Sitting of 28 October 2002

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

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October].
    That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee— [Mr. Woolas.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drug Offenders
    Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on the provision that his Department makes for treatment of drug offenders. [75310]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): To break the links between drugs and crime, we are taking every opportunity to get offenders into treatment. There is a range of initiatives to ensure early intervention to identify drug misusing offenders and to help them gain access to treatment, for example arrest referral, drug treatment and testing orders, and drug testing and treatment services in prisons.
    Treatment works and is the most cost effective tool in tackling drug misuse. Effective treatment, accessible to all who need it and when they need it, is essential to the drugs strategy as a whole. Funding has increased from £234 million in 2000–01 to £401 million planned in 2003–04.
    Ian Lucas: I am very pleased to hear the general tenor of that answer. In Spain, this year's national plan for drugs refers to
    "a decrease in heroin consumption in all forms"
    for the period since 1985, which is in stark contrast to the consequence of drugs policy in this country. Spanish policy is based on harm minimisation and, wherever possible, political consensus in dealing with the issue.
    524
    Will the Minister take heed of the Spanish experience and accept that better treatment, and the resources that go with it, will achieve far more in confronting this horrible problem than a war on drugs that can never be won?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are conducting a review of the 10-year drugs strategy. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he wants harm minimisation to be central to our treatment and demand reduction initiatives. My hon. Friend must wait for a final announcement on that, but I think he will find that Government thinking on harm minimisation is not removed from the regime that he describes.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that a high proportion of burglaries are carried out to feed a heroin addiction? For that reason alone, there are persuasive arguments why the treatment of the heroin addict should be given a high priority in sentencing.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The acquisitive crime that flows from problematic drug use is caused almost entirely by those people who have either a heroin or a cocaine addiction. The hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. We require not only good quality treatment where it is needed but effective criminal justice interventions to make an early analysis of the problem and to get people into that treatment. That is why we introduced drug treatment and testing orders, and why we are considering where and how we can have initiatives that come into effect earlier. We need to be as effective as possible when dealing with such acquisitive crime.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I take this opportunity to thank the Home Secretary for the £1.5 million of extra funding that has been given to police forces in my area for drugs intelligence work? Is the Minister aware, however, that only 31 beds are available in Wales for the treatment of drugs offenders? Will he discuss with Welsh Assembly Ministers the need to increase that and to improve the service, bearing in mind the emphasis that he places on the treatment of drugs offenders?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend may be aware that we set up the National Treatment Agency to increase the planning of the provision of drug treatment, to improve its quality and to involve the medical profession in such work. We need to be certain that the NTA works closely with the Welsh Assembly to ensure that there are no gaps in what we are trying to provide.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Although I acknowledge that quite a bit of work has been done on drugs recently, and echo what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, may I suggest that one way to fund the rehabilitation centres that are so badly needed is to ring-fence drug confiscation moneys, many millions of which are taken every year from drug barons in crown courts?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I agree that much could be done with confiscated money. The whole purpose of pushing the Proceeds of Crime Bill through the House of Commons last year was to increase substantially the confiscation that takes place, which is woefully below international levels. That money is available. Some 50 per cent. is earmarked for the communities that have been damaged by the drug problem. We also want to improve our performance on the confiscation of criminal assets. In principle I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to use the money as effectively as possible, but for the purposes of reducing crime we need to increase the amount of money that we confiscate from criminals because it is nowhere near as high as it should be.
    Ann Clwyd: May I say how pleased I am that the Home Secretary came to my constituency on Friday and met the families of drug users, some of whom are dead, some are in prison and some are receiving treatment? Does the Minister agree that we must think about the problem globally? Since 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of the United Kingdom conies from Afghanistan, we must offer Afghan farmers alternatives to growing the poppy, and we must do so as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must think of the problem from end to end. We must not only have a demand-reduction strategy but try to limit supplies as much as possible, which means chasing the problem back to source countries. I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to do our level best to intervene in Afghanistan in the most appropriate and effective way. We are trying to build civic society in that country; there have been encouraging signs, and we are trying to build on those. At the same time we are trying to tackle the problem of the opium poppy.
