on the BS7799 standard. This work has involved a major review and update of our IT security policy. We have undertaken risk reviews on all of our key information systems over the past 18 months, using the Cabinet Office approved CRAMM risk review methodology. A health check was undertaken on our data network in 2001 and a further health check will be undertaken in early 2003.

  The number of cases of digital attacks detected was:

  (a) 1 in October and

  (b) 6 in 2002

  These attacks were all virus attacks. They caused no damage to our key IT systems and were all detected by our virus protection defences. There were no hacking attacks.

  Magistrates Court, York
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for how many days York magistrates court was closed during and following the flood in York in November 2000; what arrangements were made to transfer cases to other premises during the closure; what were the direct costs of transferring these cases and the indirect costs to the public purse of the loss of use of the York court; and what assessment she has made of the wider economic cost to those using York magistrates court and the lawyers representing them of the closure. [80995]

  Yvette Cooper
  The floods in York began to affect York magistrates court during the weekend of 4–5 November 2000. The courthouse did not close, and the courtrooms continued to operate. The cells were unusable from 4 November 2000 until 24 March 2001—a period of 140 days (20 weeks). Those cases involving defendants in custody were transferred to Selby magistrates court; all other cases continued to be dealt with at York.

  Any additional revenue costs such as travelling expenses, heating/lighting at Selby were met from within the MCC's existing revenue budget.

  No assessment has been made of the overall economic costs of transferring those cases to Selby.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what damage was done to York magistrates court by the flood in November 2000; how much it cost to repair the damage; and whether the cost of the repairs was covered by insurance. [80996]

  Yvette Cooper
  The flood water entered the basement, the ground floor offices and the cell areas of the law courts, all of which were damaged and required repair. £35,000 was spent on replacing damaged furniture. The remaining costs—to repair the plasterwork and replace carpeting (a total of £55,000) were covered by the court's insurance policy.

  Transsexuals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what legislative changes she proposes following the case of Goodwin v. UK and within what timescale; and if these changes will encompass issues relating to pension entitlement of transsexual people; [81114]

  (2) what progress the Interdepartmental Group on Transsexual People has made in considering the judgment in the case of Goodwin v. UK; what conclusions it has reached pursuant to this case; and if she will make a statement. [81115]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's plan for implementing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin v. The United Kingdom will be announced by the end of the year, following collective ministerial consideration of the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People. Pension entitlement is among the matters under consideration.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The Government is committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish RIAs for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have today presented to Parliament a Command Paper listing RIAs published between 1st January and 30th June 2002. Copies of those listed have been placed in the libraries of both Houses. This is the seventeenth such Command Paper

  Risk Report
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The Strategy Unit report, "Risk: improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty", is today being published.

  The Government welcomes the report, and we have accepted its recommendations in full. They aim to improve the way we anticipate and handle risk in the day-to-day conduct of our business, to support the effective delivery of public services. The report's recommendations will be implemented through a two-year programme of change, led by the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, Sir David Omand.

  The report looks particularly at those areas of government that involve handling risks that may affect the public, and makes a number of recommendations to improve the involvement of the public in decision making about risks that affect them. It proposes a set of principles that government should follow in handling risks to the public, on which we intend to consult.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office, and the libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Policing Plan (2003–06)
  The Minister of State for the Home Department (Mr. John Denham)
  I am, later today, laying the first National Policing Plan before Parliament as required by section 1 of the Police Reform Act 2002. It sets out the strategic priorities for the police service in 2003–06 as follows:Tackling anti-social behaviour and disorder.
  Reducing volume, street, drug-related and violent and gun crime in line with local and national targets.
  38WS
  Combating serious and organised crime operating across force boundaries.
  Increasing the number of offences brought to justice

  The Plan will be a key element in raising the standards of policing to enable all forces to approach the standards of the best.

  The National Policing Plan is a key element of police reform and sets out for the first time in one document, the performance targets and indicators against which delivery of priorities will be measured. The Plan describes those aspects of police reform, which will be in place over the next three years to support delivery.

HEALTH

  Health Inequalities
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  I am today publishing the results of the cross-cutting review of health inequalities, undertaken as part of the Government's 2002 spending review. The review sets out the Government's long-term approach for narrowing the gap in health between disadvantaged groups and the rest of the population.

  Copies of "Tackling Health Inequalities: 2002 Cross-Cutting Review" have been placed in the Library, and it is also available on the Department's website at http:// www.doh.gov.uk/healthinequalities

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  International Policing (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Every effort is being made to ensure that the transition of responsibility from the International Police Task Force (IPTF) to the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) goes smoothly with minimal disruption to stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). For example, personnel from the two missions are co-operating closely to ensure that information and expertise accumulated by the IPTF is transferred to the new Mission. In order to facilitate a smooth transition, an EUPM Planning Team has been established to prepare for the take-over and ensure that the hand-over is effective and thorough. Together these steps will ensure that the EUPM is well-equipped and capable of building on the progress achieved by the IPTF.

  Commander Sven Frederiksen, currently Police Commissioner with the IPTF, will take up this same role with the EUPM thus ensuring that his expertise and experience as Head of Mission will be transferred to the EUPM. This will contribute further to the smooth transition which is crucial to the success of the new Mission.

  In the transition of responsibility from the IPTF to the EUPM there is to be a change of emphasis in the mission mandate. Whereas the IPTF was working closely with police officers in the lower ranks of the BiH Police Service, the EUPM will be looking at reform at a more senior level within the Police Service as well as reform at a ministerial level. To achieve this,

  39WS
  contributing countries are providing officers with experience of different policing fields to transfer skills and expertise to the BiH police service.

  The UK remains firmly committed to the peace process in BiH and will be contributing 56 police officers from 34 different police forces across the country, along with 9 civilians, to the EUPM. This comprises over 13 per cent of the total slots allocated to EU member states. All 15 EU member states are contributing personnel as well as seventeen further non-EU states. In total there will be around 500 police officers and civilian staff working in the EUPM.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  I have published the Regional Development Agencies' reported outputs for the first quarter of 2002–03. These have been placed in the Library of the House and on the DTI website at www.dti. gsi. gov.uk/rda/info/q 1 results.htm Regional Development Agencies' reported outputs in the first quarter of 2002–03.

  The tables below show the Regional Development Agencies' Tier 3 targets for 2002–03 and the number of outputs they have reported as delivering by the end of the first quarter (June 2002). RDAs originally set out the annual targets in their Corporate Plans before the target definitions were finalised. Several RDAs have since chosen to rebase their Corporate Plan targets in line with the subsequently agreed methodology. For more information about the performance monitoring of the RDAs please see the DTI Website. A glossary of terms is at annex A.

  The RDAs' have stated that the Q1 returns are close to profile, and that as a result, RDAs collectively are broadly on track to achieve their annual targets. When considering the figures below it is also worth bearing in mind the following points:
  Some RDAs have been focusing attention on developing partnerships or schemes that are expected to deliver the majority of their results in the latter part of the year.
  Since setting their annual targets some RDAs have identified new opportunities to deliver outputs and are consequently expecting to exceed their targets.
  All outputs are reported on a Gross Attributable basis. Jobs created as a result of Foreign Direct Investment are reported on a gross basis to Invest UK and have been excluded from the Employment Opportunities table, below.

  Table 1—Employment Opportunities: total number of job opportunities as a result of RDA activity—taking new and safeguarded jobs together.

  Tier 3

  Annual Target

  Output for quarter 1

  SWDA

  6,450

  597

  EEDA

  953

  270

  EMDA

  5,150

  340

  ONE

  7,449

  608

  NWDA

  14,532

  1,365

  SEEDA

  2,066

  716

  LDA

  14,450

  2,280

  AWM

  13,545

  423

  YF

  10,500

  1,262

  40WS
  Table 2—Business Performance: total number of new businesses added to the regional economy as a result of RDA activities.

  Tier 3

  Annual Target

  Output for quarter 1

  SWDA

  700

  26

  EEDA

  163

  84

  EMDA

  470

  33

  ONE

  406

  21

  NWDA

  804

  114

  SEEDA

  123

  17

  LDA

  990

  45

  AWM

  144

  7

  YF

  700

  61

  Table 3—Brownfield Land: total number if hectares of land remediated to an acceptable condition and/or recycled into effective use as a result of RDA inputs and activities.

  Tier 3

  Annual Target

  Output for quarter 1

  SWDA

  140

  7

  EEDA

  23

  0

  EMDA

  119

  20

  ONE

  117

  2

  NWDA

  442

  110

  SEEDA

  40

  7

  LDA

  30

  23

  AWM

  259

  72

  YF

  88

  4

  Table 4—Education and Skills: total number of learning opportunities and/or support provided or influenced as a direct result of RDA support.

  Tier 3

  Annual Target

  Output for quarter 1

  SWDA

  5,400

  2,240

  EEDA

  3,183

  665

  EMDA

  2,375

  441

  ONE

  18,014

  1,726

  NWDA

  32,792

  7,052

  SEEDA

  3,454

  631

  LDA

  8,700

  3,623

  AWM

  16,215

  1,487

  YF

  14,000

  2,408

  GLOSSARY OF TERMS

  ANNEX A

  Term

  Definition

  Corporate Plan

  RDA plans which set out how resources will be used to achieve the objectives set out in their Regional Economic Strategy.

  Gross

  All outputs directly attributable to projects or programmes

  Gross Attributable

  Gross outputs that are directly attributable to RDA input, i.e. the RDA share of the outputs.

  SWDA

  South West Development Agency

  EEDA

  East of England Development Agency

  41WS

  Term

  Definition

  EMDA

  Ease Midlands Development Agency

  ONE

  One NorthEast

  NWDA

  North West Development Agency

  SEEDA

  South East England Development Agency

  LDA

  London Development Agency

  AWM

  Advantage West Midlands

  YF

  Yorkshire Forward

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud (Islington)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Malcolm Wicks)
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) follow up inspection report on the London Borough of Islington was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on the London Borough of Islington in December 2000. The report found that the council had awarded a contract in 1998 to a company to deliver the benefit service on the council's behalf. However, the service was found to be totally inadequate, partly because of weaknesses in the contract but primarily because of the council's failure to manage or enforce it.

  This follow up report finds that the London Borough of Islington had attempted to address many of the concerns raised in the first inspection.

  The London Borough of Islington and its contractor were committed to improving the delivery of the benefit service, and were working closely to achieve this. Amendments to the contract had enabled the council to better manage the work of its contractor. Challenging targets had been introduced for the contractor, while comprehensive management information and a sound checking regime had been introduced to assist the council to monitor quality.

  There had been a significant reduction in the backlog of work and level of customer dissatisfaction since the first inspection. However, at the time of the follow up inspection, claimants were waiting an average of 16 weeks to have their claims dealt with mainly because the council had not tackled the underlying problem of managing the claims process.

  The council had significantly improved its counter fraud activities. It had a stable investigation team and it focused its efforts on the prosecution of fraudsters.

  There had been no tangible improvement in the area of overpayment recovery. Although the council and its contractor had developed a strategy to deal with overpayment recovery, the delay in implementing this had allowed the outstanding debt to rise by 47 per cent. in 2 years.

  The report concludes that the council had planted the seeds for improvement and now needed to ensure that it met its own expectations to deliver a quality benefit
  42WS
  service. The BFI saw promising prospects for the council and its contractor to deliver the significant improvements needed for customers to receive a prompt and accurate benefit service.

  In 2000–01, the London Borough of Islington administered approximately £122.4 million in housing benefits.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pet Travel Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliott Morley)
  On 1 July I indicated that the Government was minded to extend the very successful Pet Travel Scheme to the USA and Canada but would not do so until clarification had been obtained of some points raised in a peer review of a scientific assessment of the risk of importing rabies into the UK if the Pet Travel Scheme was extended to the USA and Canada.

  I am pleased to say that the further work I commissioned has confirmed the results of the earlier risk assessment; extending the Pet Travel Scheme to the USA and Canada will not significantly increase the risk of importing rabies. The Government has decided therefore to extend the Pet Travel Scheme to those countries.

  I have today laid before Parliament a Statutory Instrument giving effect to this decision. It will come into effect on Wednesday 11 December 2002. From that date cats and dogs from the USA, which comply with the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme can enter the UK without going into quarantine for six months. My officials are discussing with appropriate organisations the approval of routes and certification. Until these are available cats and dogs from the USA and Canada will have to spend a short time in quarantine—no more than 3–4 days, while all their documentation is checked. If the animal and documentation meets the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme the animal will qualify for early release from quarantine.

  The European Union is expected to adopt early next year a Regulation on the movement of pet animals. This is based on the same principles as the UK Pet Travel Scheme, which will then form part of the EU system, although we have obtained derogations to continue all aspects of our current scheme, such as the tick and tapeworm testing. Future decisions, about how animals arriving in the UK will be treated, will be dealt with under the procedure laid down in the Council Regulation, when adopted.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to the Isle of Man on Tuesday 26th November and Wednesday 27th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Teachers
2.36 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
For which subjects there is a shortage of teachers and what action they are taking to remedy any shortage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government have introduced measures to promote recruitment in all subjects, with special incentives for teachers of mathematics, science, modern languages, technology and English. Three years of rising recruitment to training and, this year, a 5 per cent fall in the number of secondary teacher vacancies have resulted. Moreover, our proposals for school workforce remodelling will enable schools to use their existing teachers more effectively by providing better support in the classroom.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I appreciate the work that my noble friend has just announced that is being done on some shortages and that there has been some success, but does she agree that in some subjects—which will vary, from time to time—we are likely to see shortages for some time to come? Is that not bound to affect the working and success of specialist schools, about which the Government are so madly keen? What happens to the status of a specialist school that loses most or all of its staff? Finally, will my noble friend confirm that specialist schools receive a one-off grant of £100,000 and £123 for every pupil? If so, does not the current criticism that they are creating a two-tier system of education appear to have some substance?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that was a wide-ranging question. Perhaps I may deal first with
366
the shortage subjects. I have been careful to check the figures. Vacancy numbers fell in all of those subjects: in mathematics by 20, in science by 18, in modern languages by 55, in technology by 20 and English by 40. That is good news, but, as always, the Government are not complacent and are keen to do more to ensure that more teachers enter and remain in the profession.
On my noble friend's second point, yes, we provide specialist schools with additional resources. With those rights come responsibilities to work closely with other schools in the area and with primary schools in particular. We do not accept that that is a two-tier system; it is about diversity in the system to ensure that we fulfil the talents of all our children.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that the Question concerns much more: it is about esteem in the public eye. The Government are unable to teach the nation that on their own. Nonetheless, are the Government aware of the extent to which urban schools, in particular, have difficulty recruiting teachers in a whole range of subjects, including religious education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords., we recognise the difficulties faced by some of our urban schools. I am pleased that that the teacher vacancy rate in London is now 2.7 per cent, which is down by 500 vacancies on last year. We recognise that RE is a subject where we must do more. In fact, recruitment to training in RE is up 3 per cent on last year, if we take into account the graduate training programme. I hope that that is some good news for the right reverend Prelate, but we are of course considering the matter.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, are there any signs yet that the employment of teaching assistants in schools will help to enhance the teaching profession, such that students who might and ought to be attracted to the teaching profession will be?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, makes an important point about the value of teaching assistants. We are beginning to see signs that teachers recognise that we are trying to ensure that they are there to teach and that teaching assistants—many schools have good teaching assistants in place—enable them to be supported in both their administrative and other duties within the classroom.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 7th February she gave an undertaking in an Answer to a Question of mine that a curriculum staffing survey would take place that would ascertain how many teachers were teaching subjects for which they were not qualified? She said that it would take place shortly, and further clarified that "shortly" meant "soon". However, is she aware that, since then, Mr Miliband, in a response to a Question from my honourable friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, said that that was not the only way to tackle the matter? Will the Minister clarify what the

367
Government are doing? Is the survey taking place and will it, as she said in February, be published early next year?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that question. I indeed promised that we would be able to publish the results by Easter 2003. We are on target to meet that pledge. The survey date is tomorrow.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as English is the most important subject for school children to master, will the Government ensure that there are sufficient well-qualified teachers to teach them English as it should be taught?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is part of our literacy strategy to ensure that we teach children high-quality English to enable them by key stage 2—by the age of 11—to use that backdrop, if noble Lords will forgive the use of that expression, to develop in the secondary curriculum. That is why we support additional resources for teachers who are willing to teach English. As I said in an earlier answer, the number of vacancies in English has dropped by 40.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the recent study by Liverpool University, which showed that more than 30 per cent of those completing teacher training did not enter employment as teachers during the 12 months after they left college? Will she comment on the extent to which those figures suggest a serious wastage of talent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the figures for students going into teacher training who do not end up in teaching are, as I understand it, reasonably comparable with other courses. Of course, we want to make sure that students who complete the course come into our education system and provide that quality of experience for our children. We are always looking to ensure that the training that teachers receive and the opportunities that they have when they come into schools enable them to be retained in the system. That is an important point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the National Union of Teachers, which has just produced a survey showing that there is chronic instability in schools? The number of teacher vacancies is vastly understated because of the number of temporary teachers and teachers on extremely short-term contracts. What percentage of teachers are temporary? What percentage of teachers are on a contract that lasts no more than one term?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the number of supply teachers in schools has fallen by 2,100. Tomorrow, we are conducting the survey that I described, and it will give us more detailed information on what is happening. I have carefully considered what
368
the NUT has said. We must be clear that our teacher numbers include some staff without qualified teacher status, as they did under previous governments. The increase in teachers with qualified teacher status since 1997 is 12,000, including full-timers and part-timers. We would take issue with the figures that the NUT has published.

Statues
2.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they possess powers to intervene if they consider that statues of national importance in London may be damaged by inappropriate methods of cleaning.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government do not possess powers to intervene in such circumstances. Forty-seven statues and monuments of national importance in London are cared for by English Heritage. The care of the remaining statues is the responsibility of the relevant local authority and, in a few cases, the Royal Parks Agency. English Heritage can offer advice and assistance to local authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. As the statues are, apparently, the responsibility of other bodies, will the Government—if they have not already done so—make contact with Mr Livingstone or others to make sure that the statues receive careful and correct cleaning, which may be expensive?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think the noble Lord refers to the statues on the fountain in Leicester Square. Those statues are the responsibility of Westminster City Council. Last year, the council invited English Heritage to examine the statues and find out why they were deteriorating. It appears that inappropriate cleaning methods were used by the council at some time in the past. The council was unable to say exactly when that was. It is taking the advice of English Heritage and producing a special conservation programme proposed by English Heritage to help to reduce the rate of decay.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us, in general terms, how often a statue must be cleaned? Who normally does it? What kind of materials would be used?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn says that it depends on the pigeons. I do not believe that it is possible to identify an average period after which statues need to be cleaned. It would depend on the statue and its location.

369
I repeat that the cleaning of statues is a matter, for the most part, for local authorities which usually have responsibility for them. In the case of the 47 which are the responsibility of English Heritage, that body takes the decision. I hope that statues will not be cleaned with totally inappropriate materials, as I gather happened in Leicester Square.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, when the noble Baroness speaks to Mr Livingstone on the matter of cleaning the statues, will she take the opportunity to remind him that the statue of Lord Napier and Ettrick, which he wishes to remove from Trafalgar Square, was erected with the pennies of private soldiers and that Lord Napier was a prominent supporter of the Chartist movement?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not be speaking to Mr Livingstone about the statues in Leicester Square. They are not his responsibility. This is, as I said, a matter for Westminster City Council. There would be a requirement on Mr Livingstone to get planning consent for the removal of Lord Napier—or anybody else—from Trafalgar Square. He would also have to get the appropriate consent to put the statue somewhere else. I shall certainly try to remind him about the Chartist connections.

Fireworks
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce regulations to control the misuse or inappropriate ignition of fire works.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, throwing fireworks is one of the offences covered in the fixed penalty notice scheme currently being piloted with some success in four police areas.
I am pleased to say that a voluntary ban on the sale of air-bombs has been agreed with the trade and will be implemented early in the new year. In the light of the large number of complaints about the misuse of fireworks, we have set up arrangements to monitor the problem in nine crime and disorder reduction partnerships, in order to establish what, if any, further measures might be required.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply; it is a relief to hear his words. I had feared that, because the reverberation of firework nuisance might be less obvious in Whitehall than in many other parts of the country, a less serious view would be taken.
Does my noble and learned friend accept that, in many other areas, the noise this year has been louder and more protracted? On eight of the nights that I have spent at home in the past six weeks, I have heard
370
disturbance from fireworks after midnight. On another occasion, people living within a square mile were disturbed by a firework party at 3.30 a.m. Last week, two ladies living three miles from my home were severely injured by a powerful rocket that should have been the property of the Royal Artillery, rather than being readily available to the criminally irresponsible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know whether fireworks have got louder this year than previous years, but my noble friend is not alone in the complaint that he has made. We have heard from a number of sources. There have been real problems in relation to fireworks this year, and before. As a result, on the 15th October the DTI announced a range of measures, including proposals to make air-bombs illegal, a voluntary agreement with the industry to ensure that fireworks are sold only during a specified period of the year and agreements in relation to what the noise level should be, in order to try to deal with the kind of issues to which my noble friend has referred. Plainly, it is an issue that is concerning more and more people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that last week, a quarter of a mile from where I live at Masham in North Yorkshire, a post-box was blown out of the wall? The bomb squad and the police were called and there was found to be a firework. The culprit has been found. He has a problem. Would the Minister agree that if fireworks get into the wrong hands they can be very dangerous?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of what happened in relation to the place a quarter of a mile from the noble Baroness's home. I do not know the detail of it. It sounds a remarkable firework that could blow up a post-box in that way. There is also an issue about illegal markets in fireworks: fireworks that do not comply with the regulations. The DTI has also announced a crackdown on illegal markets in relation to fireworks. It seems to me that it is just another example of the problems that there are with fireworks. We need to see the effect of our voluntary proposals and what the research from those nine crime and disorder reduction areas that I referred to in my initial Answer produces to see what more needs to be done.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, while none of us wants to be a spoilsport or promote the nanny state I am, nevertheless, glad that the Government recognise that there is a growing problem of anti-social behaviour in this particular area, requiring further analysis and, indeed, remedies. Will the Government consider bringing hooligan behaviour with fireworks within the scope of their anti-social behaviour legislation which is yet to come?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I indicated in my initial Answer that the fixed penalty notice applies already to fireworks. We need to consider whether we should reduce the age in relation to that. We shall

371
certainly consider whether in the anti-social behaviour Bill that was announced in the Queen's Speech, more could be done.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that trading standards officers have an important part to play in enforcing existing laws relating to the sale of fireworks to children? Is he aware that there is concern among trading standards officers that some of the funds supposed to be earmarked for that purpose are being diverted elsewhere and that they are not able to do the job as effectively as they would like to?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that local authority enforcement officers have a very significant role to play in relation to that. The more the issue goes up the agenda—the more that people express concern about it—I hope the more time and effort will be spent in relation to it. The licensing of people who sell fireworks is presently being considered by the Health and Safety Executive to see whether there should be a fit and proper person test included as well. That is another area that has been looked at to try to deal with the problem.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there were over 1,300 injuries to people in the year 2001? That is an increase of over 40 per cent. Is the Minister satisfied that environmental health officers have sufficient powers, advice and guidance so that they can take appropriate action?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, one of the issues looked at by the Health and Safety Executive is whether the licensing schemes currently work. If they make proposals in relation to changing the licensing scheme then we would look at that and that would obviously involve a change in the power of those officers.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that dogs, cats, babies and small children do not like fireworks, particularly noisy ones? Although it is very nice to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, this year there has been an open season for over a month with explosions every night.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the effect of fireworks on animals. There is provision in the Protection of Animals Act to make it an offence to throw fireworks deliberately at animals. That happens from time to time. As regards babies, I think it depends on the baby, and as regards small children, well, some small children quite like fireworks.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister know how long the monitoring in the nine
372
crime and disorder reduction areas will run for? When the report of the findings is finalised, will he undertake to put a copy in the Library?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may write to say the precise period of time that the monitoring will go on for. We shall also undertake to put in the Library the results of the monitoring.

Tax Harmonisation
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Wilcoxasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would support a move towards tax harmonisation within the European Union.
Lord. McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's view is that fair tax competition is the way forward for Europe, not proposals for tax harmonisation. The Government will not support any action at European level that would threaten jobs and investment or damage the competitive position of British business.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am not sure that I understand. Does he expect tax harmonisation to appear in the draft constitution being drawn up by the Convention on the Future of Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two answers to that. First, I understand that the work on the draft constitution has got only so far as the preparation of reports by working groups. Nothing conclusive has come out of that. The next stage would have to be that they would have to be accepted by the constitutional convention. Of course, if any change were proposed which would involve a change in the treaty—and this certainly would—we could and we would veto it.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a representative of your Lordships' House on the Convention on the Future of Europe, I remain constantly resolute concerning financial no-go areas such as tax harmonisation, as well as pursuing a more positive agenda to secure budget discipline and to maintain the United Kingdom rebate, as well as ensuring that the revenue side of a European budget is the responsibility of the Council of Ministers and the member states?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am encouraged to know that my noble friend is on message. Certainly, I know from his own conviction and experience that he agrees with us that there is scope for targeted changes in taxation to avoid unfair tax competition. However, that is different from tax

373
harmonisation in the sense that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, meant. We are against it and we will not allow it.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I support the Minister. Is there not something inconsistent in opposing all forms of tax harmonisation? It has been generally agreed that certain forms of government subsidies to industry are anti-competitive and undesirable. The same effect can be obtained by special tax incentives which can be equally uncompetitive. Is it not therefore desirable that while in general retaining unanimity about tax changes certain forms of harmful tax competition should be eliminated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that is what I just said—and not just because I said it. It is true. That is why, if we take the example of business taxation, ECOFIN has, over a number of years now, been pursuing targeted measures of the kind that I referred to, which would be helpful to business, which would avoid unfair tax competition, but would not involve compulsory harmonisation. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is entirely right.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am on or off message. I listened carefully to my noble friend's Answer. Would the Minister accept that, while taking the point he made, some tax harmonisation could be a positive benefit to the UK? Therefore, can I take it that he and the Treasury are not ruling out necessarily all forms of tax harmonisation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am in danger of repeating myself. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, had asked me that question and that I had answered it as well as volunteering the information. Yes of course there are some forms of unfair tax competition which are undesirable from a national point of view and from the point of view of business. If we can reach agreement on eliminating those forms of unfair tax competition and producing the fair tax competition to which I referred in my Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, it is to the advantage of all of us.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, are the Government not aware that it really will not matter whether they support any form of tax harmonisation if the Commission brings it forward as a single-market measure? If that happens, if we are outvoted and if the Luxembourg Court supports the Commission's use of the treaties, as it surely will, that will be that: we will be stuck with tax harmonisation of whatever form, whether we like it or not. Is not that what the treaties say?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is almost entirely wrong. No, on reflection I think that he is entirely wrong. Article 93, which is concerned with the harmonisation of indirect taxes for the purpose of the internal market,
374
to which the noble Lord is referring, can be implemented only by unanimity among member states.
Article 94, formally Article 100, which is concerned with direct taxation, provides only residual single-market powers; far fewer than Article 93. However, it too is constrained by the fact that it can he implemented only by unanimity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House where Britain stands in the rate of taxation? Do we pay more than other people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of the 15 member states in what the Opposition call the "tax burden" but which I prefer more accurately to call the "percentage of taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product"—and I assume that that is the definition to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, refers—we are 11th.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I hope that no one in Brussels is a reader of Hansard of your Lordships' House because the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Wilcox could result in our expulsion from the EU. Is he aware that the president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, not a working group, says that he identifies a clear consensus in the convention for the scrapping of national vetoes on tax and has issued this specific threat to countries such as ours which reject tax harmonisation:
"We should say",
that is, to countries such as ours,
"… you can no longer be in this political system. That will be the consequence of refusal"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, should not believe everything he reads in the Financial Times. The quotation from Mr Giscard d'Estaing is accurate, but my previous answer stands. Any change of the kind being suggested, whether on the Opposition Benches here or elsewhere, would require changes in the treaty. Changes in the treaty require unanimity among member states and we will not agree to any such change in the treaty. The question of expulsion therefore does not arise.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am pleased that we have just had a straight statement from the Minister that any attempt through the convention or through any other means to have tax harmonisation will be vetoed by this Government. Will the Minister confirm that, because I am a little worried that often Ministers make statements which are later altered? For example, the Government were not going to agree to a written constitution, to a single personality or a

375
permanent president of the European Council. All that has been changed. I hope that vetoing tax harmonisation will not go the same way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have spent a number of the past few minutes agreeing with the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Barnett, who said that elimination of an unfair tax competition is of benefit to this country and that we will support that. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wants an absolutely unequivocal statement by this Government that we will not agree to any measure which will bring our tax rates or tax base closer to that of other member states, he cannot have it.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does not the debate demonstrate why there is an urgent necessity to have a constitution for the EU? In the absence of such a constitution and of certainty on such matters, we engage in the same repetitive and debilitating discussions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respond to Questions which are put to me in this House. I would never call them repetitive or debilitating. However, the question of a European constitution is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Terrorism: NHS Preparedness
3.6 p.m.
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the National Health Service is adequately prepared to cope with terrorist attacks or disasters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the NHS has long experience of having to deal with the consequences of terrorism and major incidents. As the National Audit Office has acknowledged, since September 11th 2001 NHS preparations have been stepped up to ensure that we are as prepared as far as we can be in responding to a range of possible new threats, such as the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents. But there is no room for complacency and we have implemented a vigorous programme of action with the NHS to ensure that it makes the right preparations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the NAO report published last week painted a far-from-rosy picture of the extent to which acute hospitals and ambulance trusts, especially in London, are prepared for a major radioactive or biological incident? What steps are being taken to improve the training of key staff in the health service? In particular, what is being done to ensure the availability of the relevant equipment where it may be needed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we take the NAO report very seriously and I can assure the noble
376
Earl that we will be acting upon it. It is worth saying that the NHS has traditionally been very good at instant planning and coping with major disasters. But, as I said, clearly there can be no room for complacency. The NHS, like many healthcare systems throughout the world, must now face up to a major and testing challenge.
I do not believe that the assessment which the NAO reported was a self-assessment. It is not surprising that a number of NHS trusts and health authorities were cautious in terms of saying how well they are prepared. But of course we are working carefully with them to ensure that they are prepared as fully as possible. The training of personnel is a key element. Initial interim equipment was issued as soon as possible. By the end of this calendar year, equipment will be allocated to all appropriate staff who require it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in NHS disaster and emergency planning, it is clearly vital to ensure that we have the expert laboratories that we need to analyse, monitor and prevent biological and chemical threats. Will not the department's plans to dismember the Public Health Laboratory Service severely affect our ability to respond to disaster? Is it not high time that the Government rethought their plans?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. The purpose of creating a health protection agency is to bring together core services. The HPA will have a major role to play in employing regional health emergency planning advisers to ensure that the NHS response is effective. Those arrangements currently rest with a number of different bodies. Creating the HPA will mean a much more cohesive and co-ordinated approach.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the NHS has been preparing for emergencies and disasters on a regional basis, not only within that organisation itself but with other agencies such as the police, the fire service and the Army? Does the Minister further agree that there is need to train all personnel in how to handle disasters in a multi-ethnic situation? Is he aware that in the North West we are about to produce a CD-ROM containing information for NHS and other personnel on how to handle disasters in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was glad to hear of the initiative being taken in the North West. One recommendation of the NAO report is that the Department of Health should be more proactive in ensuring the circulation of good practice to the health service. That is an example of good practice which we can make known to the rest of the NHS.
As regards collaboration, I fully agree. We are not talking about the NHS acting in isolation. It works closely with other statutory bodies. There are good

377
working relationships. The Department of Health and the NHS are working at international level to ensure that we share ideas and approaches across the world.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important considerations for terrorists is to try to do as much damage to public morale as possible? Is he ensuring that, in the preparations for the material action that might be taken in the NHS, particular consideration is given to how the media are handled in any such situation? We have had evidence recently of the Government's problem in this respect. I hope that there is clear guidance to individual general managers or others as to how they should handle such situations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord's comments. The NAO recommended that advice should be given to all NHS organisations about how they handle communications with the media. It makes the important point that, particularly at local level, the different organisations—the NHS, the police, the fire service and local authorities—need to handle this together so that a coordinated message goes out to the public. We shall be taking that forward and issuing guidance and advice to the NHS.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that more and more patients who are very ill are coming to accident and emergency departments? What is the reason for that? If there is an emergency or a disaster, will there be enough beds to cope with the extra people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point to the pressure faced by some A&E departments. The short answer is that no one is certain as to why there has been an increase in the number of patients coming through A&E departments. I suspect that it is due to a combination of reasons, including demographic factors. A number of initiatives are taking place in the NHS which are improving the way in which patients are dealt with in A&E departments. As regards capacity, last year saw the first increase for many years in the numbers of general and acute beds. We are working very hard to increase capacity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, who in Whitehall is responsible for co-ordinating and dealing with a national response to disaster planning? When did a committee last meet to discuss these matters?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not know. There is a cross-government committee which meets on a regular basis. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise time and date of its last meeting, but its membership embraces all the relevant government departments. So far as concerns the Department of Health, we have a clear line of accountability from the department down to various parts of the National Health Service.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was in touch with his office some weeks
378
ago to ask what preparations had been made with regard to the provision of, for example, smallpox vaccine to large organisations and institutions such as boarding schools? I have yet to receive a reply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not received a reply. I shall make sure that a reply is sent as soon as possible.

Privileges Committee
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Moved, That a Select Committee he appointed to consider economic affairs;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Barnett,

L. Burns,

L. Elder,

B. Hogg,

L. Newby,

L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Paul,

L. Peston (Chairman),

L. Roll of Ipsden,

L. Sheppard of Didgemere,

L. Vinson;

That the committee have power to appoint a subcommittee and to refer to such sub-committee any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairman of such sub-committee;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on such sub-committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Economic Affairs Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Campbell of Alloway,

V. Craigavon,

B. Fookes,

L. King of West Bromwich,

L. Luke,

L. Sandberg,

B. Wilkins.

Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Clinton-Davis,

V. Colville of Culross,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Kimball,

B. Pitkeathley,

B. Scott of Needham Market,

L. Strathclyde,

B. Wilcox,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal);

That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Faulkner of Worcester,

B. Knight of Collingtree,

L. Templeman,

B. Thomas of Walliswood,

L. Wilberforce.

Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Cope of Berkeley,

L. Craig of Radley,

380

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Grocott,

L. Mackay of Clashfern,

L. Marsh,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Wigoder,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal);

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any sub-committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.15 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Baroness Turner of Camden—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to open this important debate on the gracious Speech.
I shall outline my department's two key legislative proposals, one of which is a joint Bill with the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall also cover the content of the nuclear reform Bill coming forward from the Department of Trade and Industry, and the priorities for economic policy, which my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will discuss at greater length when he replies to the debate.
I should also like to take this opportunity to reflect on what this Government are doing to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries.
Both the Communications Bill and the Licensing Bill in the gracious Speech demonstrate the Government's commitment to better regulation and to reducing regulatory burdens for industry where possible.
After a long gestation period—it has been just under two years since we issued the White Paper—the Government have today published the Communications Bill. This Bill will help to achieve our

381
objective of creating the most dynamic and competitive communications industry in the world. It will ensure universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality, while also safeguarding the interests of consumers and citizens.
The communications industries play a central role in our economy and in our lives as citizens, consumers, viewers and listeners. The Bill will put in place a framework to respond to the great challenges as well as to the tremendous opportunities in the communications markets.
The Bill will give powers to a single regulator, Ofcom, which will be responsible for the whole of the communications market. It will reform the rules on media ownership: deregulating significantly to promote competition and investment, but retaining a core set of rules that ensure the existence of a range of media voices, safeguarding the vibrancy of democratic debate.
We will not let broadcasting standards or quality slip, but we will not allow excessive regulation to stifle innovation and creativity. The Bill will give public service broadcasters greater freedom to regulate themselves in certain areas. It provides for the demands of the digital age; and it will, through the content board, ensure that the public have a formal voice in the debate about the nature and quality of television and radio programmes.
The Bill will give Ofcom concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading to enforce general competition law in the communications sector; and it will enable spectrum tracling—ensuring that we make the most efficient use of this valuable resource. Importantly, it also implements the EC directives on electronic networks and services.
The Communications Bill responds to the communications environment today—and will respond to the communications environment of tomorrow.
That brings me to the second of my department's legislative proposals. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that our current licensing laws are outdated and complex. The Licensing Bill announced in the gracious Speech will reform and modernise the licensing regime.
Our proposals will deliver more choice for the consumer and reduced cost and bureaucracy for the leisure, hospitality and tourism industries while securing the necessary safeguards to protect the interests of the wider community.
The Bill will introduce a single integrated scheme for licensing premises which sell alcohol or provide public entertainment or refreshment late at night. It will cut red tape, streamline procedures and deliver substantial savings of nearly £2 billion in the first 10 years. Businesses will be able to apply for a single premises licence to cover all their activities that require licensing. Police, fire authorities and other responsible bodies will be consulted on each application. Local residents and businesses will have the chance to have a say in any new application and to request that existing licences be reviewed. Only in cases where
382
representations are made will hearings be required, stripping away the overheads of compulsory court hearings.
Although the Bill is deregulatory, it is also responsible. The potential for up to 24-hour opening seven days a week will not only increase consumer choice but help minimise public dlisorder resulting from artificially fixed closing times and encourage a more civilised culture in pubs, bars and restaurants. While recognising that introducing young people to alcohol in a safe and measured way will help deter them from drinking to excess later in life, the Bill also includes tough measures to protect children.
In addition to the two Bills proposed in the gracious Speech, my department is working to reduce burdens and cut red tape in other important areas. The Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002 will extend licensing hours for all future New Year's Eves and do away with the need for licensees to apply separately to extend their hours. The order has been reported on positively at the first stage by the regulatory reform Select Committees of both Houses. The Government will do all they can to ensure that the order is in place for this New Year's Eve.
Earlier this year, we published plans for thorough reform of the law on gambling. Our proposals are intended to sweep away unnecessary regulations, which date from an era in which gambling was viewed as socially undesirable. However, we are determined to ensure that there are effective controls to keep gambling crime-free, to ensure fairness to participants and to protect children and the vulnerable. We want to bring about a new and better balance of regulation. We will, therefore, over the coming months, continue to develop these proposals in consultation with interested bodies with a view to introducing a. major gambling Bill when parliamentary time allows, in a future parliamentary Session.
My department is also continuing its commitment to champion the tourism industry. We have put in place an ambitious plan with three main elements: a relaunched national tourist organisation that combines the expertise of tourism bodies in this country and cuts down on core costs; the embedding of tourism deeply into regional economic development strategies through the regional development agencies; and pledging an additional £10 million in challenge funds for the promotion of England to the domestic market. We aim to develop a competitive and sustainable tourism industry, which will in turn encourage people from Britain and abroad to take their holidays here.
More widely, we will also be taking forward our plans to give people of all ages and backgrounds increased cultural and sporting opportunities. The arts have the potential to enrich all our lives. The Government recognise this and are committed to creating better pathways for individuals to develop and enjoy their artistic and creative potential throughout their lives, from the starting point of education through to professional excellence. In 2003–04, my department's funding for the arts will rise

383
to £297 million—£100 million more than in 1997–98. By 2005–06, this will have risen to £412 million—73 per cent higher in real terms than in 1997–98. The restructuring of the Arts Council will mean that more of this money will go directly to the arts. The establishment of a new single development and funding body for England will realise significant savings in administration that will be ploughed back into the arts. Creative Partnerships demonstrates what we are trying to achieve in the arts. This will be the first full year of the scheme. Pupils and teachers in more than 360 schools in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country will get the opportunity to work on creative projects with artists, museum and gallery curators, architects, film-makers and fashion designers. Our highly successful policy of free access has meant the number of children attending our sponsored museums and galleries increased by one-third—from 5 million in 1999 to around 7 million by March 2003—a year ahead of target. We will continue to allow people of all ages free access.
The Government have also begun the process of ensuring that every young person has the opportunity to participate in sport. They are developing a clear and structured pathway to enable young people to receive the help and support they need in order to reach their true potential. The Prime Minister's announcement last month of a £459 million investment over the next three years in PE and school sports demonstrates our commitment in this area. This investment will provide opportunities for all children, irrespective of their circumstances or background, to benefit from improved teaching and coaching in schools and stronger links between schools and community sports clubs. We aim to deliver a national infrastructure for school sports by establishing 400 specialist sports colleges by 2005 and by creating 400 school sports coordinator partnerships by 2007. The Government have also committed £28 million from the recent spending review into developing coaching. We aim to provide a career structure, accredited qualifications and a career development structure for coaches.
I cannot cover everything that my department will be doing but I hope I have given a flavour of our key priorities.
The Department of Trade and Industry proposes the nuclear reform Bill. Cleaning up the nuclear legacy represents a huge managerial, technical and environmental challenge that we cannot ignore and in which, as citizens, we all have a direct interest. The White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy - A strategy for action published in July made clear that the Government's priority is to ensure that clean-up is carried out safely, securely and cost-effectively. It also made clear that this must be done in ways that protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. It underlined our commitment to driving work forward in the context of management arrangements that are open, transparent and command public confidence. The response to the White Paper has been very positive and generally endorsed the proposed approach. In line with the
384
commitment to openness and transparency, we intend to publish draft implementing legislation in the spring so that stakeholders generally have the opportunity to comment. Following consultation, legislation will be put before the House at the first available opportunity.
Finally, I shall discuss the Government's key priorities in building a strong and dynamic economy. The basis of all that we have achieved, and all that we will achieve, is a stable macro-economic environment.
This Government have worked hard to achieve a reputation for competence in the management of the economy. We made tough decisions in our first term, but they worked. So, today inflation is low and stable, long-term interest rates are around their lowest levels since the 1960s, public finances are sound, the unemployment claimant count continues to be below 1 million, for the first time since 1975, and employment is at record rates. Nearly all commentators expect continued growth with low inflation in the UK economy. The IMF has said that our,
"track record of sound policy design and implementation in recent years bodes well for continued success in a more uncertain world economy."
This Government will take no risks with economic policy. We will never take stability for granted. We will maintain our discipline in managing the public finances and will consistently meet our tough fiscal rules. It is because of our prudent handling of the economy that we have been able to provide the substantial extra resources for key public services set out in the 2002 spending review.
The Government are committed to ensuring that existing spending and these new resources are targeted to deliver value for money and achieve the improvements that the public both want and expect. Resources must be matched with reform to deliver results, in which the modernisation of public service delivery is crucial.
Macro-economic stability means certainty for individuals and for businesses—the right environment to plan and invest. That certainty is important. That is why this Government have set out clearly our policy on the euro; a policy that we have followed consistently since 1997. The Government's policy on UK membership of EMU remains unchanged. It remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, and repeated by the Prime Minister in February 1999.
In principle the Government are in favour of UK membership of EMU; in practice the economic conditions must be right. The determining factor underpinning any government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest, and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. The Government are committed to completing an assessment of the five economic tests by June 2003.
Support for business, enterprise for all within a dynamic modern economy, is an important theme running through this Government's policy. Onto a

385
platform of macro-economic stability we have introduced a series of targeted micro-economic reforms aimed at improving productivity and creating a culture of enterprise. That means a low tax environment for business, and targeted reforms aiming to address the five key drivers of performance: enterprise; investment; innovation; competition; and skills.
The tax cuts for small business in the Budget of 2002, the research and development tax credit, the investment in skills in the spending review, are an expression of our commitment to an innovative, enterprising, entrepreneurial society, where everyone has the chance to reach his full potential.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to building a modern, dynamic and competitive society but also to safeguarding the interests of consumers and citizens. The programme that I have outlined today supports that aim.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Baroness for so clearly setting out the Government's view of the areas that we shall debate today. I have no idea whether the juxtaposition of economics and culture will be a success, but it does not really matter. When one looks at the distinguished speakers on the list, it is clear that we shall haw an excellent debate to which I am very much looking forward.
If noble Lords will allow me, I shall concentrate on the wider economic issues raised by the gracious Speech. When my noble friend Lady Buscombe sums up the whole debate for these Benches, she will go further into the aspects directly affecting the noble Baroness's department.
It is always a privilege to be in your Lordships' House to hear the gracious Speech. This year, it was also an education. It helps to explain why, after six Budgets, three spending reviews, six gracious Speeches, and thousands of pages of worthy aims and objectives, this radiantly intelligent and well-meaning group of individuals—I refer to the Front Bench opposite and their government colleagues—all blazing with high hopes, could have fallen to the point where, when asked to pick the one word that best describes their attitude to the Government, people now choose, "disillusionment". Why? One Downing Street official answered:
"We've running a Soviet-style centralised system and that's never going to work".
Doctors confirm that the physical failures of our bodies today can often be explained by genetic defects inherited from a previous generation. So perhaps I may take noble Lords back to 1st October 1928, a seminal moment in the history of the Benches opposite, and a red letter day in the history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was the day on which the first Soviet five-year plan was launched.
The hopes of the Communists were high. At street corners, in factories and in villages, they would harangue the crowds and tell them of the plan and how
386
its fulfilment would bring them health and happiness. Experts and scientists hurried from all parts of the Soviet Union. Conferences were held to draw up a tremendous plan for the development of the state for the next five years, under the auspices of the state planning commission.
In its initial form, the plan prescribed 50 targets for industry and agriculture; for example, it was laid down that the average number of eggs eaten per head a the population between 1st October 1932 and 30th September 1933 was to be 155. The allowance of hoots was to increase from 0.4 of a pair in 1927–28 to 0.7 of a pair in 1932–33. They succeeded in the plan. In agriculture the percentage of crop area owned by the state rose from 33 per cent in 1930 to 94 per cent in 1935. And what happened? By 1932, grain production fell by nearly 250 million hundredweights; sugar beet fell by half; the number of horses fell by 55 per cent; horned cattle fell by 40 per cent; the number of pigs fell by 55 per cent; and sheep by 66 per cent.
The human and economic consequences were appalling. Millions perished in the ensuing famine. The death toll for the period 1931–33 was around seven million. There was no relief for the starving. In fact, the existence of the famine was officially denied. Viktor Kravchenko, then an officer in the GPU, recalls the position:
"We've eaten everything we could lay our hands on—cats, dogs, field mice, birds. When it's light tomorrow you will see the trees have been stripped of their bark, for that too has been eaten".
We are not eating mice, yet, in Britain today but no one can doubt that, as the Downing Street official said, we are moving towards a command economy in which the life cycle of firms and institutions and the coordination between them are governed by administrative means—directives and regulations—rather than by the individuality of a market mechanism.
Apparently, economists say that the most distinctive feature of such an economy is the setting of targets by higher command, often in fine detail. Today, every document that emanates from the new glittering palace of the Treasury is strewn with initiatives, imperatives, and targets. The 2002 comprehensive spending review contains 130 different performance targets. Each sets a new standard in length and verbosity. The jargon is impenetrable in places. New names have been assigned to almost every existing process and institution. Of course, to monitor these targets, new bodies, units and task forces are necessary.
So the NHS now has the well-meaning assistance of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Modernisation Agency, national service frameworks and the Commission for Health Improvement. In the asylum system there will be a new police standards unit, new health, social care and housing inspectorates, and a reformed inspection regime for the criminal justice system.
Throughout the public services the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will have new reviews and reports, targets, procedures and checks, as well as

387
inspectors and audits. So the Department for Education and Skills now has 18 targets, the Home Office has 20, and the NHS Plan contains 400. But in this climate of administrative controls difficulties with supply, frequent revision of plans, interference by party and other authorities, problems of motivation, accountability, inappropriate decision making, and divergent interests all complicate the procedure and stand in the way of efficient and effective operation. This is the model of inefficiency that is being rolled out across the public services. Results? According to the Government, 75 per cent of the performance targets that they set themselves in the year 2000 have been missed.
We should ask: what happens to those who miss their targets? For a lucky few, that can be good news because, in that immortal Downing Street phrase, it provides:
"Increased room for catch up".
Others receive a much more brutal sanction for failure. Let us take, for example, the fate of MAFF. the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Its punishment? To be renamed DEFRA—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and given new targets. In other cases, the penalty for a department that misses its target is even simpler: a lower target.
Noble Lords may say that only a sad person would keep track of all this, but here I am. In 1998, for example, the Department for Education—which last year issued 4,440 pages of rules to schools—had as a target,
"to reduce the number of half-days lost to truancy by 44 per cent by 2002".
Here we are in 2002, but the target has been missed. What is the new target? It is,
"a 10 per cent reduction in truancy to be achieved by … 2004".
In 1998, the Home Office had as a target,
"to double the number of removals of failed asylum seekers by 2002".
The department missed that, so its new target is.
"to enforce the immigration laws more effectively".
In its recent report, the Audit Commission asked former public service professionals why they had left. Easily topping the list was,
"too much bureaucracy and paperwork",
cited by almost 80 per cent of those interviewed. It is immediately obvious to any of us speaking to anyone working in the health service, schools, universities or the police what a demoralising and all-pervasive problem bureaucracy and paperwork have become.
On his first day in office, the new chairman of the Audit Commission found that people in the public services were,
"being swamped by performance indicators and audits and inspections. Too much micro-meddling",
he said, was,
"counter-productive … demoralising and demotivating for staff".
388
The first Russian masterplanners would have immediately stamped out such insolence. Unfortunately for the Government, however, there are too many inside critics for that solution to be practicable. For example, people such as Professor Jonathan Waxman, cancer specialist at Hammersmith hospital have bravely stood up for the Audit Commission's findings. He said:
"Money is wasted in the proliferation of bureaucracy. The new money for cancer is going into process".
Two weeks ago, Ian Bogle, of the British Medical Association, told the Public Administration Committee in another place what the 400 targets and 9,000 senior managers—in 87 different grades—are doing to the NHS. He said that managers are,
"having to reach targets at all costs",
and,
"are taking measures that are not acceptable. There is the diverting of ambulances to lower priority cases, the hidden waiting lists, not putting patients on waiting lists, re-designation of trolleys as beds on wheels".
Speaking of how the figures are compiled, I should like to make a specific request of the government Front-Benchers. Next week, the Chancellor will publish his Pre-Budget Report, with which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will deal in this House. As the noble Lord is well aware, there are many questions about how the figures for government debt are compiled in relation to the PFI and PPP. Next Wednesday, when the Pre-Budget Report is published, will he and the Chancellor also publish a clear and simple analysis of the current financial status of the PFI and PPP? As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, it is impossible to arrive at the current position from published sources. I hope that he will reflect the mood of the times—for openness, full disclosure and transparency—when it comes to the public accounts. I hope that we can look forward to such a statement next week.
Again on the subject of figures, would Front-Benchers opposite be kind enough to consider this textbook definition—-from a textbook on economics—of a Soviet command economy? Will they ask themselves whether it sounds at all familiar? Let us also recall that this Government have issued a press release every four minutes since they came to office. The description is as follows:
"Informed public discussion in a country implementing this model is impossible because reliable statistics are not published, extensive use is made of misleading statistics and there is a comprehensive pre-publication censorship. Public discussion is dominated by 'the propaganda of success', that is, the suppression of 'negative' facts and publication only of 'positive' facts and also of purely imaginary achievements".
That sounds slightly familiar, does it not?
The record seems to show that the Government, well-intentioned though they may be, are unable hampered by their Soviet command approach—to bring about the improvements that people want to see. A poll conducted by MORI reveals the depth of disquiet after the previous six gracious Speeches. Some 37 per cent of people now think that most or nearly everyone will end up paying for private schools; 56 per

389
cent believe the same about private healthcare; 59 per cent about private welfare insurance; and 66 per cent about private pensions. In a Consumers' Association survey, 40 per cent of the public said that, in the face of NHS delays, they were willing to pay for private treatment, even if they had no health insurance and had to pay for treatment out of their own pocket.
People know that the Government's Soviet command approach is bound to fail, as it did for the poor Russians. The story of Hamlet shows what happens when a well-intentioned but misguided man is let loose on the world. That story tells of,
"a great t ask placed upon a soul unequal to the performance of it".
What is the result? As Goethe put it:
"Like an oak tree planted in a costly vase … the roots spread out, the base is shivered into pieces".
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: Well, my Lords—
Noble Lords: Follow that!
Lord McNally: My Lords, it makes one feel plum inadequate, does it not? At any rate, I am jolly glad for that history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I suppose that we should all be relieved that the Conservatives have now reached 1928 in their economic studies. I suspect that their next new policy initiative will be to come off the gold standard.
I do not think that the gracious Speech quite yet qualifies for the term "a range of exhausted volcanoes", but, on listening to it, it struck me as a rather dull and technocratic speech as the type of thing which grey bureaucrats would produce for an interim government, rather than as a radical agenda for a government of conscience and reform. Indeed, the only vision that the speech provides in some of its law and order proposals is the type that one might get at a Surrey golf club on a Sunday morning.
I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in his economic analysis; as noble Lords who have looked at my CV will know, I am in fact a BSc Econ. I should, however, perhaps add that when I received my degree and went to see my economics professor to ask him for a reference for a job I was seeking. he said, "Tom, I will give you a reference for any job you apply for so long as you never describe yourself as an economist". It was a deal that I made and a promise that I have kept to this day. Nevertheless, even with that little experience—and as we shall perhaps see as this debate unfolds—I have come to believe that economists are men trained to predict the past. The only comment about economics with which I really agree is that by the noble Lord, Lord Healey—that there are only two kinds of Chancellors: the failures and those who got out in time.
I shall not address in detail the economic aspects of this debate. However, as I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in the Chamber, and that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is ready to speak later in the debate, I cannot resist reminding them and
390
other noble Lords of our debate on 22nd May, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, moved his Public Services (Disruption) Bill, to which I gave a little support. I recommend that debate to the House; indeed, the reply for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was an exercise in complacency that should become a classic study. The complacency which we saw six months ago about dangers and disruption to our public services is the chicken that has now come home to roost for the Government.
I shall not twist the tail of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, too much I hope that I can leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—but I remind him that, in that debate in May, he promised us tI7 at a review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 would begin in June. Will he tell us in his reply how that review is progressing and when it will be published? I shall leave the other economics issues for my noble friend Lord Newby to address in winding up.
I shall deal with two areas of the gracious Speech. First, there is the Licensing Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred. In the main we welcome it. All parties in the past 10 or 20 years: lave supported the gradual deregulation of our leisure industries by removing from the statute book those pieces of legislation that the noble Baroness rightly said were aimed mainly at making moral judgments. Governments tried to legislate for how people should behave, rather than taking the view, as became the practice under the previous Administration, and as has been carried on, rightly, by this one, that people should have the right to choose how they spend their leisure time and their disposable income without governments trying to make moral judgments.
However, there is a difficulty and contradiction in the gracious Speech. The first half deals rightly with taking the most firm action against anti-social behaviour. The linkage between alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour is beyond doubt. I worry whether we have the right measure of joined-up government to ensure that the consequences of deregulation and its impact on anti-social behaviour will be properly considered. When the Bill is debated, we shall have to consider carefully its impact. It is all right giving people the freedom to drink until dawn, but that must not make it a living hell for residents in the vicinity. It is interesting that both Amsterdam and Dublin—cities with a reputation for being open-allhours—are now looking at the problems for residents that are caused not least by parties of young visitors who are there to enjoy the freedoms available. We shall have to consider that balance carefully when we debate the Bill in this House.
The other legislation to which I want to refer is the Communications Bill. I had the pleasure and honour of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the pre-legislative committee. I look forward to the contributions later in the debate of the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Crickhowell, who were comrades-in-arms on the committee. We made a commitment to make a good Bill better. I have not had a chance to look at the Bill in detail—it has only been