    Simon Hughes: What assurance can Ministers give to society and to Rob, a divorced man in his 30s with two children whom I met on Saturday on a train from King's Cross to the north-east? He was discharged from a prison in southeast England five weeks ago, and he told me that although he has been inside three times for short periods in the last three years, he has had no follow-up support to deal with the drugs problem that was the cause of all three offences apart from four weeks' signing on with the probation service. Given last year's joint probation and prison inspectorates' report saying how important it is to give people follow-up support to keep them off drugs, will next year's sentencing Bill guarantee people discharged from prison as much support outside as they can receive inside? Has the Treasury provided the money for that support?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman exposes a problem. I cannot announce exactly what we will do as a result of the stocktaking review that is under way, but I can tell him that, like him, I feel that the problem of through-care and aftercare for those leaving treatment or leaving prison is one of the biggest weaknesses in the system, and we seek to tackle that. If the hon.
    526
    Gentleman will wait for our planned announcement, hopefully he will find that it addresses the issue that he has raised.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is encouraging that there is clearly a consensus emerging in the House that to lift people off the conveyor belt to crime we have to find means of dramatically increasing the availability of treatment and rehabilitation for young heroin and cocaine addicts. Has the Minister calculated the number of places that would be required to accommodate all those addicts, and has he compared that number with the effect of the plans that he announced a moment ago?
    Mr. Ainsworth: Information on this matter is incomplete precisely because of the illegality involved, but our best estimate of the number of problematic drug users in this country—most of whom, but not all, are heroin addicts—is about 250,000. We have treatment places for more than 118,000, and we are managing to expand our capacity by 8 per cent. a year. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there are easy ways of quickly expanding that capacity, we would be happy to hear from him.
    As I said, we have substantially increased the amount of treatment available since the drugs strategy was introduced, and we plan to double that amount by 2008. We are on course to achieve that target, and if there is any way to achieve it sooner, we will seek to do so. We have to bear in mind that the treatment must be available where it is needed most, in the areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. We are considering those issues with the NTA.
    Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister also agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and with us that we desperately need to find some means of compelling young heroin and cocaine addicts to take up that treatment? Is he aware that at present drug treatment and testing orders regularly fail because they are not properly enforced, and because there is not sufficient available intensive and residential treatment? When will the Department stop treating the matter as a problem that can be handled over many years, and start treating it as the crisis that it has become?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech to his party conference, and it was good to hear. I hope that it is true that we have a growing consensus as to how we deal with the problem. However, he should not seek to rubbish drug treatment and testing orders, because they are being used effectively. As magistrates learn and grow confident in the way that they use them, they are indeed behaving flexibly sometimes towards the problems that arise. I was surprised at the absence of a number of issues from the hon. Gentleman's conference speech. For example, having made mischief in south London, what exactly is his policy on the classification of cannabis, and how on earth does he think he will increase treatment places tenfold with £500 million? I wait to see what kind of treatment and what quality of treatment he is proposing. It may look good as a headline figure in a policy document, but I think his maths needs a little refining.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Chris Pond: What further measures he proposes to deal with antisocial behaviour. [75311]
    Mr. John Randall: What his policy is to reduce antisocial behaviour in suburban areas; and if he will make a statement. [75312]
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's policies for tackling antisocial behaviour. [75323]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I do not think that there is a Member of the House who does not feel the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Uncontrolled antisocial behaviour is the breeding ground for more dangerous and long-term criminality. The new slimmed-down antisocial behaviour orders, action against vehicles on and off the road, the new community support officers, the street wardens scheme, and now the consultation that has been undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will help us to put in place support mechanisms for those at local level, whether in the inner city, the suburbs or rural areas, who are, first, tackling the problem and, secondly, helping those who are at the receiving end of it.