391
published today…but I can tell the Minister that the commitment from these Benches is to make it better still in the next few months.
The committee quickly realised that the world is divided into "techies" and "fluffies". In dealing with the "techies" and the technological developments in the industry, we were convinced that the combination of powers contained in the Communications Bill and the competition and enterprise Acts would lead to the vigorous competitive regime that the noble Baroness said was the Government's aim. At the other end—dealing with the so-called "fluffies" of television, broadcasting and radio—we need to have a more interventionist role.
Recently the Independent Television Commission said that
"the Communications Bill will shape the economic, social and cultural potential of the sector".
I agree, but I would go further. The Bill which is about to come before Parliament will shape the economic, social and cultural potential of everyone, in the same way as the creation of the BBC did three quarters of a century ago. The establishment of the BBC as a public corporation under Royal charter, with a remit to inform, educate and entertain, had an impact on our democracy, culture and national identity for the rest of the 20th century.
Although our approach is far from being: the BBC, right or wrong, we want a strong, independent BBC to emerge from the Bill and the review of the charter. The BBC is already under attack. Mr John Whittingdale again referred to the licence fee as a poll tax. I prefer the definition of the Secretary of State that it is a venture capital for all Britain's creative industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was reported in the Observer as being critical of Mr Greg Dyke for his commercial thrust, while ignoring the fact that it was the Government who asked the BBC to be more commercial at the time of the previous settlement. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is not in his place because the Observer described him as a "broadcasting expert". I know the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey; Lord Lipsey is my friend; Lord Lipsey is no broadcasting expert—except in the way in which this House has 600 broadcasting experts, with another 600 down the Corridor. That has always been a problem when debating broadcasting. We are all experts.
When the Bill comes before Parliament, we shall see its shape. We shall have to discuss issues, such as the settlement for local radio. I welcome the greater flexibility and look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. Beyond the various precise issues, such as foreign ownership, the role of must offer-must carry and intricate issues that we shall be discussing, we must realise that there will be massive vested interests putting great stakes on the table with great winnings at the end. I am thinking of Mr Rupert Murdoch. What I admire most about him is that he looks after his shareholder interests. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the Government guard the public interest as assiduously as Mr Murdoch guards his shareholder interests.
392
One thing that came out of the Puttnam Committee was the idea that we should encourage self-regulation in advertising, the Internet and the print media. The Bill will offer the opportunity for accredited self-regulation to look at the objectives, independence, transparency and accountability of self-regulating bodies. I firmly believe that the Press Complaints Commission should have such a relationship with Ofcom. That would not be a slippery slope to press licensing but a firm basis on which to underpin a free and diverse press.
I do not believe that the Bill and the way in which we handle it should be a party matter. The Liberal Party took an early interest in broadcasting in its relationship with Marconi.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am glad that there are a few historians in the House.
The Conservative Party has a proud history on broadcasting. It was a Conservative government who introduced the BBC; they created ITV with a strong public service remit and a regional basis; and it was a Conservative government who created Channel 4. There is no reason to have a holier-than-thou attitude on this matter. We must realise that the Bill will shape our cultural identity and democracy into the 21st century. I look back on the creation of the BBC and see the impact that it had on our society for the rest of the 20th century.
I believe that this Parliament has a similar responsibility in looking ahead to the impact that communications will have on our society. I believe that this House in particular, with its independence and its experience, can have a tremendous impact on making this good Bill better still.
4 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I will, if I may, restrict myself to commenting on the merits of the Communications Bill, having always known that, if the good Lord spared me long enough, the day would come when I could be of service to this House by speaking to a subject on which I could offer at least a modicum of knowledge and experience.
In truth, much of this knowledge is comparatively new found as a direct result of having enjoyed the privilege of chairing a committee of both Houses scrutinising the Communications Bill in its draft form. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary commitment shown by every member of that committee towards making as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said—a good Bill a darn sight better. Judged by any measure, the work they put in was heroic. I feel that I learnt more in those all too brief 12 weeks than in the whole of my 30-year professional career. As a committee we were supported by a parliamentary team with qualities that, were it only possible to distil and bottle them, would assure this nation's economic and political future.

393
Turning to the Bill itself, I have at this stage no more than half a dozen issues to bring to your Lordships' attention. The first is a very general point. There is at present a lazy tendency to confuse or conflate the rights of consumers, customers and citizens. These are not necessarily the same although it seems to suit different people for different reasons at different times to believe so. That confusion was all too evident in the draft Bill and, in fairness, efforts have been made to improve matters. But I need not remind your Lordships that while the rights of consumers and customers remain important, with regard to the dissemination of information it is the rights of the citizen that are absolutely paramount. This issue, or distinction, is one that throughout the passage of this Bill it may be necessary for your Lordships rigorously to scrutinise.
Another significant and worrying hole in the Bill is the lack of concrete provision for the funding of the competition component of Ofcom. I, no doubt along with others, will go into that concern in a good deal more detail when the legislation eventually finds its way to this House. We may well discover that the Government have found the means to put the necessary corrective measures in place. But, should that not be the case, the great good sense of this House will undoubtedly be brought to bear on this crucial, if somewhat complex, issue.
Much has been made, although not by me, of the emotive subject of so-called "foreign ownership". I think that our committee got it about right in recommending an "evidence-based" pause prior to a decision by Ofcom. However, to their credit, the Government moved quickly and, to a considerable degree, stole our clothes. A tightening of the existing regulations together with the anticipated outcome of the programme supply review to be published by the ITC next week are likely between them to have the effect of accommodating at least 95 per cent of my concerns. Every single instinct for good order would normally persuade me in the direction of reciprocity, but on this occasion we have far bigger fish to catch, and I for one prefer to keep my hook well baited.
One fish, or should I say shark, that will come swimming past revolves around the future of Channel 5 and cross-media ownership more generally. Without setting out their reasons the Government have chosen to reject the Joint Committee's recommendation that the,
"prohibition on common ownership of a major Newspaper Group and Channel 5, should be retained".
Their thinking may well be immaculate, but it will need to be far better explained, far more evidential and extremely convincing before it is likely to find its way into the hearts and minds of many in this House.
Speaking of hearts and minds, I finally turn to the issue that has unequivocally excited the most positive response from all sides of this House. It concerns the committee's unanimous recommendations in respect of a plurality test in the case of mergers and take-overs. If I am lo judge correctly from the feedback that I have received, your Lordships seem to find it inexplicable that a so-called Communications Bill could be
394
published with so little attention being paid to the newspaper industry. We have, in our report, set out a number of recommendations which, taken together, would have the effect of persuading Britain's newspaper proprietors and their editors to join the rest of us in this difficult and demanding 21st century—-a century, as they consistently and correctly remind us, typified by an ever more encompassing commitment to accountability and an unswerving belief in sustaining the trust of the electorate.
As the son of a journalist I bow to no one in my commitment to a free press, but in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, in her remarkable Reith lecture,
"The press has no licence to deceive; and we have no reason to think that a free press needs such licence".
The Bill, as published, has taken a late stab in this direction. But our committee went further. We sought to require not only,
"accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion".
but also to establish,
"a clear differentiation between the two".
In a well-run world we should have no need to require it, but, sadly, obfuscation has in this respect been promoted to something close to an art form.
Additionally, the committee envisaged its plurality test being used not only for newspaper mergers but also for media ownership generally and, most specifically, cross-media ownership. In this sense our form of plurality test could well be the long-term solution to a seemingly intractable set of public policy issues.
I sincerely hope that, through the passage of the Bill, our great press barons and those who serve them will find it possible to navigate their way to a form of accountability not dissimilar from that which, day after day, they require of all others engaged in public life.
I have only one or two other relatively minor quibbles with the Bill as it stands, but nothing that a combination of good argumentation, cross-party support and tenacity cannot put right. I have for a number of years looked forward to the establishment of a genuinely powerful and committed regulator. Ofcom, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has the opportunity to be exactly that. And we in this House have the expertise and the ability to ensure that he receives an unencumbered mandate to get the job done and done well.
This is a good Bill which could, with help, become possibly even a great Bill. I look forward to supporting its passage through this House.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it would be a privilege at the worst of times to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is not so much an éminence grise as a roi soleil of the culture and media world, but this is, of course, the best of times, following not only his speech but also his distinguished

395
chairmanship of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Communications Bill, and, therefore, my privilege is the greater, if under mildly false pretences.
In line with pre-Queen's Speech guidance, I appear in the batting order among what, to paraphrase the late Claude Raines in the film "Casablanca", might be described as some of the usual noble culture and media suspects in your Lordships' House and I acknowledge my place on the charge sheet as a discharged layabout (albeit noble) from the old Department of National Heritage, but I had sought to indicate an intention to speak primarily on economic affairs.
I have no problems with the hybrid mix of today's debate for it is now a commonplace of conventional wisdom that there will be further convergence of sectors such as financial services, utilities, media and telecommunications in the future, but I shall shortly diverge on to the economy. I am conscious, however, that personal past form means long hours ahead on the remaining stages of the Licensing Bill and the Communications Bill.
Of the latter, I recognise its seminal importance, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward, as have other noble Lords. Of the former, I must offer advance apologies to the Minister who opened this debate that I shall be in Manchester on Tuesday with the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and therefore will miss the Second Reading of the Bill but also the opportunity then to animadvert on the Bill being a DCMS Bill when that is also the department responsible for tourism. Residents in inner cities, at least, have interests that can conflict with excessive and disproportionate leisure spending, and I am not clear, especially after seeing the department's guidance notes that accompany Clause 177, who in that department is the champion of the interests of residents, but I recognise that I shall find out.
Food safety was sensibly taken away from what used to be MAFF. I understand the principle of poachers making good gamekeepers but not, I would aver, at the same time. It puts one in mind of those prewar films where George Arliss played Russell Thorndike's character, Dr Syn, an 18th century Romney Marsh clergyman who led the local smugglers, as in K ipling's poem:
"Brandy for the Parson.
'Baccy for the Clerk …
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by".
At the risk of being pompous, I believe that I myself would have resisted the transfer of licensing from the Home Office to the DNH or the DCMS if I had been timeously the latter's Secretary of State.
I constitute a bridge in the debate between the perfectly admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Saatchi and the lower half of today's batting order. We hold this debate before the Pre-Budget Report and therefore I do not propose to play a funereal harbinger of economic or fiscal doom or, indeed, gloom. One of the pleasures of having the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, respond to the debate is his intellectual generosity towards fair points made from this side of the Chamber.
396
Therefore, let me say straightaway in sympathetic response that I admire the Chancellor of the Exchequer's historic macro-economic achievement and I acknowledge that in the year 2003–04 the envisaged figures could just about enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet and sustain his "golden rule" on a cyclically adjusted basis. But, in the same breath, I have to say that in the first six months of the financial year 2002 current spending overshot while revenues fell behind their forecasts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not central casting's notion of the ideal Mr Micawber, but Mr Micawber did have his own pungent and synoptic view of that particular economic conjuncture, especially if it were to be continued. Moreover, at present the problem seems to have something of the structural as well as the cyclical about it.
In addition, as if corporation tax were not already contributing to the revenue shortfall, from April next we shall have the new NIC charges. Labour Back-Bench MPs are prone to defending these on the grounds that they are even-handed, falling on employee and employer alike. But that is an odd form of even-handedness, for an employee pays his national insurance contribution out of income whereas an employer pays his for the privilege of providing employment. If, in consequence, the employer opts to forgo that privilege, then national insurance contributions and income tax from the employees thus disemployed will also fall and add to the income-tax shortfall which the Treasury is already experiencing.
I am sure that, in preparing to respond to the debate, the Minister has in his head, if not about his person, the research report published earlier this year by the Institute of Chartered Accountants on small businesses and regulation. The findings are deeply depressing but I shall not sully the entertaining joys of culture and media in the debate today by rehearsing them all. It is, however, worth repeating that advisers to small and medium-sized enterprises estimate that the average cost of compliance with regulation is now the equivalent of 4 to 6 per cent of smaller businesses' total turnover.
I recall in the late 1970s the late Peter Shore's defence of rate excesses by Labour councils at that time as being small by comparison with the turnover of commercial ratepayers. But small businesses then, as today, could report that the comparison of the cost should be with profits rather than with turnover, often leading potentially to a negative profit figure. As Campbell Soup used to say in its annual reports in order to disguise its misreading of the British tomato soup market:
"Internationally our costs continue to exceed our sales".
Finally, on regulations, I could not help noticing that that notable manufacturer, Mr James Dyson, when defending his recent decision to move his manufacturing to Malaysia, said of European manufacturing that it depends on a mobile labour force yet that ever-more intrusive European employment law had increasingly prevented supply

397
and demand being matched. He went on to say that that had two effects: to make suppliers reluctant to expand and also to increase employment costs.
Moreover, on top of regulations, taxes and tax credits continue to become more complicated. In my maiden speech a year ago this week on the subject of financial services, I alluded to my nearest neighbour in Wiltshire. He is a retired agricultural labourer who left school at the age of 14 and was rendered disabled about three years ago. I learnt more about the benefits system in this country by filling out his various applications for benefit–he asked me to help him to do so—than I learnt in 25 years as a Member of Parliament in the other place. It is a salutary experience to fill out the forms oneself.
At least one of my noble friends, who served as a Treasury Minister once upon a time, honourably fills out his own self-assessed tax return in order to test its comprehensibility. One hopes that today's Ministers and their officials sometimes sit self-imposed examinations of the language of their taxes and regulations. They might in the process guess why, as this very day, there is, for example, a shortfall in minimum pension income guarantee take-up.
Following my noble friend Lord Saatchi, no doubt I shared the pleasure of others in your Lordships' House in reading the list of Treasury euphemisms paraded in The Times the other day to conceal the Government's failure to meet their targets tied to funding, which are the core of the public service reform programme. I follow my noble friend, too, in his quotation as to the principle reason why people had left the public service. But I add to it that the chart from which he quoted is also divided into the most important reasons as against simply reasons. The most important reason of all out of about 11 was that they felt undervalued by the Government.
In similar vein, the pages of Hansard record the vehement rejection by a Minister in the past year that the City would, in the end, need a sweetener before it forgave the Government for the precipitate closure of Railtrack. We all know what later transpired. The productivity of this great City would be transformed if we could stop talking about modernisation of the London Underground and get down to doing it. But the central cause of delay in this matter is the Government's own legislation in relation to the Greater London Authority.
Every Queen's Speech, of whatever party, necessarily sounds as though it has been dictated by Dr Pangloss. This particular Queen's Speech does however seem to foreshadow a year in which some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's chickens may begin to come home to roost. Being optimistic rather than Panglossian, I hope for all our sakes that the returning chickens do not introduce salmonella into the economic food chain.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, I am a little sensitive to the noble Lord's reference to the batting order. I played rather a lot of cricket during my life but never rose above number 11.
398
When the Government set up the Ofcom committee to centralise the number of bodies involved in media regulation, most of us felt that it was probably in our interest to clarify to whom and from whom we could go for advice. Ofcom has brought together under one head five separate media regulatory bodies: the ITC; the Radio Authority; the Radio Communications Agency; Oftel; and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. Ofcom has now been created and an outstanding chairman appointed. To be successful, it must be well funded. The brief is wide and the best advice must always be available to it.
I must first declare an interest, being in receipt of a modest pension from the BBC after 10 years as its chairman. I hope that your Lordships will excuse my emphasising that one of the great tests of Ofcom will he how successfully it can establish relations with the BBC, guiding it into the future without offending its sensitive staff. It is about that relationship that I wish to talk to your Lordships.
The BBC, for all its faults—many of them exasperating—remains the most admired broadcasting organisation in the world. It is a unique national asset, appreciated by many millions overseas while incurring much criticism at home. How far Ofcom can win the confidence of the BBC will be a critical factor in its success.
As I am sure your Lordships know, the BBC began broadcasting in 1922. Eighty years later, those three letters are probably the best known in the world. It has proved to be a far-sighted and revolutionary institution which, in spite of many attacks, has survived and is accepted more readily abroad than at home. It offers a unique contribution to the understanding of what is going on in the world.
Its secret has lain in two revolutionary concepts. The first is in the system of funding: a licence fee paid by anyone owning a television set—
"a compulsory levy enforced by criminal sanctions",
in the immortal words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It yields £2.53 billion a year. The manifold benefits of the licence fee are widely criticised, not least by those organisations that have to fight for their revenue. The second concept is the system of governance, handing control of the BBC to 12 people of distinction but lacking media experience. They have the ultimate power but, not surprisingly, are reluctant to use it except in defence of the BBC's independence.
This is the body with which Ofcom will have to deal, bearing in mind its unusual structure set against its world-wide reputation. Currently, under a dynamic director-general, the BBC is winning the ratings war but is in danger of losing its purpose to achieve quality programmes across the full range through news, drama, humour and sport; to be more efficient than its competitors; to show commercial enterprise; and to win the confidence of its staff and the support of its listeners and viewers by extending the choice of programmes available to them—objectives achieved more successfully by radio than television.

399
Handling this unlikely giant will be one of the main duties of Ofcom. How widespread are those duties is demonstrated by the activity of the committee which has reported to your Lordships. It was a long and arduous experience during which, in an action-packed 12 weeks, we interviewed over 100 witnesses and scrutinised over 200 papers of evidence.
Ofcom will install in one building five separate bodies, each used to their own premises, executives and policies, and will preside over a wide range of the communications industry. I was concerned that that might lead to internecine turf wars but hopefully the chairman will rapidly exert his authority and maintain order.
Your Lordships may or may not have been impressed by the volume of work that the committee had to encompass. I was exhausted. I think that all who took part felt that it was a mammoth task which proceeded pretty smoothly. To have achieved our report in so short a time would not have been possible without the wise guidance of an outstanding chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. His experience, knowledge and understanding of the media, together with his sensitive regard for the feelings of the 12 constituent members drawn from all three main political parties, contributed enormously to its success. For me, the only Cross-Bencher, it was a fascinating experience.
The success of our report can be judged by the almost unanimous praise with which it has been received. Ofcom will not of course concentrate exclusively on the broadcasting media. It will cover all of our communications businesses, which are much more than just businesses. These are the companies and corporations with the power to influence not only British culture and the way other nations see us, but the very democratic process that brings us all here today.
Ofcom will have powers to advise the Secretary of State on mergers, over control, and over content. This wide brief will include the newspaper industry, where the increasingly down-market content invites justifiable concern. But we must remember that what may appear unsuitable to our generation is not so unsuitable to younger generations. Standards, attitudes, language and behaviour have changed mightily in the past two decades. What we may regard as unseemly may be accepted as normal and uncontroversial by our children and even by our grandchildren.
The Government warmly welcomed our report and were generous in their appreciation of what it had entailed for the chairman and the members of his committee but, above all, your Clerks, who responded with a speed, accuracy and quantity of output which, even by the standards of your Lordships' House, was exemplary.
We do not seem to have fallen out over many issues, except on the Government's view that opening the doors to United States and non-European ownership would result in new, valuable investment in original
400
United Kingdom production from, incidentally, areas where our broadcasters have already established an international reputation. This has not resulted in immediate agreement. I hold the view that while the United Kingdom market should be open to foreign content, the foreign ownership of broadcasting channels and newspapers is a more delicate issue, not least because of the political influence that accompanies media ownership.
Our chairman is firmly of the belief that the future of the BBC lies most securely in a well-led Ofcom. I agree that to leave the BBC outside Ofcom would invite unnecessary difficulties. The secret of the BBC's success lies in maintaining the standards laid down by the first director-general, Lord Reith, that its purpose was to inform, to educate and to entertain, in that order, offering creative and challenging programmes that the market would rarely provide. That remains its objective.
In this increasingly commercial world there has to be a place for a powerful media influence in the pocket of no individual proprietor, interest group or advertiser, which does not give paramount weight in choice of programmes to what will earn the most money, but which offers instead schedules to tempt audiences and to uplift their interest and understanding. That should be the objective of Ofcom—to strive for quality across the media: newspapers, radio, television and film. Ofcom's objectives and those of the BBC should coincide. No doubt there will be problems. There are always problems, but with sensitive handling I see no reason why Ofcom and the BBC should not together seek to achieve the same worthwhile objectives. I wish them good luck in so doing, and maybe we shall end up with a better BBC.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, first of all let me declare an interest. I am contracted to make television programmes for Granada Television; I am also contracted to make radio programmes for the BBC.
The Communications Bill is very timely. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell and the Minister my noble friend Baroness Blackstone, are to be congratulated. It is to be widely welcomed and applauded in its attempt to get to grips with an extremely fast-moving industry. Its ambition and its comprehensiveness are exemplary and I hope and believe, as does my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that great things will flow from it. Everything I shall say will be in the context of that welcome and that enthusiasm for the Bill. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Puttnam for the excellent and thorough work of his committee.
I intend to concentrate on television. There seems to be a tension, a paradox, and even a dilemma at the heart of the Bill—all three. On the one hand, the Government are very properly, and at last, seeking a lighter touch—less regulation—which will release energy. Yet on the other hand they are also seeking to

401
ensure the public good and the welfare of the consumers—in short, standards. To enforce standlards we need regulation, but how much?
To hold those two in balance seems to me to be the central test: how far should we deregulate and how far should we regulate, how far should we enforce standards and how far should we let this rapidly moving industry run freely into its best competitive form? The Government have set themselves an extremely ambitious target in fully confronting those two forces. For example, hundreds of new television and radio channels do not in themselves necessarily guarantee quality. As we know, they are all competing for the same heads and the same pounds and that has to mean "grab the audience", which can mean lowest common denominator and often does. Nor, curiously, do they guarantee diversity. In fact, because they are all competing for the same audience and the same markets and usually the same age groups, there is an inexorable tendency to do much the same programmes. Regulation is essential for variety as much as for excellence. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, said that,
"public service broadcasting is more important than ever".
I welcome that she said that so strongly.
Most people I think will green flag the proposal for freer rules on ownership. In the end I suggest that it does not matter who owns a television licence, so long as the conditions of that licence are fully delivered and so long as those conditions are sufficient to protect the viewers and listeners and to give them the quality that the regulators rightly demand.
There will be a great argument about the opening up of television companies to non-EU institutions. So there should be. It is, though, a little odd that we can be taken over by Germany or Italy but not by America. I can see the arguments here, but it is difficult to follow the logic. Surely, our institutions must be made robust enough to handle the impact of any takeover, including that of global vertically integrated companies.
To do that we need safeguards in three areas: first, in programme production in order to protect the UK programme base. If we stick to the figure of 65 per cent home-based production we cannot go far wrong. That is the key. Secondly, advertising sales must be safeguarded. Finally, there is programme acquisition, which again must have strict quotas.
If these three safeguards are properly addressed—although we may have worries about America taking us over rather than, say, France—it is difficult to find a rational ground for that. As I say, this has to be argued over very carefully.
I return to the particular in this country and to the proposed merger between Granada and Carlton Television. I, like many others, believe that the merger is essential if ITV is to compete with a better-funded BBC and with Sky. The merged company, let us call it ITV, will mean a more effective and efficient programme making outfit and will, I am sure in the
402
end, once the problems are ironed out, provide a better and sounder basis for programme makers, hence audiences and hence advertisers.
A merger will mean more money for British made programmes—50 per cent of them in ITV's case—sited outside the M25. To a certain extent, just as historically art has always followed wealth. so good television programmes always follow the money. The recent BBC successes are clear evidence of that and there is much evidence of it in the past. "Civilisation" was expensive, so was "Brideshead", as today are "Daniel Deronda" and "Dr Zhivago". In this area, as in many others, the BBC needs a big programme-producing competitor—if not to keep it honest. then to keep it at full stretch. A single ITV will at the very least give it a run for its money and it is the only serious challenger to BBC] around or likely to he.
Like many noble Lords, I applaud the creation of Ofcom under my noble friend Lord Currie. Good luck to him. It has potentially tremendous clout and can, if anything can, square the circle between a lighter touch and an enforcing of public interest and high standards—quality and quantity, one might say. It can also establish another balance, that between the big players and the small players. That is crucial, especially in an industry which has benefited so much through the emergence of vigorous, innovative and successful small players which are often threatened to be snuffed out by the big movers. They need protection and help.
We of course have a current safeguard for public service broadcasting, which is the BBC. It is a great institution—as the noble Lord, Lord. Hussey, pointed out—and British broadcasting in my view needs it as the essential rock. It is I think at the moment particularly well run by its Director General. Greg Dyke. He is currently under fire and often spuriously criticised in some quarters for being too successful. He has completely turned around the morale of the BBC, stripped down its administration and put it in various fields where it can be a great benefit: and I can think of no one else in British broadcasting who could have done so much as quickly and as effectively. There are shortfalls and there are problems. There is a problem looming in the BBC's involvement in the commercial area. That has to be addressed in the Bill.
So far as Ofcom is concerned, I am beginning to think that it might be in the public's and the BBC's best interests for the BBC to come to the table on this one. Without the BBC, Ofcom will be a glass half full. We will most likely have Ofcom in battle against the BBC if they do not join together. Conflict, if they do not join, is inevitable. It could be nasty, especially as the BBC is now entering into commercial ventures where the ground is ripe for strife and confrontation of the most damaging kind. The BBC is such a major player and under Greg Dyke has developed so extensively that its activities now impinge on many smaller and some bigger commercial players.
Perhaps I may therefore suggest that while it is proper for the BBC governors to continue to be custodians of the BBC's special public service purpose

403
in broadcasting programmes, it is also proper for Ofcom to have complete authority over all the BBC's commercial activities—if only in the interests of transparency. Personally, I should like the BBC to surrender itself totally to Ofcom. I cannot see that occurring before the charter review in 2006. Yet, before that review I think that it is important to have a declaration of intent. With the BBC inside Ofcom it would be a formidable force for good in British broadcasting.
There is also public service broadcasting outside the BBC—welcome to the worlds of ITV and Channel 4. The public service aspect of ITV does not get much of a hearing or much sympathy in your Lordships' House, but for 40 years I suggest—and I think that I can prove it if your Lordships have an hour or two to spare—ITV has challenged BBC1 again and again as a public service broadcaster. And over the past 20 years Channel 4 has challenged BBC2 again and again as a public service broadcaster. Yet, both ITV and Channel 4 are commercial. The public service commercial interest of those two companies is not sufficiently recognised in the Bill. In drama, in religion, in children's programmes, in science, in documentaries, in arts, in news, and in the regions these channels have taken on the BBC sometimes won—and given the viewer serious options where it matters.
For instance, Channel 4 puts on a news programme at 7 o'clock in the evening—an analytical, serious, lengthy news and news discussion programme—that is commercial suicide. Yet it does so because although it is commercial it has no obligation to shareholders and it chooses to do so. If that is not public service broadcasting, it is difficult to find out what is.
ITV in the regions—to take just one of many examples from ITV—is similarly exemplary in its public service broadcasting. It has a 50 per cent commitment to out-of-London production, much more than any other channel and it makes more regional programmes than BBC1 and BBC2 put together. The impact of the regional studios and regional programmes on the local economy, local employment and stimulation of local broadcasting and arts-related industry is considerable. If that is not public service broadcasting, I do not know what is.
Moreover, while I am dealing with the regions, I suggest that they operate at a huge disadvantage because their productions do not count towards the commissioning channels' 25 per cent independent quota. The BBC ought to recognise that these small regional operations are just as valid as independent companies as are the many independent companies in London. Not being commissioned for the national channels will lead to a slow starvation of initiatives in the regions and a drain of talent from the regions. They need access to these national channels.
The BBC spends well over 70 per cent of its budget in London, as does Channel 4. Channel 5 spends 90 per cent of its budget in London. ITV spends only 50 per cent. It would be very helpful for the regions if a definition of independent production allowed any programme to count as independent when the
404
producer is independent from the commissioning channel in ownership terms. It could be introduced in the Bill or via secondary legislation.
I emphasise regionality because, having worked in two regional companies—one in Newcastle (Tyne-Tees) and the other in Carlisle (Border Television), I know how extraordinarily important it is that the regional programmes are seen to be part of a national channel. Being part of the great ITV network gives them an authority and an interest that no fragmented local regionalism can bring to the table.
Time is short and so I would simply like to put down one or two markers. There is the "must carry" issue which cannot be allowed to enable Sky to exploit its position at the programme and business expense of the BBC and ITV; there is the problem of the unfair, overregulation of content and the milking of ITV—still paying a £300 million licence fee on top of its tax—based on days long gone when it was a rich monopolist.
It is outside my brief, but I should like to comment on the issue of newspapers, so eloquently referred to by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I endorse fully what he says. Also, from my discussions in both Houses and generally outside, there is enormous and urgent interest in the whole area of newspaper accountability and this is the time to raise it fully and to address it.
Finally, I stress again that I think that a public service based ITV and Channel 4 is as necessary to this country as a publicly funded BBC1 and BBC2. Should the terrestrial commercial sector be downgraded and unfairly depressed, there is no doubt that the sort of slide will occur which most people who wish British television well will be gravely concerned about.
To come back to the beginning, this is a tremendous Bill. One way or another it will he a landmark Bill. There is much more to say about the Bill. I am sure that much that is helpful will be said in this House. Like many noble Lords, I wish it well.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the debate on the Queen's Speech always creates an alignment of topics that tempt one to range wider than is possible in the time available. Today, before I turn to my main subject, I cannot resist the temptation to follow yesterday's powerful speeches by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, on the subject of the catastrophic situation that now confronts a whole generation of pensioners.
The stock market crash, mismanagement in the industry and regulatory failure have all played their part. On top of that, the Government have made their own, massive contribution to a disaster that seems likely to blight the lives of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people. First there was their raid on pension funds in 1997, which was rightly described in The Times last Saturday as,
"an outrageous breach of public trust".

405
Then the Government encouraged the idea that they were likely to reduce pension tax relief and stubbornly refused to scrap the obligation imposed on pensioners to buy an annuity before they are 75.
I welcome the fact that there is likely to be another attempt in this Session to get a reform of annuities Bill through Parliament. The promised publication of a Green Paper in the relatively near future will provide the opportunity for a full debate on these hugely important issues.
I turn to the Communications Bill. I have not yet read the Bill, which was published today. The workload that fell on those of us from both Houses who served on the Joint Committee was immense, but it was all made bearable, and even fun, by the matchless skill of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. It was a privilege to serve under him. He clearly still has pretty effective control over me, because he identified three subjects covered in our report to which I, too, want to refer. We, and, indeed, Parliament, also owe a huge debt to our clerks and special advisers. If I can pick out one, it is the contribution of the Commons clerk, Mr Colin Lee. The draft that he produced for the committee was a work of outstanding brilliance. In a fairly long public life, I have never seen better drafting.
When our report was published on the last day of July, the initial reaction of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport was distinctly unhelpful. Perhaps those with experience and good sense had left on their holidays. The tone was such as to cast a shadow over the whole future of pre-legislative scrutiny. The line was that the committee was not supposed to deal with major policy matters already decided by Ministers, but only with narrow drafting points.
Fortunately, things have moved on since then. In their formal response, Ministers have welcomed the report as,
"an invaluable contribution to the development of a key piece of legislation",
and have accepted, in full or in part, more than 120 of our 148 recommendations.
Mind you, a little caution and scepticism is called for in the face of those soothing assurances. We shall need carefully to consider the Bill when we have the chance, especially when the acceptance of our recommendations was qualified or partial, and there will be plenty of grounds for debating those parts of the Bill where our recommendations have been rejected. I make no claim that the committee has got it right in every case. The service that we have rendered in each and every instance is to have clearly identified the arguments and to have marshalled a mass of relevant evidence that will inform the scrutiny process of both Houses.
I shall pursue the question of foreign ownership to which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred. On 1st August, the Secretary of State said:
"We firmly believe that our proposals for foreign ownership will give the best of both worlds—high levels of new investment, high standards for the industry and the public".
406
In their formal response, the Government are more cautious, stating:
"We do not believe that there is a strong case for delaying the policy … As we are sure the Committee will understand, no prediction can be made about the level of foreign investment".
Furthermore, the Government now,
"recognise the Committee's concern about the risks posed to the UK broadcasting ecology".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I welcome the fact that Ministers have now agreed to tighten content regulation, and especially that they have accepted our recommendation that the Bill should be amended to define original production as programmes commissioned with a view to their first showing in the United Kingdom and Europe. I also welcome the fact that they promise to consider any new evidence arising from the Independent Television Commission review of programme supply, which will be published next week.
However, that does not deal with 95 per cent of my concerns. Judging by the vigorous discussion that took place among the large number gathered last week in Great George Street under the auspices of the Westminster Media Forum, the debate is by no means over. Yes, we have moved in the right direction, but I hope that before dismissing the case that we made for caution, Members of both Houses will read with care our detailed comments and, perhaps, Greg Dyke's pungent views expressed in paragraph 546 of the minutes of evidence. For me, the feature that weighed especially heavily was that Ofcom must be given time to establish itself as an effective regulator before we make a move that creates real risks in exchange for unproven advantages.
The Bill is being introduced at the conclusion of a period of profound change in competition law that began with the Competition Act 1998 and concluded earlier this summer when the Enterprise Act 2002 received Royal Assent. We now have competition powers with real bite and, hopefully, a culture of enforcement to match. I say hopefully because, as we pointed out in our report, for many years, economic regulation of the communications sector has been hamstrung by the deficiencies of competition law and its enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made the point that if we are to have swifter and better regulation under competition law, there must be a properly resourced competition unit at the heart of Ofcom—preferably funded directly by the Treasury.
Against that background, two issues stand out as priorities. The first concerns the need to have regard to plurality—also a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—in considering mergers and competition issues. The committee considered that to be so important that we recommended,
"that plurality be specified as a consideration in respect of which the Secretary of State may serve a public interest intervention notice".
We proposed a definition of public interest that included,
"the promotion and maintenance in all media, including newspapers, of a balanced and accurate presentation of news, the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two".

407
Of course, we expect newspapers to express strong opinions, but a deplorable trend has developed among some national newspapers of so mixing opinion and news that it becomes impossible to separate the two. News is reported only in a manner that fits editorial opinion. We should surely resist that trend.
The second great issue is where the BBC fits into all of this. The impact of competition law in broadcasting is greatly affected by the dominant market role of that publicly funded broadcaster. We thought it right to emphasise that the BBC is subject to competition law, and to draw attention to the way in which the BBC Fair Trading Commitment will be relevant to consideration by Ofcom of complaints about anticompetitive behaviour.
The Government's response informs us that the provisions of the revised agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC,
"will mirror those of the Bill wherever appropriate. The Government aims to make available a draft for consideration by Parliament alongside the relevant provisions of the Bill".
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when we can see the draft agreement. However, even if it is produced in time to be considered alongside the relevant clauses, Parliament is still faced with a highly unsatisfactory situation.
The current BBC charter does not expire until the end of 2006, and the Government plan to begin the task of reviewing it only in 2004. The BBC ball is being kicked far into the long grass, while everyone else must play a rough, tough competitive game under new rules. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, said, the relationship of the BBC with Ofcom will be of immense importance. That point was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. It seems inevitable that the future of the BBC will play a more central role in the debates on the Bill than either the corporation or the Government may like.
I conclude where the committee started—with its recommendations about Ofcom's duties. We thought that,
"the rhetorical commitment to light-touch' regulation is in great danger of becoming an albatross around the new regulator's neck".
We preferred the words,
"proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed".
That is the balance to which the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, referred. We said:
"The draft Bill, as it stands, does not provide the clarity of duties and obligations that the Government itself has sought. It would be an abdication of responsibility by Parliament and the Government to set out fifteen general duties without a clear hierarchy".
We proposed a new primary duty that, we believed, would properly reflect the breadth of Ofcom's responsibilities, both economic and cultural.
408
The Government say that they are revising the drafting of the general duties clause but stick to their principle that each duty is of equal weight. Yet, in the Green Paper of July 1998, they said:
"The regulatory process starts with Government. Regulators must have a clear legislative framework within which to operate. With greater clarity of duties and objectives comes improved accountability for their delivery to Parliament, to Ministers and to consumers".
Parliament's task, in the coming weeks, will be to create that clear legislative framework.
4.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, the experience of being eleventh in the batting order. I am the eleventh Bishop of Wakefield, and I am about to become the eleventh Bishop of Manchester.
There are many aspects of the Government's Communications Bill that are welcomed on these Benches. I think of the quality remit for all public service broadcasters and the move to place the consumer and citizen first. Certainly, there is an area for scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, indicated. I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his recent installation as an honorary lay canon of Durham Cathedral.
From the Churches, we also welcome the strengthening of the content rules, including the promotion and protection of local and regional content. We welcome the framework for the quality of news provision; the emphasis on the culture of discussion and argument for a democratic society; and the commitment to a plurality of radio ownership, especially—again—at local and regional level. We welcome also the controls to prevent the abuse of economic and non-economic power. So, in common with other Christian Churches, we on these Benches warmly welcome those and many other aspects of the Bill.
We also believe, however, that the Bill should provide strengthened opportunity for a wide range of quality Christian and other religious broadcasting—both music and speech on—all UK radio and television. As your Lordships know, the BBC makes an excellent contribution to quality religious programmes, and we hope that Ofcom's content board will promote a similar commitment to religious programming at peak hours on all mainstream commercial TV stations. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, eloquently drew attention to their public service broadcasting commitments. We suggest that individual commercial television channels be given specific public service broadcasting obligations, written into their licences, regarding high quality programme genres, and included in those genres should be religion.
We are grateful for the readiness of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his committee to listen to the views of the Churches. The new Communications Bill, to some extent, encourages the creation of an environment in which broadcasters will find it conducive to apply for and obtain licences to operate

409
quality radio and television stations that are founded on the Christian ethos. Up to now, that has not been easy, so we welcome it, as far as it goes.
The Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 placed unnecessary restrictions on individuals and organisations that were perceived to be religious. Until now, Christians have been banned from applying for licences, with the exception of satellite television, satellite radio and local analogue AM/FM radio licences. Even those types of long-term licence are still at the discretion of the regulator. That means that only one section of the community in the United Kingdom—those of religious faith—continue to suffer an element of discrimination because of the remaining restrictions, which are not removed by the new Bill.
The Bill retains some of the disqualifications in the Broadcasting Act 1990, including that of an individual who happens to be an officer of,
"a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious nature".
We believe that the announced modifications, to be made under Clause 335, are a stage in the right direction. We are pleased that Parliament is to have oversight, under revised paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. However, it would seem that, even if previously banned persons were allowed to apply, Ofcom would still have the power to place further—as yet, undefined—restrictions. That needs further teasing out, not least because the international human rights conventions that this nation has signed say that there should be no national, governmental discrimination due to race, gender, language or religion. I accept that the Government have met some of the Churches' concerns, and we are grateful for that. However, the remaining disqualifications are unnecessary and discriminatory. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government are open to further exploration in that area.
All existing broadcasters, including Premier Christian Radio and the Vision Channel, already operate under the general provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which prevent unfit persons, cults and those who would prey on the weak and vulnerable from applying for licences. The existing broadcasting codes more than adequately cover all eventualities. If the Government really have a problem in these areas of broadcasting, the way forward is to concentrate on the regulation of programme content, not the restriction of ownership.
Not only will the Government apply some ownership restrictions, they also claim that there is a fundamental problem of scarcity of broadcast spectrum. Why? For television, in the digital age, there is no spectrum scarcity. Already, a wide range of channels, including some religious channels, is available by satellite and on some digital cable systems. On the question of radio, the Government, for some reason, stick to an argument that has been used by British Governments for many years. At one time, it was said that there was enough spectrum only for the BBC and that there was no room for commercial radio. Yet today we have many stations—over 250 local, three national and a wide range of
410
digital DAB-only commercial radio stations. We have all that plus a BBC who have their five national analogue stations, local radio and six DAB-only national stations. And there is the start of access radio as well.
Furthermore, in this age of digital radio there will be plenty of radio frequencies. There are 56 frequency blocks in Band III and L-Band allocated for the use of DAB—each capable of carrying at least 10 radio services. At present the United Kingdom is using 7 blocks: 217.5 to 230 MHz. There is also a waste of the radio frequencies with some of the BBC's existing services simulcasting their output on AM and FM as well as on DAB.
I understand that the Home Office has already recognised that Christians are much more likely to become involved in charity work in their communities than the average citizen. Therefore, is it not rather ironic, and certainly counterproductive, that when the Government are seeking to encourage faith-based social action projects—which I am delighted to say they most certainly are encouraging—a key communication vehicle to those very communities is still to be limited on the grounds of faith?
As the Government and broadcasting authorities know, there is a huge demand across the United Kingdom for broadcasting stations with a Christian ethos. In the light of that demand the Christian Churches believe that even though Ofcom is to be given the ability to lift some disqualifications, it is counterproductive to continue to disqualify people, in law, because they hold office in a church, synagogue, mosque, or religious charity. It is also counterproductive to restrict licensing by recourse to a fallacious argument over spectrum scarcity.
We have inherited a rich multi-cultural Christian heritage in this country. It has led to the religious and democratic freedom that we enjoy in our now plural society. However, in the area of broadcasting that liberty, even though now to be eased, will still be hindered. That leads me to say how vital it is that there should be a joint parliamentary committee on communications—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has urged in an earlier intervention—and that it should have the power to investigate any complaints against Ofcom.
The Government have said:
"We want to encourage competition and economic growth by being as deregulatory as possible".
Therefore, from these Benches we ask the Government to remove the remaining specific restrictions on Christian and religious broadcasting and to encourage Ofcom to facilitate a wide range of high quality programme content for all mainstream and specialist radio and television stations. When that happens viewers and listeners will have a real increase in choice.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, it was indicated that today's debate would focus on economic and industrial affairs, culture and media. In putting one's name down to speak one was invited to

411
indicate which of those subjects one would be speaking to. I ask the Government: which am I speaking to? I put down the Communications Bill. If the Government cannot make up their mind whether it is a DCMS or DTI matter I do not see why they should ask me to solve the problem for them.
Of course, the truth is that the reason that we have Ofcom and have rolled everything together is that all those issues are closely inter-related. However, it raises questions which might well be discussed now. The cooperation between the two Secretaries of State seems to have been admirable, but in five years time who is Ofcom going to report to? Is it still going to be reporting jointly to two ministries? Personnel in the departments might change and relationships might not be as good as they are now. We have not yet tested whether the relationship between the departments will stand the occasional reverse that the Bill might suffer as it passes through both Houses. Perhaps more importantly, it raises questions about what sort of organisation Ofcom is going to be in the immediate future. That is a subject I shall return to.
It is appropriate to thank the Government for so obviously listening during the production of the Bill. I am chairman of Scottish Radio Holdings Plc. It may interest the right reverend Prelate that when Radio Clyde opened with a prayer, it was richly rewarded by the microphone immediately failing. Apart from that, there was a good side. The Government listened, in particular, to the radio industry—for all that, frankly, it did not get its act together until the last minute. An exception to that is my own group of stations which have been consistent throughout in advocating what the Government have now proposed.
More important than that, the Government also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his committee. They accepted 120 of 148 recommendations. That is a pretty good batting average to kick off with. I believe that it is appropriate that I echo thanks already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Even on the few issues with which I took issue with his committee, the amount of evidence that he has amassed will make the report of his committee an essential vade-mecum for anyone following the Bill line by line, as I intend to do. They have done a great job.
I have mentioned that all those issues are interrelated. Undoubtedly technology, ownership and funding all have an effect on content. It is precisely because they have an effect on content that they are all rolled together under Ofcom. We would not be worried if it were a tin of beans that we are talking about. It is because of its content that we need separate legislation for the media. It is important that although technology is immensely important, we do not allow technology to dictate the priorities. We must decide what broadcasting and other services we want in this country and harness technology to deliver them. We must not allow ourselves to be taken in the direction that technology leads irrespective of the implications that that may hold for the systems that we have.
412
At the obvious level, technology has changed the composition of the audience. I freely admit that when I grew up, listening was to one radio set in the corner and the choice of listening was, if not a parental one, certainly parentally approved. The advent of the transistor radio has made it the choice of an individual. Hence the upsurge in teenage buying power of records and so forth. In my day they were not consulted—probably quite rightly, given my musical taste at the time.
Looking at the influence on content of programmes, colour has made sport a great deal more popular. Video and satellite coverage have made news immensely more comprehensive than it was 20 or 30 years ago. When I was working in television we were working in black and white film. The cut-off time for any film was 3.30 because it went to a laboratory to be developed. Breaking news is now fed live into programmes. However, that poses its own problems. We still have a half hour bulletin, but now we compress news from all over the world into that halt' hour. Inevitably, that has created the soundbite, which most of us do not regard as an unmixed blessing.
The remote control has changed the way we watch television. The practice of public service broadcasters sandwiching the worthy programme between two popular ones in the hope that of viewer inertia and an increased listenership has tended to go. If all that one has to do is click on a remote control without leaving the chair, people will just switch over.
Universality of provision is an important ingredient brought about by a dedication to ensuring that television and radio signals are available to all corners of this country, however remote. That has been a force for cohesion in society. It would be a pity to have programmes which were available only to one group or another. That would not maintain cohesion in society.
On funding, I favour the licence fee because it avoids other than Queensberry rules competition between the BBC and the commercial sector. It is fairly raw, particularly when the BBC is largely run by former commercial people who still have strong competitive instincts, but at least it is a gentlemanly fight. If we were fighting for the same pot of advertising revenue, the gloves would be off.
I echo previous speakers in saying that it might be better for the BBC to be more fully under Ofcom. It is to a large extent. Stage three is not about the box ticking but qualitative judgments and it is essential that we have convergence of regulation to ensure that the interpretation of the same public service obligations is universal across the system. I honestly feel that it is in the BBC's best interests.
Believe it or not, charter renewal will begin in 2004. In other words, Parliament having richly exhausted itself with this Bill during 2003 will immediately enter a debate on the BBC. I am reminded of what happened with the 1990 Act passed under the previous government. I sometimes wonder whether if Mrs Thatcher had gone to the BBC first, ITV would have been left alone. As it was, ITV was messed around by

413
auctioning licences and it still has not recovered, The BBC was left virtually untouched, but there were many internal reforms which the Government might have wanted in any event.
I am worried that if we do not deal with the BBC issues as the Bill is going through Parliament, there might be a backlash in 2004. Many people may wonder in what way the BBC is different from the commercial sector. The licence fee might be in danger and I would not like to see that because it is an important ingredient in public service broadcasting.
I turn to a fundamental issue. I entirely support the work of the BBC governors. I would want to see them retained, but, rather as my noble friend Lord Bragg suggested, they should be under Ofcom. Ofcom should ensure that they fulfil their obligations in safeguarding the public interest. I refer Ministers to the last White Paper produced by a Labour government in 1978 which made precisely that point. It showed that the obligations of both sectors were identical; all that was different was a source of funding. It also expressed a degree of surprise that where the commercial sector was regulated by an external regulator—at that point the Independent Broadcasting Authority—the BBC was judge and jury in its own house. That is not good for the BBC.
I am not one of those who give the word "popular" a pejorative force. It is important to stay in touch with public opinion if one is trying to elevate it, rather as a magnet must be in touch with metal before it can lift it. But siren voices are always persuading one, "I must be more popular"—or, in the case of politicians, "I must get elected"—"to do any good". And all too quickly the doing good becomes subservient to the business of being elected or having higher ratings than the opposition. It is important to have an external check, saying, "Hold on, this is not meant to be what you are all about". One would have to be superhuman to manage that without such an external check.
The more important argument is that the Secretary of State is not informed about the ecology of broadcasting if Ofcom can only fully advise on a system which excludes the biggest player in radio and television. That does not make sense. The source of wisdom on what the market can take and so forth must be Ofcom and Ofcom must be fully informed as to what the BBC is doing and wants to do. Furthermore, there is the effect on Ofcom. If the BBC were more fully under Ofcom at stage three, it would emphasise the important content role of Ofcom as well as its other many duties.
It is important that we do not concentrate only on broadcasting. There should be a duty of care on Ofcom to ensure that the system as a whole is healthy. It is easy for incumbents in any organisation to keep out more competition and I fully agree that the balance of doubt should always go to the people who want to start new services. However, in logic, there must come a point when another new service will break the camel's back and impair the ability of existing services to continue to provide proper broadcasting. Ofcom should be there to do something about that, otherwise we will
414
have a situation similar to that in the United States, with an over-saturated market and huge changes necessary in ownership regulations to stop the whole business going bust.
As regards broadband, it is not a question of care but one of ensuring that it exists. I recently noticed that the broadband stakeholder group was working, on a map of the UK under four categories. The first was, "There is plenty of competition". The second was, "We can get at least one supplier". The third was, "No service is currently available but potential for commercially sustainable broadband services. Market incentives required". The fourth category was, "Little expectation that the market will provide affordable services. Political solutions required". That sounds to me like very big incentives.
At what point are we going to try to translate into a reality the Government's admirable intention that we should be a world leader in this field? It is one thing to persuade those who already have the capability to access broadband that they should do so—that is a marketing job—but as regards the almost one-third of the country who do not, we need to timetable when they will get it and, if they do not, ask what we arc going to do about it. That is at least as important a job for Ofcom as any of its more negative regulatory duties.
Perhaps I may throw in another couple of brief points. Licence renewal has been postponed but not solved. There is a proposal to leave it to 2014. I would advocate the system introduced by the Conservative government when independent radio was introduced; that of rolling contracts. In other words, any sign of failure, a yellow card; unless it is remedied within a year, you are ordered off'. That safeguards the public interest and is fair to the existing contractors.
Secondly, I do not argue with any of the obligations the Bill places on broadcasters, but it might be better to take them out of the Bill and put them into an annual report of Ofcom. The first would be written by the Government by putting the existing clauses in the Bill into the first annual report and then requiring Ofcom to report to Parliament on any changes every two or three years. The honest truth is that things will change over the next five years and if something is written into an Act of Parliament, it will be difficult to change it. It would be better if we changed things through an Ofcom annual report mechanism.
Finally, I echo what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said in opening his report:
"We must look more closely at the matter, since what is at stake is far from insignificant: it is how one should live one's life".
Without getting too precious about the importance of the media, we live in a democracy where almost by definition the vast majority of the electorate do not know the qualities, the track record or the likely intentions of the individual Member of Parliament for whom they are voting. It is therefore vital that the image transmitted to the electorate by the media is as accurate as possible. Frankly, unless we have that, the media will be the weakest link in the democratic chain.