    Mr. Pond: My constituents will be pleased to hear that response from the Secretary of State. He will be aware that the headline figures on crime in north Kent have come down substantially in the past five years—by about 30 per cent.—but the fear of crime persists, because of the loutish and antisocial behaviour of a few people in my constituency, as elsewhere in the country, who blight the lives of the many. What further measures does my right hon. Friend propose to help councils such as mine to push through antisocial behaviour orders, and has he any further plans for the use of parenting orders and final warnings to try and stem the problem of youth offending?
    Mr. Blunkett: There is a combination of the strengthening of the powers, the slimming down of the bureaucracy, and the imperative at local level for the crime reduction partnerships. Over 90 co-ordinators now exist at local level to act at local level. We have to deal with the dichotomy between people wanting the Home Office to intervene and do things from the centre, and at the same time wanting to stop the Home Office intervening and doing things from the centre. I appeal to local authorities to pick up the new powers, whether through antisocial behaviour orders or parenting orders, and to co-operate with the police and the community to make them work. So often, the reluctance to use them stems from a fear that they will be overturned. The new powers allow the slimmed-down initial orders to be issued before the hearing, and send a clear message that we will no longer put up with antisocial behaviour.
    Mr. Randall: The Home Secretary is right to describe antisocial behaviour as a scourge on all our constituents. I welcome many of the measures that the Government
    528
    have tried to put in place, some of which have been more successful than others. However, we must all try to deal with the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help a great deal to have more visible local policing? Will he join with me in urging the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to reopen West Drayton police station?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would certainly encourage the Commissioner to use his operational accountability to ensure that there is accessibility for local people and that, above all, response times are improved. That is why the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the non-999 number will be important. Response times to antisocial behaviour are commensurate with the commitment to reassure and support people rather than to ignore their calls, and to ensure that community support officers and street wardens can play their part. By joining together at local level—I understand that that is happening in Hillingdon by tackling graffiti and other abuse in the environment—an atmosphere can be created in which people believe that they can play a part in improving their community. They can be a strong community that can tackle antisocial behaviour.
    Helen Jones: Progress is undoubtedly being made but there are still parts of my constituency where a small minority cause mayhem for those around them. Will my right hon. Friend take more steps to encourage local councils to make better use of the powers that they already have? Will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ways of enabling councils to take swifter action against antisocial tenants, to ensure that the system protects the vast majority who pay their rent and do not cause trouble, rather than the small minority who make life hell for the people living round them?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are doing well this afternoon because we all agree on that. The review that the office of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been undertaking will be a crucial further strand in the extension of work in the Home Office in tackling the problem. People are sick and tired of cheap housing being bought up and of public funding going into tenancies, with no control, no proper contractual arrangements and no responsibility on the part of landlords. If we could combine the action that we are taking with a massive clampdown on what is a complete scam, we would all be much better off at local level.
    Lady Hermon: As antisocial behaviour orders have still not been introduced in Northern Ireland, will the Home Secretary kindly initiate discussions at the earliest opportunity with the newly enhanced team at the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the orders are extended to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the newly-appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with his experiences across the board, including Wales, will be keen to do so. I will take the opportunity, as quickly as possible, to do what the hon. Lady asks.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of antisocial

    529
    behaviour is generated by out-of-control youths with air weapons. What plans does he have to address the problem? Does he have any plans to raise the age limit at which youths can handle these weapons? We have to take our chances where we can.