415
I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam that this is an important issue and must be given adequate time. A Bill with 395 clauses and 19 schedules and published in two volumes means—and I hope that the Whips are listening—a great deal of time in Committee in this House.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I shall not follow the broadcasters, much as I have enjoyed listening to their remarks. The gracious Speech mentions energy several times, and provides the opportunity for comment on a reasonably wide basis. First, it indicates that draft legislation will be published on the management of nuclear liabilities. I was interested to hear the Minister say in her opening remarks that the Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I wholly agree. It is a subject that can only benefit from being considered in that way before it comes before the House.
But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It is no use having a legislative procedure which asks people to make comments if the Government do not take those comments on board. Therefore, we shall watch carefully in due course to see whether the points made have been absorbed in the legislation.
Two other areas were mentioned with which energy could have a connection; namely, tackling climate change and finding new ways to meet our energy needs. I declare a number of interests—all were a good many years ago but it is as well to put them on the record. In another place, I was Minister of State for Energy for four years, and in this House for three years I had energy responsibilities on the Front Bench. I advised Scottish Nuclear for one year prior to its privatisation and for 18 months after it became a part of British Energy. I acted as a consultant to a number of companies which had interests in both oil and gas. Finally, I advised a company engaged in the development of wave-power. So I have no prejudice against renewables.
Oil, gas and coal will continue to play a significant role in power generation and domestic needs; but, being fossil fuels, they will in due course be depleted and replacements will have to be found. Most worrying is the fact that, quite soon now, this country will cease to be self-sufficient in these fuels. North Sea oil has already peaked and, although we are favourably placed geographically to benefit from the huge Norwegian gas reserves in that sector of the North Sea, we shall also become dependent on supplies from eastern Europe and the Middle East, with all the political uncertainties of such arrangements.
Coal will continue to be used in this country, in small quantities by previous standards, but it will be used in vast quantities elsewhere, particularly in China—that is, until it is superseded by nuclear power, for the Chinese have no inhibitions about building nuclear power stations.
416
Nuclear power, however, is of vital importance to our energy needs and is responsible for about 25 per cent of our generating capacity in the UK. In Scotland, the figure is even higher, at approximately 37 per cent. Even if we were to build no new nuclear stations, we should still require nuclear power for at least 20 years from now. In my view, we have not the remotest chance of meeting our Kyoto obligations without keeping our nuclear contribution at least at its present level.
Security of supply at all times is essential, and that can be guaranteed only by additional nuclear power, or at the very least by maintaining existing levels. In other words, nuclear should be replaced with nuclear.
The Government must be positive. A new nuclear power station ordering programme should be facilitated immediately. The lead-in time is so long that immediate action is required. Nuclear power worldwide is on the increase—its production was up 4 per cent last year according to the International Atomic Energy Authority. The total number of reactors engaged in power generation is no less than 438, operating in 30 countries; and in addition there are 32 new reactors under construction in countries as far apart as China, India, Argentina and eastern and central Europe.
The Government are being wildly, and in my view dangerously, optimistic in setting targets of 10 per cent by 2010 and 20 per cent by 2020 for the contribution expected from renewables towards power generation. There are two weaknesses in renewables: first, they are not constant; and, secondly, each is dependent on the elements. What happens when those elements fail to supply sun for solar, wind for windmills, or waves? In this country we frequently suffer a flat calm. This occurs in winter, usually as the result of high pressure, which means very cold weather and consequently increased power demand. Furthermore, the freak storms which have become so much more common in recent years indicate an even more unpredictable weather pattern. In future, exposed installations may well be at risk. It is certainly a possibility.
In order to avoid such a situation, it is necessary to provide back-up. Every electrical power system requires sufficient capacity installed to meet annual system peak power demand—likewise for a gas supply system. To provide this, it has to be designed to take much more than is normally required in order to cater for plant breakdown or other eventualities.
Professor M A Loughton, Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of London, stated in a recent article that in the UK today spare capacity is approximately 23 per cent, or between 12,000 and 13,000 megawatts. The back-up provided by conventional sources must be preserved at all cost.
I must emphasise that I am not opposed to renewables in any way, although I do believe that some of the claims for wind-power are rather far-fetched. Indeed, there are plans for a proposed wind-farm only a few miles from my home, to which I have not objected although I suspect that the environmental impact may be considerably more disturbing than is realised in a beautifully preserved scenic area.

417
Renewables have an important part to play in power regeneration, but that role must be in partnership with convenlional methods. The Government have given commendable support to renewables but I wish that they would be more even-handed in their treatment of other energy providers and remove the penalty of the iniquitous climate change levy from nuclear power. It is ludicrous that the cleanest providers should be subjected to a climate levy charge tax designed to penalise the burning of fossil fuels. Dr Robin Jeffrey, the chairman of British Energy, quite reasonably likened the situation to proposing that the owners of push-bikes should pay a tax on exhaust emissions.
One of the pluses about the development of renewables is that the more remote parts of the country have the opportunity of reaping some of the benefits during the construction stages, but planning authorities have a huge responsibility to ensure that those benefits are not at the expense of other assets in those peripheral areas—assets which in their own right attract visitors seeking peace and beauty to the hills, the straths and the unspoiled shoreline.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I have not given him notice and I appreciate that he may not have the answers to hand. I should be happy if he would write to me in due course. First, in the event of nuclear power stations not being replaced with nuclear—I hope that that will not happen—how do the Government envisage meeting their Kyoto commitment? Secondly, who pays the transmission costs from wind farms or other gathering locations in remote areas to the National Grid? We are told that existing transmission lines are inadequate to meet the volumes involved. Since it is proposed to have new supply lines underground, north to south on the east and west of the country, the costs are likely to be very high indeed. The energy White Paper expected early next year should give us further opportunity to consider those issues in much more detail.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart because I propose to return to a subject that I have aired in your Lordships' House before. I did so at length on 11th March this year. Having worked day and night, with considerable political and other difficulty, to implement the provisions of the Belfast agreement, I must report no progress on one area in particular, even after four years and much pressure. The agreement promised parity of esteem and equality for all sections on the island of Ireland. It placed a spotlight on Irish and Ulster-Scots culture and identity.
I am the chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency, which is part of the cross-Border machinery set up after the agreement. I am tasked and funded by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and by Her Majesty's Government to promote Ulster-Scots culture, history, language and identity. The task has been uphill. Consider the case of BBC Northern Ireland, for example. There is a commitment by the BBC at national level to acknowledge and
418
accommodate cultural diversity. I pay tribute to the director general, Greg Dyke, for championing this view. On 7th April 2000, he said:
"I want a BBC where diversity is seen as an asset and not an issue or a problem … we need a new vision and central to that vision is that the BBC must serve Britain's broad and diverse population … In the words of Chris Smith, the BBC is 'the UK's most important cultural institution' … If we are to live up to that role we must change and learn to reflect the true cultural richness of the whole UK in the first decade of the 21st century … we must extend the range, reach and appeal of our services above and beyond what we already know and do".
In March 2000, the BBC appointed a head of diversity. A press release stated that her role would be to,
"co-ordinate the efforts throughout the organisation to make sure the BBC reflects fully and fairly, the diversity of the United Kingdom in its programmes and within its workforce".
The press release quoted Gareth Jones, director of human resources and legal affairs, as saying:
"Diversity is a big issue for the BBC and we are determined to be at the leading edge of change".
It also noted that the BBC would have,
"the right policies to address the needs of increasingly diverse audiences".
In July 2000, the BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, at a seminar for BBC governors, outlined how cultural diversity lay at the heart of the BBC's role. He said:
"Our programmes should mirror the world in which we Live".
Those principles are also set out in The BBC Beyond 2000, in which the BBC published its vision for the future. The document sets out a commitment to serve Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland better. The BBC, in its statement of promises, committed itself to work harder to reflect the wide interests and varied cultures of the whole of the United Kingdom and to reflect the diversity of traditions and cultures within changing social patterns. It promised to continue to provide a broad range of general television and radio programmes that reflects the interests of the Province and the diversity of local communities. BBC Northern Ireland has not delivered on those promises. It has failed to reflect the varied cultures of the whole of the United Kingdom, the diversity of traditions, the interests in the Province and the diversity of local communities. The BBC's vision, as set out, is clear. But is it being delivered in Northern Ireland?
In Northern Ireland, there are three major cultural traditions: Irish, English and Scots, often referred to as Ulster-Scots. Ethnic minorities constitute 1 per cent, or around 175,000, of the population. Each has its attendant language and culture. BBC Northern Ireland treats Irish and Ulster-Scots differently. It broadcasts between 200 and 300 hours of Irish language programmes per year. In 2002, it had 2.5 hours of Ulster-Scots programmes. However, in some years, such as 2001, there were no Ulster-Scots language programmes. The ratio is 100:1.
On some occasions, BBC Northern Ireland is actively hostile to the Ulster-Scots community, its culture and language. Despite undertakings by the local controller after the Belfast agreement that current affairs programmes would take Ulster-Scots

419
culture seriously, a recent programme—"Talkback" on 4th November, 2002—was grossly offensive to Ulster-Scots in a way that it would not he to the Chinese community. Despite complaints, no apology, written or broadcast, has been forthcoming. For Ulster-Scots, the BBC in Northern Ireland is unfriendly, sometimes hostile and intolerant. It has policies that cause unjustifiable inequalities. In one case, a journalist was blacklisted because he was an Ulster Scot. No work for him has serious consequences for his career.
Committees of visiting experts monitoring human rights have criticised BBC Northern Ireland's treatment of the Ulster-Scots language. In 2001, the advisory committee of independent experts monitoring the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities criticised the BBC's lack of provision for broadcasting Ulster-Scots. It also noted the importance attached to linguistic diversity under the Belfast agreement. In the context of international agreements, BBC Northern Ireland's programming policy breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic. Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities and the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
The Belfast agreement recognises the importance of Ulster-Scots along with Irish and the languages of ethnic minorities as part of the cultural wealth of Ireland and the need for respect, understanding and tolerance. The obvious outworking of this was the establishment of the Ulster-Scots Agency and the ratification of the European Charter.
Equality legislation in Northern Ireland requires that the policies of public bodies should not discriminate either directly or indirectly and that they should he monitored. Although BBC Northern Ireland is a publicly funded body, it is not subject to the equality legislation and so can treat a substantial section of its audience less favourably than another without fear of any sanctions. I suggest that it is timely now to make the BBC in Northern Ireland subject to the equality legislation.
The BBC in Northern Ireland is out of step with the norms for support for minority languages throughout Europe, and that will also increasingly apply after enlargement; the internationally accepted human rights governing access to the media; the Belfast agreement and its support for linguistic diversity; and the norms of equal treatment set out in the equality legislation, as well as the needs of its audience.
The policies of BBC Northern Ireland are divisive and undermine the attempts by responsible citizens to build social cohesion in a fragile community. Such policies alienate a large section of the community, and affirm the prejudices of others. The BBC would not do
420
it to any other ethnic minority in the United Kingdom. BBC Northern Ireland's policies on language and culture are no longer appropriate in the world of the 21st century. Worse, I believe that BBC Northern Ireland is a threat to the peace process.
There are other sections of the so-called "establishment" which should honour the commitment to the new society that we are trying to build in Ulster. Many of us feel that government departments and agencies are interested only in the Irish agenda; and, indeed, that they block the Ulster Scots community's progress. All of this adds to the current feeling of mistrust. I plead with the Government to take hold of areas of the unfairness, and to set targets for equality in media and cultural activity.
This is a subject which must be of interest to the current Government who have invested so much politically, financially, and time-wise in the Belfast agreement. I plead for action, and I want action sooner rather than later. Perhaps action could be considered inside the framework of the new proposals before Parliament—if not before that.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, it is sometimes said that most of us think of sex at least once every 15 minutes. Sadly, as I get older, this is no longer the case. Try as I might, I find my concentration going and I start day-dreaming about other things—like, for example, future government policy. Green Papers, White Papers, and, yes, even statutory instruments, capture my imagination and fill my waking hours.
Imagine then my joy on first hearing the gracious Speech—a veritable cornucopia of legislative longings, enough to satisfy any red-blooded Peer eager for change and the building of a better Britain. Indeed, it is a very good Queen's Speech, which I wholly support. However, my reservations relate to two omissions: the lack of an enabling Bill for the referendum on the euro and the lack of a comprehensive Bill updating the development of Britain's tourism industry.
I wholly understand the Government's measured caution on the euro and their aspirations to await the Chancellor of the Exchequer's judgment on the five economic tests. But recent figures from the United Nations tracing the decline of inward FDI into Britain, showing a fall from 54 to 12 billion dollars, should really trouble us. Procrastination is the thief of time and of jobs. I understand the Government's desire to see public sentiment move positively towards acceptance of the euro, but we cannot delay for ever.
I believe that I have some good news for the Government. Britain may never come to find the euro sexy, as was once suggested by EMU Commissioner Yves-Thibault de Silguy—a man of unusual day-dreams—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, might put it, the euro is seeping into the nooks and crannies of the British way of life. Perhaps I may give noble Lords some random examples.
The big fine art houses in London now regularly express estimates in their catalogues in euros as well as in sterling. The National Trust, that stalwart guardian

421
of Britain's heritage, now accepts the stealthy euro in its stately homes. Student unions—my old stamping ground—also use the euros in their bars and shops, thus recognising the reality that Britain's higher education system is part of our export economy, with Greeks, and other EU students, bearing bountiful euro gifts.
In my home town of Chester, a tourist city par excellence, the first hotels and guest-houses are displaying signs that read, "Euros accepted here". They, rightly, seek a competitive advantage with other hotels and tourist destinations. Taxi drivers throughout Britain are pocketing fares and giving change in euros—something that happened recently to a noble friend of mine on the opposite Benches, much to his surprise and my delight. When the taxi drivers of London exhibit knowledge of the euro, our homegrown eurosceptics should doubt their hackneyed antipathy to the euro.
This is the position. Britain has not yet learnt to love the euro, but it no longer finds it a turn-off. Indeed, we can say that the economic argument has been won in the minds of the British people. On holidays on the Continent, they have seen the future and it works. So now we must turn to the political argument.
The gracious Speech omitted mention of any enabling Bill preparing for the euro referendum. That may yet be brought forward. But, in the interim, while the Treasury toils over the financial tests, the political dimension must be acknowledged and anticipated. This Government's mantra that the decision to enter the euro is wholly economic has served us well since 1997, but it is no longer a sufficient condition. For example, political decisions have economic reverberations and help to reinforce economic decisions. Any politician worth his or her salt knows that to embark on an economic path without political backing is perilous.
First, how could Britain's entry into the ERM ever succeed when its principal actors had no faith in their lines? Secondly, the politics of the euro do not supplant or replace its economics. The decision on the euro must be bicameral. It must satisfy both parliaments of political wisdom and economic integrity. Thirdly, although we must always take these political decisions independently, we cannot ignore the wider international scene. Not only is public sentiment in Denmark and in Sweden warming to the euro, but euro enlargement will also introduce 10 more continental countries to euroland. Can we afford our present splendid isolation and continental drift? The euro is a political reality that must be subject to a political argument and a political decision.
Forty million visits were made by Britons to euroland during the past year. As a result, thousands of euro piggy banks have been placed on mantelpieces throughout the country, as people wisely retain euro notes and coins for future continental visits. That brings me to my second comment on the gracious Speech. The euro has made life easier for British visitors abroad. It is time that we made life easier for those visiting Britain, and not just by joining the euro.
422
My noble friend the Minister has heard me complain before that we appear to set a low store by our home tourism industry. Britain's biggest industry is not even incorporated in the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. But in the wake of FMD, the message of the past 18 months has surely been that tourism in terms of employment, prosperity and future growth is more important to Britain than agriculture. Yet the disparity between the support and funding for each remains wide, despite the fact that they often share a common constituency in rural Britain. Tourism's measly £20 million for the million visitor campaign had to be match-funded by the tourism industry. Conversely, farming's financial harvest is counted in billions, whether sterling or euro-denominated.
It is time to get our priorities right. It is time for a new Development of Tourism Act to follow Labour's groundbreaking 1969 legislation and to build on the Government's excellent Tomorrow's Tourism, published at the end of the 20th century. A new Bill should, of course, address funding, but it should also deal with structure. Is the recent proposal to merge the British Tourism Authority and the English Tourism Council born of a thorough and long-term strategic review?
A new Development of Tourism Act should take account of devolution—of Britain's nations and regions. It should promote sustainable tourism to enhance the environment. As I said, tourism can help Britain's rural areas: it reaches the parts that other industries do not reach. The new legislation should tackle the problem of improving education and skills for the workforce in an industry which has seldom received adequate grants or been confronted with the notion of top-up fees. The Bill should address Britain's tourism industry in the light of the single European market, the completion of which would be the springboard of economic success for this most 21st century of industries.
A new Act should, finally, address tourism's wider role in the world, including its capacity to develop. I say this to those who believe that concern for tourism is frivolous at a time of world anxiety and uncertainty: tourism has a role there, too. In its finest manifestation, tourism has the capacity to broaden the mind; terrorism only to close it. The essence of tourism is the expression of cultural difference whereas the essence of terrorism is suppression.
My 15 minutes are almost up. Before I heat my Andy Warhol retreat, I should like to thank noble Lords who have listened for their attention. As for those who were not listening, I can only hope that the doodlings of their minds were confined to the other aspects of this otherwise excellent gracious Speech.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—who actually had five minutes more—but, fortunately, not to follow him on the subject of the euro, on which I cannot share his enthusiasm. I shall speak in this

423
debate on economic and industrial affairs, and, in that context, on disruption of our public services, which has a devastating effect on our economy and on the well-being of our people.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a certain taunting reference which I shall not follow up about twisting the tail of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was political adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, between 1977 and 1979, encompassing the "winter of discontent", and has some practical experience of these affairs.
At the outset, may it be said that this assuredly is no occasion on which to discuss the dispute of the Fire Brigades Union—which may be settled only by triangular resolution, albeit at some premium, in wholly exceptional circumstances and, one must hope and pray, before some terrorist attack.
Assuredly, however, that dispute focuses our attention on wholly disproportionate disruption in other public services. The gracious Speech envisages reform of the public services as, it says, a main principle. However, it makes no reference to disproportionate disruption taken at the behest of an entirely new brand of militant leader of some public service unions who are committed to confrontation which has now all but become—one has to face it—the order of the day. As The Times leader put it, on St Valentine's Day,
"The Cuckoos have now returned to the Crows' Nests of the Public Service Unions."
Earlier this year—it was about January—both right honourable gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said that something must be done, but they did not say what should be done; and nothing has been done. Indeed, it would appear from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on 18th April, and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 22nd May, that there is no need to do anything because "partnership allied to investment"—or PPP or PFI policies, as they are called—would remove the need to strike. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said. And the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that there was no problem. However, both reasonings are at odds with reality because they cannot support government inaction. This is not taking an offensive action to either noble Lord; it is merely an aspect of plain reasoning. They offered no support for government inactivity.
It is true that this is no new problem; it arose in 1977 to 1979, in the "winter of discontent", and toppled that administration. The miners toppled restoration of the Heath administration, and at one time sought to unseat the Thatcher administration—the administration which redeemed us from what we had become: the sick man of Europe, stricken by militant industrial action.
424
Now, here we are again. Now, the public service unions confront government. Again, government must resist such abuse of union power and assert the authority of government to govern. Any government in this situation has to do that. The battle lines of confrontation have been drawn up by leaders of the public service unions over very many months. There has been massive disruption by the transport unions in particular.
On 18th April and 22nd May, when supporting the introduction of a new regime of mandatory arbitration to prescribe disruption of the public services by collective action at the behest of a union (save as sanctioned as proportionate by the court) among other things, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:
"It would be prudent for trades unions … to think of ways of building into our system a means of getting social justice … that does not involve punishing the public at large. There is a limit to the public's patience".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 867.]
He said that the public do not like to see power being used as a weapon in industrial disputes in which they have no part and that,
"they will demand action and protection from the government of the day. If the Government cannot or will not provide such protection, then the public will replace the Government of the day with one willing and able to do so".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1154.]
I agree with the noble Lord.
Assuredly, the ghost of this recurrent nightmare will not be laid by resort to no strike agreements in this climate of confrontation in which the economy and the people are held hostage, either to oppose government policy or to secure extravagant demands. These agreements may not be imposed, may not be made. If they are made, they may be cancelled or reneged upon. In any event, they are not readily enforceable to inhibit disproportionate disruption of our public services—they afford no viable option—and it is not understood that they have been considered by the Government as such.
A mandatory arbitral regime was proposed in a Private Member's Bill which passed your Lordships' House but which has, as yet, not been taken up in another place. This is no occasion on which to rehearse any detailed argument. Suffice it to say that it would only be enforceable against officials of trades unions and trades unions' funds. Albeit that disruption of designated public services—designated as such by Parliament—would be proscribed, if at the behest of a union the freedom of the individual to withdraw or withhold labour would always be preserved. The regime would apply only to public services designated as such by Parliament.
It remains to be seen whether, on reconsideration, the introduction of some such regime—perhaps as an emergency measure of safeguard while under the threat of terrorist attack—will commend itself not only to the Government but to the trade union movement, the status of which is recognised and respected as being of essential value to the economy and to the maintenance of industrial stability. How

425
else shall the Government deal with this wee clutch of militant cuckoos to protect that nest, the economy and the people?
6.3 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, one does not expect the gracious Speech to be an economic dissertation but it was fairly thin on economic matters. If I remember rightly, the first two paragraphs referred to the economic objectives—which are impeccable—and the third paragraph referred to the highly desirable consequences that will follow from the achievement of those objectives.
So far, so good. When I saw that, I concluded, at least provisionally, that it was a reflection of the Government's view that there was nothing very much wrong with our economy. Sure enough, in the past two or three days the Chancellor—who is, after all, if not the only begetter of economic policy, certainly the principal one—has come out with a highly upbeat account of our economic situation, referring to growth, employment and unemployment, the absence of undue inflationary and deflationary pressures, and so on and so forth.
Let me say at once that I agree entirely with this picture. At the moment we are in a situation which, although we have not reached the Holy Grail, is better than we have experienced for quite some time. If the Government, and particularly the Chancellor, wish to take credit for that, they are entitled to do so. In a highly interesting, confident and courageous speech, the Minister has enlarged the area covered by the economic news that we have had so far.
So far so good. On the other hand, having observed this rather peculiar economy of ours for many decades now—sometimes with pleasure but more often, I am afraid, with considerable grief—I cannot help drawing attention to the transitory nature of so much of what we have experienced in this area. We are, after all, a highly dependent economy, and when we look round the world—heaven forfend that there should be any schadenfreude—we find that there are some very serious problems elsewhere which, sooner or later, will affect us. The weakness of the American economy, for example, and the unprecedented length of the weakness of the Japanese economy will, sooner or later, affect us too.
There is not very much that one can do about that except to keep our economy in good shape. That we are doing. The public finances are probably as good as they have ever been, certainly in my experience. As I said, the Chancellor has pointed to growth indices, employment and unemployment and the absence of inflationary and deflationary pressures. All those are highly precious. If we can preserve them against the shocks that may come from elsewhere, we can look forward with some confidence to the immediate future.
I had intended to say a few words about economic and monetary union and the euro, and to express some surprise that the subject had not been touched on to any extent in the debate. Happily, the noble Lord,
426
Lord Harrison, has made it unnecessary for me to say much about it. Not only has he spoken at length about the euro, but he has expressed sentiments which I share completely.
If there is anything that I can say it is that it is widely believed, rightly or wrongly, that there are many members of the Cabinet who, while naturally paying attention to the political uncertainties, in their heart of hearts share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and myself on this matter. If this is so, I strongly urge the Government to jettison any traces of timidity that still remain. I know that this is a subject which divides opinion. I also know that the Conservative Party appears at the moment to be flirting with the idea of making opposition to our membership of the economic and monetary union and the euro official party policy. I would find this most regrettable. I am fairly confident that it would turn out to be a very serious political misjudgment. My advice, if I may offer it to the Government on this issue, would be courage, courage, courage.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, may I first declare my interests as the chairman of a manufacturing company and the chairman of the Economic Policy Council of the Engineering Employers Federation.
I would like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on delivering economic stability. However, somehow, the state of our manufacturing industry escaped any mention in the gracious Speech. Manufacturing industry needs urgent attention. Manufacturing output in September was still below the level in 1995 and the sector has been in technical recession since the end of 2000.
It is not well recognised that more than half a million jobs have gone in manufacturing in the past five years. We cannot sit back and let those trends continue. Manufacturing is vital for the health of the economy overall. To say that it merely amounts to less than 20 per cent of the economy does not do justice to the sector's contribution to the economy. I will let the numbers speak for themselves. Manufacturing provides just under 4 million highly skilled jobs, 60 per cent of UK exports and 85 per cent of all business R&D, and value added per employee is higher than the UK average and higher than that in the service sector. Even those numbers do not do the sector justice, as they do not take into account the links between manufacturing and other parts of the economy or the dependence of other jobs and value creation on the manufacturing sector.
The difficult times that manufacturing faces are the result of a combination of a host of factors. Yes, the sector faces tough competition from across the globe, from countries that are lower cost and those with higher productivity, but we have to question the lack of a policy for manufacturing in this country for the past 20 years, and, even more worryingly, the obstacles that continue to come in its path.
Let me take this opportunity to refresh the memory of noble Lords on the kind of obstacles that manufacturing faces. UK business has traditionally

427
enjoyed the advantages of low levels of regulation and taxation, but international comparisons show that its rating on labour regulation worsened most among G7 countries in recent years. The rising costs threaten to erode the UK's advantage of lower levels of taxation, and the burden of corporation tax is now higher than the EU average. The rise in national insurance contributions next year is a large part of the growing burden on business. An EEF survey shows that that rise will hit margins and jobs hardest at a time when the pressure on the sector could not be greater.
Manufacturers are facing a range of other rising costs at a time when global conditions have severely depressed operating margins and weakened cash flow. Both cyclical and longer-term factors have pushed up the cost of the different forms of insurance taken out by manufacturers—such as employers' liability, product liability, general and property—by around 50 to 60 per cent, with some firms even seeing rises of more than 100 per cent.
Some companies are experiencing huge problems even obtaining compulsory employers' liability insurance and there are strong reasons for the Government to intervene. They are that there are clear signs that the market for employers' liability insurance is not functioning well and that receipts from insurance premium tax are rising as a result of the rising premiums. May I suggest that the Government return that windfall to the corporate sector?
The problems that many companies face due to the increased cost of providing company pension schemes are well known. New research from the EEF and the CBI shows that the net impact of the climate change levy—that is, after the NIC reduction is taken into account—is a rise in costs of £150 million. What is particularly perverse is that the net impact of the levy on the service sector is actually to reduce costs by £60 million.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the current climate is that it is undermining the investment that is vital for the future competitiveness of the UK manufacturing base. It is clear that the UK is not devoting enough resources to investment in manufacturing. There has been a significant gap in capital per hour worked compared with our key competitors in manufacturing for many years and the situation is getting worse. Manufacturing investment in the second quarter of this year was nearly 15 per cent below the level that applied a year ago.
There is clearly an opportunity for the Government to reduce the pressure on cash flow and availability of internal finance for manufacturers through the tax system; I refer, for example, to capital allowances. The need for such intervention has hardly been greater. While those cost burdens weigh down the manufacturing sector, it also struggles against the disadvantages of the skills base.
The global climate and overvalued sterling—or undervalued euro, or whatever noble Lords would like to call it—have led to the most rapid contraction in the UK's manufacturing output since the early 1980s.
428
Rising global competition has meant that over the past 40 years we have seen the developing world come from nowhere to claiming almost a quarter of worldwide manufacturing production, and we congratulate those countries on their success. We should not think that rising global competition is a negative for UK manufacturing. On the contrary, there are huge opportunities for companies with the vision to spot them and the agility to exploit them before someone else does.
The key issue is how we use all of our capabilities to protect—and, indeed, nurture—our competitive advantage as a nation. To be successful in the new and changing global environment, manufacturers will have to continue pursuing excellence in their chosen field. They will need to stay focused on their core values and skills and be continually innovative. But we must remember that the key issue of our competitive advantage applies not only to companies but also to the Government.
The Government must help manufacturers as they strive to build a pathway to future prosperity. That means ensuring that there are no further cost increases that will undermine competitiveness. We must reduce the impact of the rising costs that I have outlined: employers' liability insurance, pensions and the climate change levy. The Government must also help to stimulate manufacturing investment. What could be a better time to act perhaps than next week's Pre-Budget Statement?
6.20 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I propose to comment mainly on economic affairs. Our economy continues to grow, albeit in a spluttering and uneven way. But as the noble Lord, Lord Roll, has already said, there are many international uncertainties and our trade is nearly a third of GDP.
Indeed, under this Government, we are doing better than most of our competitors, particularly in the EEC, where not only is growth slower, or even non-existent, but unemployment is substantially higher. However, our official unemployment figures also need to be considered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, told us on Monday, together with an additional 4 million people of working age who are out of the labour market, and many of whom are on incapacity benefit, from a total work force of some 27 million.
Are there hidden dangers in our current economic situation? The answer, I am afraid, is yes, and more not so hidden. In the last year of the Conservative government, spending was £290 billion. By 2006, it is planned to be more than £500 billion. Where will all the extra money come from? We know where it is proposed to go.
Companies are about to suffer from even more accounting standards. Accounts used to be simple to understand—at least by me. We looked at profit after tax, all other expenses and depreciation. Now, because goodwill is amortised, we look at EBITDA—in other words, earnings before interest tax and depreciation—in order to make the figures look better. Hopefully, we shall soon concentrate on cash flow.

429
What is the Chancellor doing? He has created government accounts, with, as I understand, off balance sheet items. We are now told that private finance initiatives are more than £100 billion but the Treasury does not disclose any potential extra liabilities. Borrowing and other liabilities are not appearing on the balance sheet. We have heard that somewhere else recently. For example, the £9 billion of debt held by Network Rail is guaranteed by the Treasury. If anything goes wrong the Treasury will pay. So the expenditure side of the equation is not correctly presented. But what about the revenue?
The Chancellor thinks that the economy will grow by 3¼ per cent next year. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi might say—another missed target. I hope, however, that the Chancellor is right. So far revenue has more or less held up, but how? While manufacturing has been declining, and continues to do so, the service sector has been strong, but now the latter is weakening. More than 70,000 jobs have been lost in that area in recent months. The big financial services bonuses and high pay levels are things of the past. The windfall gains from the sale of 3G telecoms licences are no longer available to pay down the national debt and reduce interest charges. A large reduction in personal saving from 11 per cent in 1997 to less than 4 per cent now has sustained an unsustainable level of domestic expenditure enhanced by the highest ever level of personal borrowing per head of population. Present tax revenues will therefore fall from current levels. For the first time in many years the numbers in employment are falling, despite the Government employing 100,000 more people.
What is the driver of the economy? It must be employers and employees who create employment, profits and revenue for the Government, who now take more than 40 per cent of GDP. Let us look at business. This year's Budget was powerfully anti-business. There were increased national insurance contributions, a higher tax on North Sea oil and other earlier measures, a windfall tax on utilities, the removal of tax credit on pension funds—let alone increasing regulation. There were more than 4,600 measures in 2001 alone—many of course from that bureaucratic nightmare, Brussels. But for every piece of red tape from Brussels, the Government impose four of their own. We have the directives on temporary workers and stakeholder pensions, which are so complicated that only a small proportion who are eligible have taken them up. There are new health and employment regulations and parental leave. All those can be paid only from employment and company profits. The rate of return for manufacturing and service companies has been declining consistently since 1997 according to the Office for National Statistics. The Chancellor should therefore cut his growth forecast, but then the books would not balance.
430
The UK economy is out of kilter. There is increasing household consumption financed by a reduction in savings and increased debt, especially on houses. This is not maintainable. The Government are now taking over as the main contributor to rinsing consumption. Low interest rates are encouraging the housing market. Sooner rather than later this will have to be corrected and in a low inflation environment the correction will be more severe.
A large amount of negative equity will re-emerge. The extra consumer expenditure, which may well have accounted for at least half of the GDP growth on some estimates, will no longer be there as consumers repay debt and increase savings, if they can.
Having given control of interest rates to the Bank of England—a widely applauded decision—what can the Chancellor do to get out of the tightening noose? He can hope for a slow and gradual correction. A Christmas surge in sales will turn into a slow spring. Unemployment may well gradually rise. He could bring in serious and simple measures to increase savings and make the stock market a more attractive place to invest, thus enabling corporate money-raising activity to pick up. Such measures could include the simplification of the tax system on savings, for example, by increasing the PEP limit, or having flat rate of capital gains tax, however long or short an asset is held. Stakeholder pensions could be simplified and pension fund tax credits could be restored. The red tape on companies could be reduced, allowing management to concentrate on developing and growing their businesses.
In the meantime the books do not balance. Sadly, seeking to make them do so by increasing taxation will not work because the non-government part of the economy no longer has the capacity to produce the revenue.
A further deterioration in competitiveness will be inevitable. While the Government's efforts to improve health and education are welcome, just increasing substantially the money spent will not solve the problems without long-term planning for more doctors, consultants, teachers and other trained and untrained staff. We all know that this will be a long and hard road. If the Government's plans to get spending levels to top-country standards are to be achieved, can this be afforded in an economy whose growth is very largely dependent on reducing levels of personal saving and increasing consumer debt?
Turning for a moment to the media—I declare that I am a retired Chairman of United News and Media—a change in regulation and regime is welcome. However, I hope that the BBC—this implies no criticism—will come wholly under the regulation of Ofcom, as a number of speakers have said. The present desire to improve its ratings, while in some respects desirable, is not in my view consistent with its role as a public service broadcaster. If the BBC's objectives have changed, the system of finance—the licence fee—should be reviewed.

431
I also cannot endorse the proposal that US companies can take over British broadcasters if there are no reciprocal rights. Now is the time to negotiate this—not after the Bill becomes law.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the questions that I want to ask this afternoon are: what do we require of government and what may we expect of them in the light of the global economic slow-down? As my noble friend Lord Roll said, it is a slow-down that is bound to affect this country. Indeed, it has already affected
us.
We are currently in the midst of one of the deepest and longest world-wide bear markets in history, which has followed the bursting of the American bubble. Since January 2000 the NASDAQ index has declined by almost 80 per cent, the Standard and Poor index has lost 40 per cent and our own FTSE has lost 40 per cent. By late summer, the Dow Jones was nearly 40 per cent off and the German DAX index has halved this last year.
It is already one of the deepest bear markets that we have experienced, but it is not just the extent of the decline, but also its length. The biggest one-day crash occurred on "Black Monday", 19th October 1987, when the Dow Jones lost 22 per cent in a day. But, the next day there was strong recovery and, within a year, all the lost ground had been recovered. The same pattern of sharp fall and quick recovery was experienced in 1997–98. The typical bear market usually reverses itself within a couple of years.
Much more insidious is the death by a thousand cuts. The prime example of that was the bear market that followed the Wall Street crash of 28th October 1929. Three years later, the Dow Jones had lost 80 per cent of its value and the market took 20 years to recover. The Nikkei in Japan has followed this pattern, losing 75 per cent of its value since 1989.
Today, of course, is not as bad as then. The Dow Jones would have to fall from 9,000 to 2,000 to equal the fall between 1929 and 1932. But we have now had a bear market for almost three years and, despite last month's rally, we cannot be very confident that the market will reverse itself quickly. If anything, prices are still somewhat overvalued relative to earnings and we have the shadow of Iraq over us.
The point of this little history, which is much less amusing than that given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is that prolonged bear markets are bound to drag down the real economy in their wake. The slump in equities is bad for capital spending and the loss of wealth will sooner or later impact on consumer spending. In fact, had not monetary policy already been aggressively loosened in both the United States and in Britain in order to support the housing market, our economies, I venture to suggest, would already be in recession. As it is, the growth of capital investment has stopped and in some industries is negative. British and American growth rates this year
432
will be little over 1 per cent—well below trend—and next year's forecasts are being constantly revised downwards. So we are certainly in recession territory.
Keynes taught us that slumps can be prevented by the prompt use of "circuit breakers"; that is, through monetary and fiscal policy. But since Keynes we have also learnt something else: that the effect of these policies is highly dependent on how people view a country's monetary and fiscal system. If they think that it is basically unsound, further measures of expansion may destroy confidence, not restore it. That has happened time and again in Latin America. The truth is that any instrument can be blunted or perverted through misuse. We now understand that you have to have monetary and fiscal rules. It is only in the context of such rules—in the expectation that they will be followed—that expansionary policies can achieve their desired results.
How does Britain's monetary and fiscal regime measure up to this challenge of potential recession? The answer is: extremely well. No praise can be too high for the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set up a rule-based system both tough enough to command the confidence of markets and flexible enough to be used to offset recessionary forces. In fact, given the long history of mismanagement of British macro-economic policy, the return to political maturity and technical skill in these arrangements is little short of amazing. That is in contrast to the euro-zone, whose over-rigid monetary and fiscal rules are a major cause of the long stagnation of its main economies.
I do not want to say anything today about monetary policy—the admirable reports of the Economic Affairs Committee have given us previous opportunities to discuss that. It is fiscal policy anyway that may well have the hard work to do for the next two or three years. The Chancellor has stuck to his golden rule that tax revenues should cover government spending over the cycle—the modern version of the Victorian balanced budget rule, if you want to think of it that way. It is the Chancellor's willingness to pile up surpluses in the upswing that gives him his room for manoeuvre in the downswing. I am not alarmed, therefore, by the emergence of a deficit: as long as we have a business cycle, it is the natural counterpart to previous surpluses and performs an essential balancing role. In periods of falling demand, deficits on government account can help to maintain profits on private account.
Since 1999 the accumulated surplus has been £50 billion. This year's April Budget predicted a surplus of £19 billion over the next three years. Even if this is turned into a deficit of £50 billion in the next three years—a swing of £70 billion—as seems likely, the Chancellor would still not have breached his golden rule. No euro-zone Finance Minister of a major country starts the possible slide into recession with such a strong inherited fiscal position. We ought to recognise that. It is an achievement that, in the light of Britain's recent economic history, is astounding.

433
There is a second feature to applaud in Mr Brown's management of our business. In his April Budget the Chancellor promised a 43 per cent rise in National Health Service spending over the next five years, equivalent to £40 billion. Overall, British spending on health is set to increase by about 3 per cent of GDP over the next five years. It is a moot point how much better the National Health Service will become as a result of that extra spending. But there is no doubt that it will have an extremely beneficial macro effect in present circumstances. In particular, the modernisation programme of the NHS will set up a demand for IT equipment that might well not otherwise have been forthcoming from the private sector. Much of that demand will be for British-made equipment.
It is particularly important that that extra spending be not frittered away in large wage increases. That is why I urge the Government to stand firm against the firemen's pay claim. If anything approaching 40 per cent is met, it will send a signal to other public sector unions that the Government are a soft touch, and will threaten a return of the "inflationary recessions" that we had in the 1970s.
Have I nothing to say in the way of criticism? I do. If only the Chancellor could display the same masterly inactivity in micro-policy as he has in macro-policy, we would all be so much happier. Having emancipated himself from delusion in macro-policy, he has, unfortunately, developed serious symptoms of that disease in his micro-policy. In micro-policy he is obsessively fidgety. He is always tweaking this tax or that tax, this target or that target, thinking up this or that clever wheeze. The process is never ending because every new device has unintended consequences or creates some distortion that has to be corrected next time round. The result is an increasing complexity in the tax system and an increasing burden of regulation that are the reverse of the admirable trend towards simplicity set by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he was Chancellor, and the reverse of what British industry requires. As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, pointed out, it is one of the crosses that our manufacturing industry has to bear.
What is the explanation of that fidgeting? I suppose it is not just that Mr Brown cannot stand being underoccupied. I believe that he and his chief advisers genuinely believe that fine-tuning the tax and regulatory system can make the British economy more competitive, more efficient and can make it grow a little faster. I do not buy that. I suggest that it is profitability that drives a market economy; productivity is a by-product of profitability and not something to be aimed at directly. The truth is that we really do not know enough about the causes of economic growth in detail to be constantly fiddling with the incentive system in the way that we do.
In conclusion, I wish that the Chancellor could get himself to believe what Adam Smith once wrote:
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things".
434
If he could only act on that principle, he would get three cheers all round—at least from me.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, we listened with amusement and understanding to the most interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. He began by telling us about the pattern and history of bear markets. It was a useful, if rather depressing, history and something that I hope will never see the light in our lifetime. He introduced fervent praise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I found welcome. The golden rule of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still intact and I am an admirer of his macro policy. There are always a number of minor matters with which one can disagree, but I shall not deal with those in my speech.
I want to deal mainly with the issue of the single currency and joining the euro. In his Statement on 27th October 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a decision on the single currency was likely to be the most important that this country would face in a generation. I agree with that. That is why I am surprised that we did not see rather more mention of it in the Queen's Speech because the real decisions will be made in this Parliament. The tests that were introduced were based on the situation in 1997. That is five years ago—probably six years before the decision will be made. The fact that the tests were based on what one perceived so long ago suggests that matters need to be brought rather more up to date.
Of course, there was great uncertainty in 1997 about the future economic prospects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had only just entered into his inheritance. Kenneth Clarke, among many others, was deploring the state of the economy as it was being conducted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, as I said, the situation in 1997 will not apply in 2003.
We have the five tests but we also have to ask at what value the pound will stand when we enter the euro-zone. In answer to a question that I raised, my noble friend Lord Macdonald said rightly that there is no sixth test. He is right. However, on the other hand, there is an overriding relationship between the value of the pound and all the five tests. The five tests can be met far more easily if we enter the euro system with a truly competitive pound. A major foundation of the success of the five tests will be the level of the exchange rate at which we enter the euro.
Let us examine the situation by looking, first, at the matter of investment. In the six months to June, United Kingdom inward investment fell from 20 to 16 per cent—a rather surprising fall of all European investment projects. Investors want to invest within the European Union. With a competitive pound and with English as our language, which is an enormous advantage in international economic matters and in international affairs generally, we have a great opportunity within the European Union to make our country an even more attractive place in which to invest.

435
Let us consider another of the tests—employment. With investment come jobs and with a competitive pound come greater opportunities for exports, as, indeed, was stated by my noble friend Lord Paul. The growth of industrial exports will obviously proceed with the pound at a suitable level. In his Statement in 1997, the Chancellor said:
"Currently Britain's business cycle is out of line with our European partners".
It was then. He continued:
"Interest rates here are 7 per cent".
They were then. He said:
"This is the level the Bank of England has set in order to achieve our inflation target. But in Germany and France interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time".
That is not a problem for us now because in those five years we have converged and the convergence is continuing. An appropriate exchange rate will give us more flexibility to provide convergence as well as economic change.
Let us see what the Chancellor has to say on the question of flexibility. In 1997 he said:
"The Treasury assessment of the second test"—
that is, the test on flexibility—
"is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills"—
that was the situation that we were talking about in 1997; not the situation today—
"—and in some areas lack of competition—point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change"—
we would all agree with that—
"and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government has begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare into work and improving the workings of our markets".
That is the success that the Chancellor has achieved. In judging that success, we must also consider the situation as it applies to the ability properly to enter the euro-zone. We need to see some of the further advantages that we shall get. Foreign trade will have many advantages from entering the euro-zone. In foreign trade, exchange rate risks are debilitating and are a serious aspect of the situation.
There was a time when businesses placed fixed contracts for a fixed period of time. They were sold so many articles over a certain period of time and they could hedge against that. Hedging was possible against a fixed amount of money for a fixed period of time. But business does not operate like that any more. Things are done on a far more regular and continuous basis and people can cancel or slow things down at any time. Under those circumstances, exchange rate risks, which one cannot hedge against properly, are far more serious. Continuing business will be affected in that way.
Hedging against currency risks is difficult to achieve. Because so much of our future is linked with the European Union, that now becomes even more important. Forty-nine per cent of our trade is with the
436
European Union 12; 16 per cent of our trade is with the United States. Therefore, my assessment is that entry to the euro-zone will depend fundamentally on the value of the pound when it occurs. I want the lowest realistic exchange rate. That needs to be negotiated.
I want the lowest exchange rate because I want a truly competitive rate. No one can doubt that the exchange rate situation in relation to Germany, which today stands at approximately 3.04 as against 2.95 deutschmarks to the pound when we exited from the exchange rate mechanism, makes clear that at present our exchange rate is very uncompetitive. Obviously, a realistic rate will need to be negotiated. Whereas the five tests are valid for a short time, if the value of the pound at entry were too high, that might create several years of unjustified constriction of the economy. It worries me a great deal that, as a result of entry, we might find ourselves unable to enjoy the advantages that are available.
Against that, I believe that the five tests require rather shorter consideration. The overarching or supreme test, which will determine the success or otherwise of the five tests, is the rate at which we enter. I should dearly like to know what indication the Chancellor of the Exchequer has of the likely rate at which we could arrange to enter the euro.
Another matter that I want to raise briefly is whether the fear of inflation will continue to be one of our greatest economic problems. With interest rates as low as they are, we are now approaching the situation where reducing interest rates may not be enough to stimulate the economy. If one wants to stimulate the economy, one simply reduces interest rates. That will not be so easy. There can come a time when even low interest rates, as in Japan and the early 1930s, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, are not enough to stimulate an economy. As a result of that, borrowing and expenditure might well come into their own and Keynes may need to be re-read.
I want to raise one other matter because I see that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is here. I shall briefly mention the British Museum. Neil MacGregor went from the National Gallery to the British Museum. He is someone for whom I have a great regard. He is a splendid person and the British Museum did well to acquire him. I look forward to him resisting any attempt to restore the Parthenon marbles to Greece. He has my full support in that regard.
Neil MacGregor went to a museum which had free entry and which was not compensated as other museums were for their free entry policies. It was unfair for someone who had gone to one of the most important museums in the world to find himself with such a burden of debt. In view of the enthusiasm that my noble friend has shown for such matters, I hope that she will continue to show that enthusiasm to great effect.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. In July when I spoke in the Finance Bill debate, I said that the Chancellor's

437
forecast for economic growth looked optimistic. Four months later, in the light of global economic slowdown, my view seems even more justified. The Government's forecast of 2 to 2.5 per cent growth in 2002 for a start looks high, with the expected outcome being nearer 1.5 to 1.75 per cent. The forecasts for 2003 of 3 to 3.5 per cent, and 2.5 to 3 per cent for 2004, also look optimistic. I ask the Minister how much he believes that those forecasts will be scaled down in the Pre-Budget Report. As Lea Paterson wrote in The Times of 12th November:
"there is a growing realisation in Whitehall that this year's PBR … will be much less about highlighting Labour's economic triumphs and much more about covering up its flaws".
The C'hancellor's strategy is looking shaky as a result of the slowdown in growth. Towards the end of Labour's first term in office when the Chancellor started pumping money into public services, financing government spending pledges was easy. Tax revenues were rising much faster than the Treasury had been expecting. It also took time for spending agreed at ministerial level to filter through to the services on the ground. That may have done little for the Government's push for better public services, but it flattered the public finance numbers. The net result was that the Treasury coffers were left looking healthy at the start of Labour's second term.
Since then, however, things have deteriorated rapidly. Spending has picked up sharply, while growth has disappointed, leading to lower than forecast tax revenues. The tax take from the corporate sector has been particularly weak, with corporation tax receipts set to Call by 4 per cent this year.
It is not only the corporation tax take that has disappointed. While consumer demand and overall income growth have been more or less in line with forecasts, income receipts have been coming in below Treasury expectations. The explanation for that apparent anomaly is that it is the top end of the income scale—in particular the City—that has borne the brunt of the job losses. It is suggested that some 35,000 people have lost their jobs in the City. It is those on the very highest incomes who contribute the most in tax.
According to Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (DKW)) estimates, only 1.1 per cent of taxpayers earn more than £100,000, but that 1.1 per cent accounts for 23 per cent of all income tax receipts. While the tax take will almost certainly fall short of expectations, spending looks set to exceed government forecasts, so borrowing is set to rise. At the time of the Budget the Chancellor said that he was expecting to borrow £11 billion this year and £13 billion in each of the following two years. The City believes that the Chancellor will be forced to increase those estimates substantially. The respected economic team at DKW have recently increased their forecast of public borrowing from £11.7 billion to £16 billion in 2002–03 and from £17.2 billion to £21 billion in 2003–04. Does the Minister agree with me that there is a need to raise the government borrowing figures?
Those figures could well get worse. If the Government give in to the firemen's pay claim, other public sector workers will also make large wage claims,
438
and thus government money will go into wage increases rather than into infrastructure improvements. Does the Minister agree that the figures will increase?
In this year's PBR the primary task ahead for the Chancellor and his aides will be to decide how to deal with the public finances shortfall. The options will be to raise taxes, allow borrowing to rise or to opt for some short-term presentational fix. In all likelihood the Chancellor's preferred solution will combine all those elements. Indeed the signs are that that three-point plan has already been set in train.
The short-term presentational fix began in April at Budget time, when the small print of the Treasury figures revealed that a variety of changes had been made to forecasting techniques. In particular, the Treasury upped its estimate of the economy's longterm rate of growth, allowing it to add about fl billion a year to its revenue forecasts. Rising immigration was cited as the reason for the change, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, also latched on to in his speech on the Finance Bill in July. But I am yet to be convinced of it. I ask the Minister for his opinion.
Forecasting changes is not the only way in which the Treasury has sought to improve the presentation of the public finances in recent months. The Government have signed up the taxpayer to a number of long-term financial liabilities yet have taken strenuous steps to ensure that these do not appear on the Government's balance sheet and so do not influence Labour's spending or borrowing projections. How can the Minister justify that Network Rail, for example, is a private body?
The Chancellor may well excel in presentational fixes, but I am sure that he will be aware that those measures will not on their own save the day. Of central importance is the fact that the Government may well have broken their own fiscal rules. Here I part company with the views of the noble Lord. Lord Skidelsky. While some of the deterioration in public finances in the past year may well be cyclical, as The Times of 12th November described it:
"there are also early signs of a structural—that is, a permanent—weakening in the Government's budget position".
Those kinds of deficits under the Labour Government's own rules can only be dealt with by raising taxes or cutting spending.
What are the grounds for arguing about a structural deterioration in the public finances? To start with, spending appears to be exceeding the Government's own targets, but there have also been some worrying developments on the receipts side of the ledger book. In particular, there is tentative evidence that receipts are weakening faster than the overall level of economic growth would at first suggest. If next year growth recovers a little, which generally economic commentators suggest will happen through the Keynesian stimulus to the economy by government expenditure, it is far from clear that UK companies in general and the financial services industry in particular will enjoy their fair share of the upswing. That has worrying implications for tax receipts.

439
I believe, in line with independent commentators, that it is likely to be some years before Britain's financial service industry and City wages recover fully from the boom period of the 1990s. That has clear knock-on effects for income tax projections. As far as the corporate sector is concerned, I believe, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we are in a new deflationary era, the like of which has not been seen since the 1930s.
In that new climate, due to the effect of globalisation and low cost competition from overseas, UK companies will be unable to increase their prices, whereas they will see their costs increasing due, for example, to increased regulatory costs (which I shall examine in a moment) and higher fixed costs such as local government charges. That means that their profit margins in the possible recovery are unlikely to be as healthy as in the past. As a result, corporate tax receipts are likely to continue to disappoint.
So what now is the Government's likely response to the difficulties of the corporate sector? They have decided to reverse previous policy and tax it more; and, secondly, to heap extra regulation on it.
That is a sad contrast to the more business friendly regime of Labour's first spell. As The Times stated on 12thNovember:
"The effects of the prawn cocktail offensive by which Labour seduced the business world before they were first elected have long worn off".
The head of the CBI, Digby Jones, generally a supporter of the Labour Government in its first term, has calculated that by the end of Labour's second term of office business will have been hit by an extra £47 billion of taxes. That statement stung the Treasury to reply that the figure included the effect of the abolition of the dividend tax credit, which was sneaked into the first Budget and has contributed £5 billion a year to making pension funds poorer. But that is money that would have been invested mostly in British business had not the Chancellor grabbed it.
To make matters worse for companies, according to the Financial Times of 12th November, the Chancellor is expected to announce more taxes on businesses in order to meet environmental objectives; for instance, possibly increasing the climate change levy or landfill taxes. Let us also not forget the effect of the national insurance increases which come into effect next April for employers and employees.
For all the Government's rhetoric about the need for business to invest, improve productivity and encourage job creation, too many of their deeds prove to be a positive discouragement. Apart from taxation, Digby Jones's voice is one of the loudest in a rapidly increasing chorus railing against the increased regulatory burden on business. While our bureaucrats are no slouches at dreaming up expensive and unnecessary regulations on health and safety, much of what truly weighs down business—as other noble Lords have said—comes from Europe.
440
The combined effect is to lessen gradually, but inexorably, the attractions of Britain as a place in which to do business. There does not seem to be any comprehension by the Government of the dangers we are gradually facing by forcing British companies into the straitjacket that already hampers much of Europe. Yet the increasing restrictions on our once flexible labour market are already taking effect. In a recent article in The Times, Patience Wheatcroft states that she met the head of an international leisure company this month who stated that the combination of the working time directive, equal benefits for part-time staff and a raft of other obligations are forcing businesses to one conclusion: they do not want to employ more staff in Britain.
In conclusion, the traffic lights are at amber. The Government's tax and spend approach is weakening the public finances, and if, as I believe, we are in a new era of deflation and growth continues to be anaemic, that could cause major problems for government finances in the longer term.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, not least in the light of today's publication of the Government's proposed legislation to establish Ofcom, I very much welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the media aspect of today's Queen's Speech debate. They are seen rightly as an increasingly vital part of our economic as well as cultural international success.
I declare an interest as a previous chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and as one who enjoys a small pension from that organisation.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken. I want to add my congratulations to the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill and in particular, to its distinguished chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on an excellent report. Having attended some of the hearings as an observer, I have been able to witness at first hand the courtesy, as well as the expertise and quality with which the committee conducted the cross-examination of its witnesses.
I am grateful, too, for the committee's backing for a Lords Select Committee on communications, which it is hoped will be established once this legislation is complete.
I must also say that I am not in the least surprised at the extent to which the Government have rightly paid tribute to the Joint Committee's work: first, directly, by the number of recommendations they have accepted—120 out of 148, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon; and, secondly, in the more general way that the Government have signalled in the Queen's Speech their intention to make greater use for future Bills of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure.
I want to mention two aspects of the Bill, both of which will fall probably within the human rights area—the "fluffy" rather than the "techy" side of Ofcom's remit, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

441
On the first point I shall be extremely brief, not least because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield has already dealt with the whole subject so comprehensively and convincingly. Like many noble Lords and well beyond—including, I am glad to say the pre-legislative scrutiny committee—I find it difficult to believe that the Government are still largely insisting on maintaining their ban on those holding religious office from possessing a licence and barring applications from religious broadcasters for a national radio licence.
In a media world, where bad language and violence is routinely seen on our screens and where soft, and increasingly harder, pornography is also apparently seen by some regulators as acceptable, to put extra restrictions on those with a religious background from holding a licence for commercial radio stations seems to me, to put it mildly, quite out of proportion. A more accurate, if unparliamentary, description, would be "barmy".
My second point will take a little longer. I realise of course—and will therefore try and keep my comments short—that there will be other opportunities to expand further on these and other aspects of the Bill when it comes before us from another place in the spring, not least exactly what the future relationship of that splendid, if sometimes flawed, institution, the BBC—the history of which was so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Hussey—should be with Ofcom. My own views are on hold at the moment, although I have listened to the many who felt that it should come fully within Ofcom's remit. The other interesting point is whether the newspaper industry should be rather more fully within Ofcom's remit than it is at present.
I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred the legislation to provide us with two communications regulators rather than the one giant Ofcom proposed—one to deal with the cultural and content issues and the other with the competitive, economic and technical aspects of the industry.
Already, as we know from witnesses, both sides are concerned that the other will be seen as the most important and will therefore get the lion's share of resources. 'That is despite the Government's insistence that Ofcom's,
"duties must reflect the breadth of Ofcom responsibilities, both economic and cultural, and that each duty is of equal weight".
How all this will work out in practice, we will have to wait and see.
However, on the cultural side, it is the lack of independence, or potential lack of perceived independence, of the content board that concerns me most. I note that since the White Paper Ofcom, through the emergence of the content board, has been given a greater role in dealing with individual complaints about fairness and privacy, if not perhaps those to do with taste and decency. But whether the issue is one of taste and decency or of fairness and privacy, my question is: will the complainant see Ofcom's content board as sufficiently independent of Ofcom to be able to give an impartial as well as an informed ruling? We must remember that Ofcom will
442
have the duty of granting broadcast licences, as well as agreeing the overall broadcasting content standards that, by definition, a complainant will be alleging have been broken.
A further point is whether the content board will have power to order any remedy—if not to award financial compensation—if a privacy and fairness complaint is upheld. Indeed, are exactly the same conditions that applied to complainants to the Broadcasting Standards Commission to apply under the new arrangements, not least that if action in the courts is being contemplated by a complainant the Commission will not entertain that complaint? I should be grateful for any information that the Minister has on that point.
I find it puzzling that there is such emphasis on the need for the consumer panel to be seen to be independent of Ofcom—even to the extent that the pre-legislative committee would have preferred members to be appointed by the Secretary of State—while, for the content board, even that aspect of visible independence is apparently not considered important. Two members of the main Ofcom board are now to be on the content board—one as the chairman. Yet the content board will oversee and, by its adjudications, uphold a far more important human right: the right of an individual who may have had his or her business or whole career irreparably damaged by an unfair broadcast programme. Surely, most people would agree that trial by media can be far more damaging even than a court case. One has only to think, for example, of the recent cases of the two broadcasters who both lost their jobs as a result of reckless, and effectively endless, mudslinging about their past lifestyles.
The Bill provides for what is called a much lighter touch style of regulation, with far more responsibility delegated to broadcasters themselves. However well intentioned they may be, they can hardly be said to be impartial. Given that, is it not even more important than previously that appeal procedures built into the Bill are seen even more clearly to be completely independent of those against whom, or in respect of whom, the complaint is made?
Despite the many excellent qualities of the draft Bill, I fear that I persist in regarding that aspect as its most important flaw and the most adverse, and unjustifiable, departure from existing arrangements.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roll: the gracious Speech was a bit thin, but it was to the point. It dealt with crime and anti-social behaviour. It dealt with reform in the health service. It dealt with devolving power away from the centre. But below the surface it seemed to me that it continued with a theme that is not new to this Government: it dealt with rights with responsibilities.
The Government seem intent on re-balancing rights and responsibility by asking for more responsibility from citizens and dismantling and delegating some of the rights of central Government. I welcome that,

443
because it should create a fairer and a more involved society. There will certainly be rather less of the command society satirised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi.
However, rights and responsibilities need rebalancing not only in the criminal justice system and in public services but also in the economy: in the balance between government and business. That relationship has been getting a hit tetchy recently, so a re-balancing would not come amiss.
Where should the balance be struck between government and business? When we were in opposition, I had the privilege of working with the late John Smith and my right honourable friend Gordon Brown when they were shadow Chancellors. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook—I am sorry that he is not in his place—that I enjoyed a number of prawn cocktails on the famous circuit. At that time, business maintained that the responsibility of government was continuing low inflation and interest rates, keeping politics out of economics and delivering top-class education and skills training. In short, the Government should stick to the political development of the nation, driven by their values, while business attended to the development of the economy, driven by its values.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has reminded us on many occasions, much of that has been achieved. There is a question mark over education and skills, but Ministers are on the case.
Until now, the balance has been working reasonably well. Business has done a pretty good job of growing the economy, employing most of the population available for work and taking a more responsible attitude towards society and the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, told us that the Government have done well in creating the conditions for business to thrive so that ultimately business can deliver.
But that balance of rights and responsibilities has recently been lost in two areas: regulation and taxation, both of which have been mentioned. Every government I can remember have been accused of over-regulating. Several noble Lords have accused the Government of that in this debate. I read somewhere that there are about 2,000 new regulations a year. Many are minor—relating to weights and measures and other practical matters. But the fact ignored by previous speakers is that we now live in a more risk-averse, more complicated, more aware, more litigious and better informed society—a society that now believes that the Government have a duty to protect the public from every conceivable risk. People overreact to scare stories, which prompts the Government and Parliament to respond with regulation.
There is also the Government's responsibility to regulate where there is market failure—regulation to force business to act for the public good. In fact, we are one of the least regulated economies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
444
Development. Research proves that point. We have more voluntary codes of practice than most, and a commission of Ministers and officials considering every regulation, charged with identifying and eliminating those that are unnecessary. The Government try to regulate with a light touch. Only when it becomes apparent that voluntary codes of practice have failed do they tend to resort to legislation. Compare that with the United States and the rush to legislate on accounting practices.
I think that the balance between rights and responsibilities in regulation probably satisfies the public but leaves business unhappy. Business will have to learn to live with that, because regulation is inevitable as our society continues to develop.
Turning to taxation, rights and responsibilities certainly should be looked at. Corporation tax is lower here than just about everywhere else. My noble friend Lord Paul told us about other taxes that business finds onerous. Also, tax collection here is pretty effective. The concern seems to be that there is a revenue shortfall in the Chancellor's Budget of between £40 billion and £70 billion, depending on whose speech one listens to. The worry is that taxes will have to rise to pay for that. That is a legitimate concern, but there are other ways of raising the money. Raising productivity is one.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, says that profitability comes first; I think that productivity comes first. If industry raised its productivity by 1 per cent, the boost to the Chancellor's tax revenues would be enough to cover the shortfall, and there would be a boost to the profitability of business. I know that economists will point out that the effect is not immediate; there is a time-lag, and others things have to stay the same. But is it not worth rebalancing rights and responsibilities to achieve that?
There is plenty to go at. The gap is significant. We are told that our productivity is 35 per cent behind that of America and 10 to 20 per cent behind that of other OECD countries. That seems to apply mainly to our manufacturing sector, which now, as my noble friend Lord Paul told us, represents only about a fifth of the economy.
Today we have heard a lot about the excellence of our entertainment industry but nothing about its productivity. My noble friend Lord Harrison told us about the importance of tourism, but he told us nothing about its productivity. In fact, there is no real measure of the productivity of our service sector, but there are some indications; for example, in the year to September, inflation in services was 4.8 per cent, but in the same year, the cost of goods went down by 0.9 per cent. I know that the comparisons are not precise, but they indicate that there is significant room for the service sector to raise its productivity. If the leisure and entertainment industry is such a large part of our economy, a 1 per cent increase in its productivity could nearly fill any perceived gap in the budget.
I know that the DTI and the Treasury are making great efforts to assist and encourage the manufacturing sector to become more productive and,

445
hence, more competitive. Is the same being done for the service sector? Until we can measure its progress, we will not know how effective the efforts of industry and the Government have been. The need is there. We read about call centres being contracted out to India and our airline tickets being filled out in China. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look into the matter of measuring the productivity of the service sector.
Central to increasing productivity, of course, is investment. The Government do what they can to encourage investment, but investment is a matter of culture and attitude to risk in individual businesses. It is a management decision, and it is as much a matter of management as it is of economics. That is why the balance between rights and responsibility must move in the direction of business taking more responsibility in this matter. It is the responsibility of business and industry to provide the management and leadership to achieve the increase in productivity.
Rights and responsibilities need not be adversarial. In the case of productivity, they are the same side of the coin. It makes the tax increases unnecessary and increases profitability. In the case of regulation, the balance is the inevitable effect of free-market economics and of growing prosperity.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, by far the most important economic decision in this Session will be the decision on the five tests. Many of us thought that they had already been passed in 1997. However, even if they were not passed then, it is clear that they have been passed now. Everything that has happened since 1998 has borne out the predictions that we made at that time.
The basic issue is simple: does a separate currency impede trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage? It is as simple as that. Everything that has happened since 1998 shows that the answer to those questions is "Yes". Since then, trade between the members of the euro-zone has soared, while trade between Britain and the euro-zone has stagnated, relative to our GDP. At the same time, foreign direct investment from outside Europe has shifted substantially into the euro-zone. In the nine years before 1998, 40 per cent came to Britain; since 1998, it has been only 25 per cent.
The reason is that we are not in the position that we were in 1998; we are in a worse position. Before 1998, anyone who wanted to sell on the Continent faced a currency risk, if he sold outside his own country. Now, Britain is the only major country of which that is true. We face a currency risk, if we produce in Britain and sell on to the Continent, while anyone producing on the Continent and selling on to the Continent faces no such risk. We can see in the figures that a major reconstruction of the European economy is under way and that there is a concentration of production in the lowest-cost areas. We are being significantly excluded from the reconstruction of the European economy.
446
The most important conclusion from that is that we should not wait and see. When the first phase of reconstruction is over, it will be more difficult for us to break in and establish our niche. It is the same situation as that faced by Britain in 1956, when the six decided to take the first step in getting together. We thought that we were doing fine and decided to wait and see. What happened? In 1956, Britain's GDP per head was 15 per cent higher than those of France and Germany. By 1973, when we eventually joined, it was 15 per cent below. Joining helped to stop the rot, but we have never reduced the gap that emerged in that period, and our output per hour worked is still 20 per cent below those of France and Germany.
Our economy is weaker than much of our propaganda makes us believe. The unpleasant fact is that Britain is not the greatest place to invest, if we judge by the obvious test of whether people invest here. In fact, more Britons invest abroad than foreigners invest in Britain. If we compare overall investment in our country to that in Germany and France, we see that it is 17 per cent of GDP in Britain, 22 per cent in Germany and 19 per cent in France. Despite all the evidence that I quoted about what has happened since 1998, we still hear the wait-and-see argument. It is the most dangerous argument around. It is as if we had no experience and no economic knowledge on which to decide and we were just about to start from scratch. What more evidence do people need?
The basic problem is not evidence. The basic problem is that people have been told, over and over again, that Europe is a basket case and that we should stay at arm's length. That is an extraordinary argument, and we read it regularly, even in the quality press. It flies in the face of everything that we see when we go there. Most countries north of the Mediterranean have better transport, better hospitals, better schools and fewer poor people than we do. We like to brag about growth, but here are some facts that, I hope, will not surprise the House: since 1998, when the euro began, income per head has grown as fast in Europe as in Britain. The figure is the same for the United States. If we take the 10 years before the euro, we find exactly the same; the rate of growth of income per head is exactly the same in Britain, Europe and the United States.
I do not know whether any readier of the quality press in Britain would believe those facts. The reason is that the main commentators pick on the weakest country—whichever it happens to be—in Europe. Currently, it is Germany, so we are always told about Germany; earlier, it was France, and we were told how awful France was. They also, of course, pick years, but I gave the House a reasonable pick of years, and the picture is fairly clear.
The other thing that the critics bring in is unemployment, which is certainly a serious problem for many European countries. However, there is no way in which we could import unemployment from abroad, any more than Holland, which has lower unemployment than we have, imports unemployment from Belgium or France, which have higher unemployment than we do. In fact, the euro-zone has

447
many mansions and we would be another mansion in it. There are four euro-zone countries with less unemployment than us—Holland, Denmark, Austria and Portugal. France has 9 per cent and Spain has 11 per cent unemployment. Each country has the unemployment which its labour market institutions dictate and we would not import unemployment from across the Channel any more than south-east England imports unemployment from north-east England. It is a nonsense argument. It is important that it be dealt with.
Is there any serious point to be made against joining? Of course, one important issue is the loss of the interest rate as an instrument for economic stabilisation. I want to make two important points here. First, if we joined we would be in the same position as Texas vis-a-vis the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
How does Texas manage? It does not have an independent monetary policy any more than we do. Nor has it an independent fiscal policy, which we shall have. Like most US states it must balance its budget each year. That is an unfortunate situation because it means that in a recession it has to raise taxes or cut expenditure, and both are inappropriate. There is some help from the federal budget—which people are always pointing their fingers at. However, the automatic stabilisers in the federal budget are much less than those in the British budget. As far as the budgetary side of things is concerned we would be better placed in the euro than Texas, even though there is no federal budget in Brussels.
On the other hand, Texas has the advantage that there is more mobility between Texas and the US than there is between us and Europe. However, taking the fiscal and labour mobility issue, it is much of a muchness. I conclude that what is good enough for Texas is good enough for Britain. Moreover, the interest rate is lost because of the loss of the floating exchange rate which can act as an unguided missile and, during the past 20 years, has not acted as any form of stabilising device. It has been the reverse, which is why I am sure that Texas would hate to have its own currency.
Those are the main long-term issues. I have concentrated on them because the correct way to consider the five tests is by asking: what are the long-term issues and do we want, in principle, to join?
If the answer is yes, the second issue is when. This is obviously a good time to join. We have the same inflation rate and the same long-term interest rates. We are nearer full capacity employment, but our forecast growth rates are similar to those in euro-land for 2003. Therefore, it is as good a time as any though, of course, there is never a perfect time. If one is against joining in principle, one will always be able to find a reason why it is not the right time.
What I see is the resurrection of the famous Cardinal Morton who always found that, whatever the situation, people should pay up. In our case, Cardinal Morton would say that if things are going well, why
448
join the euro? And if things are going badly, why risk joining the euro? That is the line of thought which we are fundamentally up against.
I read last week in the Economist about the housing market. The British housing market is such that it is doing so well that we cannot join the euro now. However, it is about to do so badly that we cannot join the euro then. We shall always have those arguments whenever engaging with people who fundamentally do not accept the long-term case. They use the timing argument because it is the only one that they believe can stick.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, raised the issue of the exchange rate. That is a decoy. As he explained it will be a political decision. Our partners know that we have a balance of payments deficit of 1.5 per cent of GDP. We are obviously overvalued while the euro-zone is in a slight surplus. They accept that we have to join at a significantly lower rate. I do not say that the negotiation will be simple, but one can say that the problem of getting Britain into the euro is easier than the original problem of getting the 12 members into the euro at the same time.
At that time Eurosceptics said it would never happen. They said it would break up. They said that the notes and coins would cause revolt and scars on the hands, and so forth. However, all those problems were overcome. The reason is two simple points that I shall end on.
First, where there is a will there is a way, at least in matters of the EMU. It is clear that because there was a will all the problems were overcome in getting the original members in. Secondly, while we can criticise some features of the EMU, the Europeans are a competent lot and guardians of an economy that compares well with our own. When I try to understand where the Eurosceptics go wrong. I put my finger on the following. They believe that the Europeans are incompetent; they underestimate the competence of Europeans.
If we allow ourselves to do that and wait and see, we risk falling further behind the Europeans. Waiting and seeing would be to fall straight into that trap. I trust that the Government will not fall into the trap, but will pass the test with flying colours.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, the gracious Speech included an impressive list of policies that Her Majesty's Government will be continuing and proposals for new legislation. Both are directed to the difficult task of making our country and the whole world a better place to live in for our own and future generations.
The Government need every assistance in their endeavours. I should like to point out the way in which, by stimulation and harnessing the work of scientists, mathematicians and engineers, they could be more effective in their programme. Neither science nor engineering were mentioned in the Queen's Speech, nor in the list of topics for debate. Science comes under the Department of Trade and Industry.

449
Since it is so easily forgotten, perhaps my first suggestion is that the department should change its name to "Trade, Industry and Science". In fact, the science budget is about 40 per cent of that department's budget. It appears that it is rather like MI5 in the Prime Minister's department.
We should be encouraged by the very good showing of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Isambard Kingdom Brunel in the top 10 of the recent BBC series of famous Britons. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is an election that they can participate in.
The Government have developed and supported a hugely expanded and intelligent programme of scientific research, especially in universities. It is the envy of most of our European colleagues. My experience in government science was as head of the Met Office and now as an academic. As a professor at University College I declare an interest. I am also involved as a director of a company and chairman of an NGO, all of which are involved in science.
The Prime Minister has emphasised in a major speech how he sees the science programme contributing to the economic well-being and health of the United Kingdom. However, neither he nor Ministers have given an overall vision of how they see natural, social and medical science helping with the difficult decisions, implementation and political presentation of government policies. To take up the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, simply setting and adjusting targets may be a convenient heuristic administrative tool, but its psychology is uncertain, as I can confirm from missing some targets when I was a civil servant and being criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. But targets are not what most of us mean by science in government, which is a long way from Lenin's vision of rural electrification and an automaton society.
What are the big issues facing ours and other governments where science crucially needs to be applied? First, there is the danger to the whole planet of the possible impact from asteroids. Despite regular urging by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and an encouraging response by the Minister, practical steps by the British National Space Centre to co-ordinate and extend the efforts of UK scientists and institutions in an international collaboration have not yet been announced following the debate.
The next more immediate dangers are those to life on earth from environmental change. They were indeed mentioned in the Queen's Speech, the needs of Africa being particularly highlighted. There, as I learnt at a pre-summit conference in Nigeria this year, the deserts are extending towards the coasts at a rate of 15 to 20 kilometres a year. In the Arctic regions, where the UK has considerable expertise—and the NGO of which I am chairman is co-ordinating work in Russia—the permafrost is retreating in some areas at about 5 kilometres a year.
The Prime Minister said at the World Summit in Johannesburg that environmental decisions do not need rocket science. Of course, he was right, because
450
rockets are more or less predictable in a Newtonian sense, but the environment is much more difficult. We need to apply science in all the most important ways. The appalling problems we have recently seen of the oil tanker "Prestige" exemplify the need for its application in critical situations. I hope that the lessons learnt there are not only by government agencies and international bodies but are shared by the wider scientific community.
Especially appalling was the idea of towing the ship and dumping it, as we read in yesterday's newspapers, between Senegal and Cape Verde islands. where the precious local fishing industry could have been damaged as badly as that of Spain. That would hardly have been consistent with the intentions of Europe and Her Majesty's Government to help with Africa's development, another point made in the gracious Speech. The NGO of which I am chairman is working with government to try to have a meeting on the Africa issues next year.
How do other countries address these vital science and government questions? It is interesting that the United States Government bring together their advice on atmospheres, oceans and fisheries into a single National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Although that point has been put to Her Majesty's Government, should it not be reconsidered and a more broadly based agency for geophysical environmental issues be formed, perhaps learning from the successes of the United Kingdom's Environment Agency and Food Standards Agency? The extensive scientific problems of the legacy of nuclear energy will be addressed in the new legislation, as mentioned earlier today.
The Government's efforts to improve wealth and our bodily and social health in the UK equally need input of science and mathematics. My noble friend Lord Desai has commented that, although weather forecasts have greatly increased in accuracy in recent years—and I can vouch for that—forecasting economic and financial trends is still making little progress. Perhaps in some sympathy with the economists, I am sure that weather forecasts would be more difficult if elected governments could interfere with the weather.
However, there is an astonishing inability of managers of major companies to take sensible decisions based upon a range of possible outcomes. That total incompetence, or perhaps dishonesty, has led to huge misery for employees, pensioners and shareholders. My question is: what lessons have the Government learnt, and are the departments and agencies of government expanding their efforts to use mathematical and econometric modelling to predict future trends in order to give advice appropriately?
One of the developments of weather forecasters has been to calculate the likely errors in their forecast, which depend critically on the type of weather situation—or perhaps economic situation. Surely, government agencies and the financial services agencies could have issued a warning in 2000 about some of the dangers of likely trends for people's

451
pensions. At that time, at a large mathematical conference attended by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who takes a royal interest in applied mathematics, a very senior Scottish insurance expert was openly predicting what we have now seen. It is encouraging that the DTI is now funding a Faraday partnership in industrial and commercial mathematics. Perhaps it should be nudging the FSA and others to share with the public financial forecasts and possible future risks.
Before noble Lords smile too broadly at the criticism of financiers by a scientific academic on these Benches, they might recall last week's International Herald Tribune revealing that in the United States the academics of Harvard, Yale and Princeton were the most successful investors, making 15 per cent on their huge investments, beating Wall Street and our City by a mile.
Even now, much of Britain's wealth still comes from manufacturing industry, as we heard today from my noble friend Lord Paul. Again, scientific research, in part sponsored by the DTI, has been essential and successful. Despite the business difficulties described by my noble friend Lord Paul, there have been some remarkable success stories in applied science. For example, Rolls Royce has used UK and world research to gain now more than 30 per cent of the world's aero-engine market. There are many other examples that belie the gloomy picture given by some speakers today. One of the proud boasts of the Government has been the use of evidence-based methods as well as joined-up policies. Is that policy being pursued consistently?
The Queen's Speech gave examples where scientific research is needed to ensure that the elements of decisions, implementation and presentation of policy are successful. Surely the Economic and Social Research Council should be providing research data to guide the highly emotive debates we shall be having on the proposed slight reduction in the number of jury trials. Whose responsibility is it for providing such information? Similarly, why is the research on the different options of a drugs policy not being provided to us, especially when so many responsible voices are raised against the debilitating effects of present policies in the poorer communities of the UK?
A number of noble Lords in other debates raised other critical policy issues where decisions are urgent but difficult politically and where the research data are not being provided. Are the data not available? I give as an example the choices of future power and transportation systems, where it is essential that as much research information as possible is provided about economic, environmental health and regulatory aspects of different options. If the information is not available and research is needed, surely the Government need to be open about that. The research councils and other bodies might well take up the challenge.
452
Research also needs to be joined up as well as effective. Such openness and joined-up thinking might well identify the major health and environmental issues where the basic medical or scientific and engineering information and techniques are available but where studies are needed into economic and administrative problems associated with our application. An example was given last night in the BBC news about the problems of the fast administration of heart treatment. One might ask colleagues around the House whether similar problems have been overcome in the House of Lords, where there have been serious incidents.
Another glaring example of regulatory problems seems to be inhibiting the Government's own aim, mentioned also in the Queen's Speech, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve the efficiency of energy use, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his powerful speech on Monday. There seems to be a considerable problem with adapting the National Grid system, which is the responsibility of the DTI, so as to encourage technical and commercial innovation and the use of alternative energy.
Let us look at the borough of Woking. I often pass through Woking and it is a tremendous place—all the world comes to Woking. Through an extraordinary sustained effort over the past 10 years, it has reduced its energy use in the borough's own buildings by about 40 per cent through combined heat and power and photovoltaic alternative energy systems. But it had to set up its own electrical grid in order to circumvent the anti-innovative pricing regime of the National Grid. That has enabled the borough to provide cheaper power to its pensioners than anywhere else in the UK. Companies developing wind power have similar complaints.
In conclusion, I look forward to hearing how the DTI, the Minister for Science, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and the chief scientists, chief engineers and chief mathematicians in government departments and agencies will ensure that the best science is used as effectively as possible for the Government's own activities. The research budgets of departments and agencies need to be maintained. Appropriate scientific research and studies by universities, the private sector and non-governmental organisations can assist government in this task, especially when they are encouraged and funded by government.
It is essential that the UK has world-class research schools, combining the best in our universities—which I hope the Government will encourage following the recent developments in London. It is essential to have world-class science based consulting, and nongovernmental organisations can play a vital role in translating and applying science for the benefit of governments and international bodies.
Last but not least, what will the Government do to ensure that the best students become scientists, mathematicians and engineers? They will cease to do so unless they are paid at a rate that is competitive with other professional groups, as the recent Roberts report emphasised.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in a debate that has been heavy with historical allusion, I propose to begin and end with a reference to Adam Smith. I want to begin by demonstrating to your Lordships that on these Benches we have taken to heart at least one of Adam Smith's precepts. My noble friend Lord McNally and I exercise a rigid division of labour. I do not propose to speak about the broadcasting Bill, which he covered so well. I apologise to noble Lords if I do not refer to speeches on that subject.
In discussing the economy, I begin by agreeing with the noble Lords, Lord Roll and Lord Skidelsky, that there remain a number of major positive features in the short-term outlook for the UK economy, particularly in relation to inflation. However, there are two major imbalances.
The first is the imbalance between manufacturing and services. As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, since this Labour Government came into office we have seen the loss of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs. In the seven years since 1995, the economy as a whole has expanded by 20 per cent and services by 28 per cent, but manufacturing has fallen by 1 per cent. Returns in manufacturing are now down to 4 per cent compared to about 14 per cent in services.
Why is that the case? As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, explained, there are real issues in regard to regulation, particularly because, with increased globalisation, more companies are more footloose as to where they are located. In this respect, the dramatic growth in manufacturing output in China has probably been the most significant single recent development. But it is also the case that the high level of sterling continues to make it extremely difficult for many of our manufacturing companies to compete internationally. How might this level be reduced?
As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, one can envisage negotiations that would lead to a reduction in the level of sterling in the context of our joining the euro. But we can also expect that a simple announcement by the Government of their intention to join the euro would in itself lead to at least the beginnings of a correction. We saw something of this last summer when for about a week the Treasury was making positive noises about the possibility of our joining the euro-zone. Lo and behold, the value of sterling fell. At this point, Downing Street panicked and put out a statement saying that there was no change in policy and no suggestion of a quick entry into the euro-zone. Lo and behold, sterling rose again. That demonstrates the scope for a reduction in the exchange rate simply by saying that Britain intends to join the euro-zone.
There are many other reasons why we should join the euro without delay. The noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Layard, set those out extremely eloquently. I do not, therefore, propose to repeat them. Because we are confident of the positive outcome of the economic tests, we are looking forward to hearing it. The Government have been saying for a considerable time that this will happen by June. But
454
they have not been quite so forthcoming about what happens next. Perhaps the Minister will say a little about that, given that we have a Bill that would allow us to hold a referendum. Would he like to speculate about how long that might take to complete its passage? Can he possibly give an indication as to when a referendum might subsequently be held?
If there is a major imbalance, as I believe there is, between manufacturing and services, the balance between consumption and investment is even greater. The levels of both consumption and investment are seriously sub-optimal and worrying.
In the case of consumption, most of the headlines have been about soaring house prices and the possibility that the boom is about to turn to bust. This fear was described only last night by Mervyn King, deputy governor of the Bank of England. He said—-using deputy-governor-of-the-Bank-of-England-speak:
"The immediate question is whether changes in asset prices have led to an imbalance within the economy that poses the risk of a large negative demand shock at some point in the future. I believe the answer is yes".
Higher house prices have been accompanied by a rapid growth in mortgage equity withdrawal and a rapid growth in non-mortgage debt—not only on the part of the better-off but also on the part of the poor. In the case of mortgage equity withdrawal the quarterly figures have risen from £4 billion in the first quarter of 2001 to over £10 billion in the second quarter of this year—an increase as a percentage of post-tax income from 2.4 per cent to 5.9 per cent.
At the same time, non-mortgage debt has risen rapidly. Recent research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that in the year to September household debt rose by 13 per cent, the fastest rate since records began in 1993. Even among the bottom fifth of income earners—people earning less than £8,700—a third have significant debts which average well over £3,000.
If we are to see an increase in interest rates or an increase in employment, the high levels of debt that have been evident in recent times could quickly lead to a sharp reduction in private consumption and a severe downturn in the economy.
But while consumption rolls ahead, investment has all but stalled. Over the past year investment has Fallen by 10 per cent and the outlook is for further falls. This fall is significantly higher than in the US, France, Italy and even Japan. The Chancellor cannot, therefore, simply hide behind international economic downturn.
Part of this fall can be attributed to the dramatic fall in inward investment. That point was made by a number of noble Lords. But the figures are very striking. In 1998, the UK took 28 per cent of all inward investment into Europe. This has fallen consistently since then, and the latest figures released yesterday by Ernst & Young show that we received only 16 per cent of this investment in the six months to June.
Part of the reason for this fall is that eastern Europe now appears a more attractive option for investors, not least because the date for enlargement has been fixed. But part of the reason, as is evidenced by a series

455
of statements by chairmen and chief executives of global businesses, is that many companies are not going to invest further in the UK while we remain outside the euro-zone. Possibly the one positive result of the fall in inward investment will be to help persuade the sceptics in the Treasury that there is a major cost in staying out of the euro-zone and a potential major benefit in going in.
We shall have the opportunity next week to discuss the potential consequences of these imbalances in the Government's fiscal policy and the Budget judgment. I would, however, say that we on these Benches, along with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will be judging the measures to be announced next week on whether they simplify or complicate the tax system. We agree entirely with him that micro-tinkering with the tax system is almost always at best neutral and very often unhelpful.
I believe that we need to return over the coming months to what might be done, other than taxes, to moderate unsustainable consumer expenditure growth. It is not just a question of economic management; it is a question of consumer protection. I am sure that all noble Lords are bombarded regularly by aggressive marketing material from banks and other financial services companies encouraging us to borrow often very large amounts. It is hardly surprising that many fall for these blandishments.
The past year has not been good for the financial services sector, not least because of the bear market that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, described. Confidence in the financial services industry is at a low point. I shall refer, first, to pensions and their future. Noble Lords discussed Equitable Life yesterday, which I do not intend to deal with in detail. I apologise to the Minister for misleading him, the House and myself when, in a supplementary question on Equitable Life a couple of weeks ago, I gave the incorrect date of a letter, causing maximum confusion to everyone concerned. Although I got that detail wrong, the principle remains the same. The Government have set in train several inquiries about Equitable Life that are slow, overlapping and muddled. We hope that Penrose comes to a conclusion quickly. But, if and when it does, the problem for Equitable Life pensioners remains. Reports do not solve the problems of companies going bust. The Government and the City should be considering how to ensure that Equitable Life does not go bust. If it did, that would have severe repercussions for confidence in the entire financial services industry.
The other two aspects of financial services in which there have been major problems have been mortgage mis-selling and the catastrophe of the split capital investment trust sector. I will not go into every detail of this big issue, but two major issues must be addressed. First, even people who have sophisticated knowledge of other issues do not take the trouble to understand the financial products that they are buying. Even if they do, it is often extremely difficult to make sense of the literature. I suggest that the financial services industry devotes a fraction of the effort that drugs
456
companies devote to setting out on a single piece of paper the product, the risk factors and what it might do to us if things go wrong. That would greatly ease the worries of people buying financial services products. In addition, the FSA must be more speedy in dealing with systemic risks and individual complaints. The FSA has a problem in holding the balance between maintaining confidence in the system and taking decisive action. It is still struggling to get that balance right. By the end of next year, we will be looking at the workings of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. But we will have to examine some of these issues in more detail over the coming year, because they require urgent action.
Three references were made to events in the Soviet Union immediately after the revolution. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, talking about the euro, said:
"I have seen the future and it works".
Unfortunately for his case and mine, that phrase was first coined by Lincoln Steffens, an American journalist, who visited the Soviet Union soon after the revolution. He was so taken in by the propaganda that he said:
"I have seen the future and it works".
We had better be careful not to use that phrase too often. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, detailed the problems of a Soviet-style command-and-control economy. Such an economy was long-lived to the extent that, as I discovered last week, even in the 1960s the Soviet Union had barter arrangements with India whereby it sold oil and other goods to India in return for textiles, including woolly jumpers. It determined whether the balance of the barter was right by weighing the textiles. As a result, unsurprisingly, many of the products were extremely poor quality. As the person who told me that story explained, often the sleeves were not necessarily the same length, even if they were on the same garment. That is a good indication of the weaknesses of certain types of measurement if we get them wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, set out very eloquently why we sometimes get measurements wrong and why the Government have far too many targets. I agree with him that it is a major problem for public services.
The only way to deal with the problem is for Whitehall to loosen up; local government must have greater flexibility and more resources and the regions in England must have powers and an elected body to exercise them. It is not a question simply of telling a hospital or school that it can have more flexibility. Someone must exercise democratic accountability over how that hospital or school operates. That should be done within the framework of elected local and regional authorities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will seek to persuade his colleagues that their opposition to elected regional assemblies in England is seriously misplaced.
To sum up, the mood of the debate about the economy has been that storm clouds are gathering. There have been allusions to traffic lights at amber, chickens coming home to roost, and, if I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway,

457
talked about, "militant cuckoos in the crow's nest". These do not sound very good to me. The Chancellor will have a relatively difficult year ahead. I shall finish by referring to Adam Smith's comments, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, quoted. He said that the key things were,
"peace, easy taxes and the tolerable administration of justice".
In the forthcoming parliamentary Session, the Government will be faced with particularly difficult decisions that relate to all three legs of this tripod for prosperity.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by acknowledging that we have had a most stimulating debate. It allowed noble Lords to explore the very broad subjects that come under the umbrella of "the economy". It is such a pity that I shall not be able to refer to all of the excellent speeches made tonight, but I shall do my best.
We are particularly pleased to have the opportunity to draw matters relating to culture and the media into this debate. Indeed, the differentiation between industry and culture and media is, at best, artificial, and in many ways unhelpful, given that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport covers some of our most successful and dynamic industries.
The communications industry is one of our flagship industries, as is tourism and all its related organisations and enterprises, many of which involve the arts and culture. Tourism is one of the largest industries in the United Kingdom, worth approximately £74 billion in 2001. Almost all of our cultural institutions, except the BBC, are commercial.
In short, the DCMS covers activities that are crucial to the well-being of our economy. It is right that we raise the profile of those activities in responding to the gracious Speech. I also noted what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, with regard to the omission of the word "Science" from the title of "Department of Trade and Industry"—a point well made.
With regard to the economy, it is interesting to note that the Minister was dismissive of the current problems facing thousands of companies in this country, and the concerns of thousands of workers about the security of their jobs—problems that we know have been developing for some time. As the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in another place earlier this week in response to the gracious Speech, the engine of wealth creation in this country has been over-taxed and almost run into the ground.
The Government are now taking £115 billion per year more from the taxpayer, and for what? As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, nowhere is the failure of the Government more clear than in their failure to grapple with the problems of our public services, as evidenced by the position with regard to the Fire Brigades Union.
Both my noble friends Lord Northbrook and Lord Stevens made eloquent speeches on the insecure state of our economy. They spoke about the worrying fact
458
that the present growth of our economy depends upon a now shaky housing boom, with massive withdrawals of equity taking place and being turned into spending, together with a very high rate of consumer spending based on rapid growth of public sector spending and public sector pay.
I entirely agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Lord, Lord Paul, who said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing the reverse of what business requires. In 1997, the Chancellor said:
"We will not impose burdensome regulations on business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down";
and yet there are now more costs. Moreover, 4,642 new regulations were introduced during the past year. This Session will bring in thousands of new regulations. The Institute of Directors estimates that those regulations will cost businesses £6 billion a year. We recall the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act two years ago in your Lordships' House. At that time, we asked why it was not called the "Deregulation Bill"; now we know.
Some noble Lords spoke about the damage to our competitiveness inflicted by more regulation, more complexity, and more micro-meddling. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell who talked about pensions and the disaster likely to blight the lives of millions. In support of that view, Help the Aged has said that pensions have faced a disastrous year of chaos and confusion.
With regard to energy, I defer to the experience of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. We hope that the Minister listened with care and that he will respond to the questions raised this evening. The Government cannot postpone indefinitely decisions about nuclear power. The problems regarding funding, radioactive waste, nuclear safety, and security of supply, must all be faced.
My noble friend Lord Stevens talked about the decline in manufacturing, as did the noble Lords, Lord Paul and Lord Newby. As they pointed out, since 1997 half a million jobs in manufacturing have been lost. Indeed, jobs are now being lost at the rate of 12,000 a month. Only last week 3,500 went at Cable and Wireless. As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, we need a clear policy on the future of manufacturing to protect and nurture our competitive advantage. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi made clear, the Government's response to the state of the economy is to introduce yet more targets. One in particular summed it up. I refer to a target for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which stated the goal to:
"Facilitate and promote our competitiveness both at home and abroad of the creative industries".
Apparently, that target has been met, which brings me conveniently to that part of the debate relating to culture and media. I turn, first, to licensing. It seems strange in many way to juxtapose our laws on drinking alcohol and culture. It rather reminds me of the famous cultural attaché, Les Patterson, of Dame Edna fame! Indeed, I agree with my noble friend Lord

459
Brooke, who said that it was a mistake to move control of licensing reform from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
While we are broadly in favour of the measures in the Licensing Bill, it is notable that the gracious Speech refers to a Bill to tackle anti-social behaviour which damages communities—we understand that this will include outlawing the dropping of chewing gum on our streets and other measures whereby bin men will be able to impose fines—but, two paragraphs later, also refers to streamlining the licensing system and to the abolition of fixed opening hours. I just hope that the Government have done their homework to produce sufficient evidence showing that while chewing gum on our streets is unacceptable, the consumption of alcohol for up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, really will produce the practical improvements that the Government intend and which I am sure all noble Lords will wish to see.
We also want to be clear that the Licensing Bill contains sufficient safeguards for local residents, particularly in areas where there will be a high concentration of late-night drinking establishments—a concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Brooke. We are not at all convinced that the case has been made for the decision to transfer the responsibility for issuing licences from magistrates' courts to local authorities. We fear that this move may create a system which is slower and more bureaucratic than the current regime.
Will local authorities be given extra resources to fulfil their additional responsibilities, or are the Government expecting licensed premises to pick up the tab? Clearly, local authorities are concerned to ensure that these additional responsibilities are complemented with sufficient powers for them to be able to manage what is termed the "night-time economy" according to the needs of their respective communities. Perhaps the Minister can also explain how liberalising our licensing laws sits with the Government's drive to prioritise the health of the nation. We believe that this is another example of mixed messages which we fear will be cushioned by meaningless targets.
On procedure, one of the Government's mantras—the one about transparency and openness—has proved in recent days to be entirely false. I was somewhat surprised to learn of various stages of the draft Licensing Bill floating around in the weeks prior to the Queen's Speech, and indeed to learn two weeks ago about the department's proposed timing for the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Not wishing to be left out of this seemingly transparent loop, and keen as we were to prepare our response, we telephoned the office of the Minister for Culture in another place. Mr Kim Howells MP, and of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to ask whether we might also have a copy of the latest draft. We were told by the Minister's office in no uncertain terms that we could not see the Bill until it was
460
published. So it is absolutely fine to be open and transparent with everyone except Members of your Lordships' House.
I turn to the Communications Bill. Judging by the contributions of noble Lords, we can look forward to a lively passage through your Lordships' House. We welcome the Bill, which has quite clearly become a much better Bill for the hard work and commitment of the Joint Scrutiny Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. There will be areas of contention in the Bill for your Lordships to consider. On media ownership, for example, we very much support the Government's intention to allow greater cross-media ownership, consolidation and foreign investment and the move towards a regime whereby the media industries are subject to the same competition rules as other industries. We also heard the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, when he spoke of what one might describe as the "pivotal tensions" between the need for light-touch regulation and the public good. This matter will require considerable debate.
As for cross-media ownership and ownership by new players, the fact is that this country has always benefited from new players. As countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have many similar cultural impulses to ours, why deny British media outlets the opportunity to be involved? Given that our broadcasting audience is accustomed to relatively high quality programming, a new broadcaster would not benefit from entering the market if the quality of the product failed to attract viewers. We entirely disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he said that Sky was interested only in its shareholders. We believe that Sky has driven innovation and broadcasting technology for the benefit of all of us. We also welcome last week's announcement by the Secretary of State that the Government intend to allow an even greater relaxation of the local ownership rules.
We have consistently argued that the BBC should be fully within the remit of Ofcom, and we are pleased that several noble Lords who spoke today—including the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, with his depth of experience of the BBC—take a similar view. It defies logic to pretend that this legislation can possibly fulfil its purpose if Ofcom's powers do not fully extend to the biggest player in broadcasting, commanding about 40 per cent of the television audience and an even bigger proportion of radio. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke of the desirability of a genuinely powerful and committed regulator—a tough goal if the biggest player is off the pitch.
My honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale MP, following the gracious Speech in another place, said about the BBC that because of its dominance, because it is owned by the state and because it is financed by a compulsory poll tax, which

461
is enforced by criminal law, it has obligations and duties which do not apply to any other broadcaster. He continued:
"It has a public service remit and it is subject to strict controls on its commercial activities, yet unlike other broadcasters, responsibility for ensuring that it meets the requirements upon it for adjudicating on complaints about its activities rests not with the new regulator"—
Ofcom—
"but with its own board of governors. Yet the BBC is most in need of external accountability and independent adjudication".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/02; col. 331.]
Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, the BBC, through its board of governors, will be judge and jury in its own house.
A number of noble Lords raised points on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, also said that it may well be better if the BBC were to be within the remit of Ofcom. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the BBC's role with regard to Ofcom and the possibility of this issue being kicked into the long grass. The noble Lord" Lord Bragg, said that conflict, strife and confrontation are inevitable. He went on to advise that the BBC should surrender itself totally to Ofcom. My noble friend Lord Stevens spoke of the need for the BBC to be wholly under the regulation of Ofcom.
We believe that the position of the BBC has become more serious in recent months. At a time when the commercial broadcasting companies are struggling as a result of advertising downturn, the BBC is enjoying steadily increasing revenue, with regular injections from the taxpayer, and is adopting a more and more aggressively commercial approach. It is now competing in the market to buy rights; it is scheduling its most popular programmes with an eye to winning the ratings battle; and it is launching new channels and services which in some cases are almost carbon copies of those already available commercially. The noble Lord, Lord Hussey, referred to the dangers of ratings at the expense of purpose.
We believe that the position of the BBC would be much more secure and that it would give clarity to its role and its relationship both with other public service broadcasters and the wholly commercial sector if it was fully within the remit of Ofcom. How much better it would be to have the BBC inside the tent, serving its proper function as a benchmark for quality and diversity against which its performance and that of its commercially funded competitors could be properly compared and judged.
Turning to Ofcom's competition powers, the Bill's acknowledgement of competition as the key arbiter of quality and diversity is to be welcomed. What is not clear is whether Ofcom will have the powers, the expertise and, perhaps most importantly, as a number of noble Lords have said, the resources to ensure that it can be an effective and authoritative regulator of competition.
On a separate note, we entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in regard to supporting the merger of Carlton and Granada. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, spoke with considerable passion about his view that
462
the BBC Northern Ireland has not delivered on its promises in regard to culture and diversity—we shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply—and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was concerned about the perceived lack of independence of the content board.
Turning briefly to tourism, I referred at the beginning of my speech to the value of tourism as an industry which impacts on every village, town and city throughout the United Kingdom. It employs 2.1 million people and accounts for 4.5 per cent of GDP. It is an industry which has suffered seriously in the past two years as a result of the massive downturn caused by foot and mouth disease, which was then compounded by the effects of September 11th. The industry has fought to reverse the downturn, although belated support from the Government has been marred by an obvious shortfall for England as compared with the investment in Scotland and Wales. That said, additional funding directed to the regions, not England, was announced earlier this year.
The position has now been compounded by the Government's announcement last month of their decision to merge the English Tourism Council with the British Tourist Authority. Not only do the devolved legislators in Scotland and Wales have the powers and resources to help tourism in their own areas; they have also benefited from marketing by the British Tourist Authority.
England does not enjoy such dual coverage and there is a real danger that the new merged body could lead to conflicts of interest with internal pressures to be seen to be British diluting the English tourism effort and thus making England even more the poor relation.
We believe that the thinking behind that—unlike a good deal of government policy—is clear. The Government are obsessed with their regional agenda, which will simply add another layer of costs to the taxpayer and create more friction at local government level.
In conclusion, I was not in your Lordships' Chamber to hear the gracious Speech; I was at my desk on the Second Floor. I watched and listened to the proceedings on television. As honourable Members of another place were departing from this Chamber, David Dimbleby said,
"now the MPs are returning to the Commons, the place where the real work is done".
I took that rather badly, as I hope your Lordships will. If the work that we did collectively in the previous Session alone is anything to go by, it is high time that we challenged those commentators who hold themselves out as knowledgeable on constitutional and legislative matters to come down from their celebrity towers to witness and appreciate where so much of the work is really done.
8.26 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having listened with great attention to the debate for a number of hours, I am tempted to agree with the final remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The debate has been exceptionally well informed on the culture,

463
media and sport side and on the economy and industry side. I am hard put to answer even a significant proportion of the valuable points that have been made.
I am particularly hard put to answer the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, because I cannot fit him into any category at all. He made a very witty and elegant speech, and I really enjoyed his lengthy fantasy about command economies but, at the end of it, I thought that he was making an after-dinner speech or an introduction. However, after 13 minutes of introduction, he sat down. He never gave us the benefit of his views on his party's policies on industry and the economy. He did not tell us whether he thought that our policies for funding public services were right or wrong. He made various comments about our requirement for accountability—he called them targets—without ever recognising that we were setting up independent accountability for the benefit of the people and the taxpayers rather than letting public services "go rip" with the extra money that was provided. He did not even—this was really astonishing—venture a view on whether the economic policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were or were not successful. I was enormously more impressed by the views of the noble Lords, Lord Roll, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Newby, than I was by those of some other noble Lords. Perhaps I should return to that after dealing with the DCMS issues.
I join all those who have spoken in adding my thanks to my noble friend Lord Puttnam and his committee; I congratulate them on their valuable work. So much of what they said has been incorporated in the Bill, which was published this morning. I am enormously encouraged to learn from my noble friend that he is now 95 per cent satisfied with the changes that are being made, particularly in relation to foreign ownership. He is clearly right that we need an evidence-based approach and we do not know what the result will be of the changes in the foreign ownership provisions. The issue is one of foreign ownership—of course foreign ownerships outside the EU are involved—but it is also mixed up with the issue of cross-media ownership. Although we do not say so, we must recognise that that is the case. The Bill's proposals for progressive tightening of controls—if and when there is an increase in market share—seem to have attracted some support, for which we are grateful.
We are of course grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others, who said that the purpose of the exercise was to make a good Bill better. I am sorry, but one of the immediate consequences has been to make a long Bill longer. It is not just longer, but very much longer. We agree that it is important for the Government to retain their position as the guardian of the public interest.
Many valuable points were made for which I can record only recognition and a degree of agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is right to point out the potential for conflict between a light touch in regulation and the maintenance of standards. We shall have to consider that issue in detail as we go through
464
the Bill. He is certainly right to say that increasing the quantity of broadcasting does not necessarily increase the quality or, indeed, the diversity of broadcasting. There is a problem of regression towards the mean in broadcasting output.
I am referred to the issue of foreign ownership. Again the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made a valuable point about the need for safeguards on content, advertising and acquisitions. I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, made about the fact that there is no equivalence between foreign ownership and foreign content. One could have one without the other in either direction. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate view that if one opens up ownership as well as content, one draws from a larger pool of potentially better programming.
A good deal of debate took place about the BBC. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, that there will always be a delicate relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. I was interested in what he said about the governors lacking media experience. There are some who would disagree. I listened carefully to what was said about the relationship of the BBC and Ofcom. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said about the need for tier 3 to be regulated. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said. And I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said about the BBC's involvement in commercial business and the relevance of Ofcom controls to that part of it.
I think that the Bill is clear on those matters and as it goes through the House we shall continue to listen to the arguments. The important consideration is that public service broadcasting is, always has been, and always will be very much wider than the BBC. The point was made—again coming back to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—about Channel 4 news and regional broadcasting in ITV.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked a specific question about the draft agreement and whether it would be available. It is our intention that it should be available for consideration as the Bill goes through. I hope that it will be in time for Committee in the House of Commons. The principles of the draft agreement are clear. It will mirror the Bill. The BBC will be regulated by Ofcom under tiers 1 and 2; there will be an annual statement of policy; and there will be the possibility of fines on the BBC.
Before I leave the BBC, I must acknowledge the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, about Ulster Scots. A great deal of what he said is for the BBC to reply to rather than the Government. I shall of course see to it that the BBC is acquainted with what he said and ask for a reply. If there are any government aspects in what he said, then, of course, the relevant government departments will respond to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, was right to say that content issues are of enormous importance. I am sure that that will emerge as the Bill progresses. It is not, as he said, a matter of marketing a tin of beans.

465
I listened carefully to the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on religious broadcasting. I do not think that the situation is as barmy as the noble Baroness described it. Clause 335 of the Bill gives open access to religious organisations to produce broadcasting under digital terrestrial television and digital terrestrial radio. However, that does not apply—as is the case now—to analogue radio or to TV multiplexes where spectrum scarcity still exists. Of course, if there were no spectrum scarcity, we would have great difficulty excluding religious organisations under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield referred. We must acknowledge that the change as regards spectrum scarcity is by no means complete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether the content board would be sufficiently independent. There will be a majority of lay members and there will be a power to establish committees. Of course, there will be the same power to redress wrongs as there is now. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks. The consumer panel will cover consumer issues such as availability, quality and the price of services rather than issues of content.
I turn to licensing. We shall debate this matter in detail next week so perhaps I should do no more than thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their welcome of the Bill. I acknowledge the points that they made about the link between alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour. However, it is rather an assumption to say that people will drink more if there are longer licensing hours. It is also an assumption to think that because longer licensing hours are possible they will be taken up. We shall see whether that is the case as time goes on.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for volunteering to work on the Bill during its passage. Indeed, in his former constituency he championed the rights of inner-city residents. I hope that he will consider that the transfer of responsibility for certain matters to local authorities is a democratic move, that residents will have the power to object and that, when it is necessary to close down licensed premises, police powers will be greater and more immediate than they are at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether that step constituted joined-up government. I consider that it does as it brings together planning issues, enforcement issues, licensing issues and issues concerning transport, safety and crime late at night. Those issues can be aired in our debate next week.
I wish to refer briefly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the disruption of public services. On the previous occasion we discussed the matter I was accused of complacency. My fundamental objection to the noble Lord's Bill—then as now—is that it is not a solution to these problems to throw trade union leaders into prison. I do not believe that anyone is saying that it would be a solution to our current problems to throw Mr Andy Gilchrist into
466
prison. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, agrees with that. The Employment Relations Act review is now in its consultation phase. It will be completed in time to enable any necessary legislation to be introduced this Parliament.
I turn to energy. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, recognised the value of pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed nuclear reform Bill. Of course, we shall take account of the responses made following publication of the White Paper. I note the point that the noble Lord made about our optimism in relation to renewables. I agree that it is a challenging target. The debate concerning the climate change levy as against the carbon tax will continue. I am afraid that the answer is that there is no one perfect solution.
As to the noble Lord's questions about meeting our Kyoto targets, I believe that he will have to wait until an energy White Paper is produced at the turn of the year. The question of transmission costs from wind farms is enormously complicated. My noble friend Lord Hunt also referred to that. I shall have to write to them both on that issue.
Perhaps I may use the remaining time to talk about the economy and industry and about our economic performance. I wrote down with a golden pen what the noble Lord, Lord Roll, said. He said that the Chancellor had given an upbeat account of the economic situation with which he agreed. He said that our public finances are as good as they have been in his experience. When one recognises that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Roll, covers virtually the whole of the 20th century, that is quite a tribute. The noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Newby, said very much the same thing.
It is true that the world economy slowed down in 2001. Nevertheless, it is the case that policy actions which have taken place, combined to some extent with lower oil prices, have helped to prevent a prolonged downturn. Some kind of global recovery is under way. But that does not in any way underestimate the risks to what the noble Lord, Lord Roll, rightly called our "dependent economy". In the light of those comments, I venture to disagree without further comment on the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Northbrook, who, in a series of detailed questions, asked me to anticipate next week's Pre-Budget Report. I certainly shall not do that.
As to the issue of the public finances, I can only point out that the public sector net debt is still only 31 per cent of GDP and is projected to continue that way until 2006–07. That is in contrast to the level of 44 per cent at which it stood when we came into office. Our public sector net debt is the lowest in the G7; it is among the lowest in the European Union; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, rightly said, we are on target to continue to conform to the golden rule.
With regard to the issue of small businesses and regulation, I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and others about the ICA and Institute of Directors surveys. But the 2002 Economist Intelligence Unit survey said that our business environment was among the top three in the world—

467
with the Netherlands and Denmark—in terms of being favourable to business. The OECD's current survey my noble friend Lord Haskel was right to refer to that—states that we are better than most OECD countries in terms of business environment. I take that evidence very seriously. Even the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has been moved to agree with that.
I shall not go into the issue of pensions, if I may be forgiven, because the matter was raised and responded to in the debate yesterday.
Of course, I must refer to manufacturing, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords—in particular, my noble friend Lord Paul. I acknowledge his credentials as an active member of the Engineering Employers' Federation. He will acknowledge that the EEF, the CBI and the TUC have given support to the first published strategy on manufacturing for approximately 30 years. The key to that is that the future for manufacturing in this country is high value-added manufacturing and not low-wage manufacturing.
I acknowledge the points that my noble friend Lord Paul made about the risk of undermining investment in this country and I acknowledge the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Our corporation tax is among the lowest in the developed world. We have measures such as R&D tax credits, first-year capital allowances and so on, all of which are enormously favourable to manufacturing industry.
Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We have an enormously increased basic science budget. I cannot go into the other issues that he raised, but clearly the increase in government spending on basic science is evidence of our concern for a rational approach to decision making in public policy.
468
On inward investment, I heard the figures that have been quoted. I note that the Ernst & Young report, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, gave only the number of new projects and not the size of them. The most reliable data are still those for 2001, which show that we were second in the world and top in the European Union.
In the one minute remaining to me I want to say a word about the euro. I am going to flunk the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Roll. He called for the Government to show courage in approaching the euro. The Chancellor may show courage; the Prime Minister may show courage; the Cabinet may show courage; but I shall not show courage. I shall not anticipate what may be said.
Yes, of course, my noble friend Lord Sheldon, is right that although we have the same tests as in 1997, the judgment on them will be made on the economic facts of 2002–03. He is right also to say that there is no sixth test on the exchange rate. I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Newby, said; I have heard it before and I shall not be drawn on any of those points.
This has been a most helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the debate on the Address be now adjourned until tomorrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

London Development Agency Bill
Brought from the Commons; the declaration of the agent having been deposited pursuant to the resolution of 29th October, the Bill was read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Foot and Mouth Disease: Rights of Way
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Rights of Way
  Sulphuric Acid
  Sulphuric Acid
  Terrorism: Cross-Channel Ferries
  Terrorism: Cross-Channel Ferries
  Luton to Dunstable Busway
  Luton to Dunstable Busway