    Mr. Blunkett: Very neat. I know that the issue is close to my hon. Friend's heart. I stress that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be bringing forward quickly a series of measures that will proportionately address the matter. It is becoming a scourge and people are genuinely frightened. The nature of the weapons has changed to the point where we need a rapid review.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary will be aware that Opposition Members were pleased when he listened to the concerns expressed by Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the original antisocial behaviour orders were far too bureaucratic.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware also that there is still a problem in that not enough antisocial behaviour orders are being made. Although we welcome the backing that has been given to the orders by acceptable behaviour contracts, does he feel that enough of those are being used? Does he agree with his hon. Friend, who said to me shortly before the summer recess that the Government had in mind to consider whether police forces were to be allowed to name those who were the subject of antisocial behaviour orders? Many police forces, including Surrey, have been greatly concerned that the courts have not been able to name those at whom the orders are targeted.
    Mr. Blunkett: As far as I am aware, the courts are under no restriction in terms of naming those who come before them, although I am certainly prepared to check out the matter. In the spirit of this afternoon, I agree that we have not got in place sufficient behaviour contracts or antisocial behaviour orders. I think that slightly more than 650 antisocial behaviour orders have so far been issued, but we will issue new guidance and support in November to back up the change in the law. I am always amenable to pressure, especially when it is in the direction in which I was already going.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine were both relieved and appreciative when an antisocial behaviour order was imposed on 14-year-old Lorraine Ogden, whose name was circulated by the police in a leaflet? However, she breached the order six times, was arrested by the police and charged six times and, after five months, was subjected to a supervision order, a curfew order and a parenting order served on her mother. Does he agree that although the orders are an excellent institution that was introduced by this Government, to allow people who have been placed under the orders to defy them and to waste the time of police and the courts is to undermine their purpose? Will he consider what action he can take to stop that happening?
    Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend demonstrates the very worst tip of an iceberg in terms of constant
    530
    reoffending leading to action that is too weak and failure to reinforce the agreed penalties. With my right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, I am doing everything possible to get the sensitive, proportionate message across. It is important that magistrates, as well as district judges, who sometimes overturn the decisions of magistrates on enforcement, understand the damage that they can do to the signals that need to be sent out to young people in particular saying that they can no longer make a monkey of tile police and the judicial system. That will be one of the tasks of the new criminal justice legislation that will be introduced following the Queen's Speech.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in parts of my constituency, there will be cuts in youth programmes for 11 and 12-year-olds, even with Connexions and the children's fund? What will he do to ensure joined-up thinking in this very important area of tackling antisocial behaviour?
    Mr. Blunkett: I sincerely hope that that will not happen and that the local council and the Connexions service can respond with the Youth Justice Board. The board announced only last week that, with resources allocated by the Home Office, we will be developing for eight to 13-year-olds youth inclusion panels and programmes to link up with the work done over the summer, including the Splash programmes and the very imaginative work done in excellence in cities areas, and carry it forward throughout the year. Instead of carrying out youth policies appropriate to the 1950s, we are now adapting our policies to the 21st century.

    Open Prisons
    Mr. Tom Cox: What plans he has to review the procedures to be followed by inmates on day release from open prisons; and if he will make a statement. [75315]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): It is important that prisoners in open conditions can re-establish links with the community, for all the reasons set out in the social exclusion unit report on reducing reoffending. That is the purpose of granting release on temporary licence. The Prison Service is currently reviewing all forms of such release and will report to Ministers in due course.
    Mr. Cox: While I note that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous publicity that a convicted criminal has recently received as to the sort of lifestyle that he was leading while on day release, including driving to work in his own car and having lunch in top restaurants? Did the prison authorities know about that, and if so, why did they not stop it? Is my hon. Friend further aware that public confidence in the day release system has been seriously eroded? It really is time that prison governors are clearly told what inmates can and cannot do when they are on day release from prison.
    Hilary Benn: Although I entirely understand the concerns that gave rise to my hon. Friend's points, it is important that we do not allow the activities of one individual—who could not in any way be described as a "quiet man"—to undermine the use of release for rehabilitation and resettlement. The fact is that prisoners on facility or resettlement licences are advised of the terms of those licences, and they are placed on trust to comply with their requirements.
    As for travel arrangements, it is not uncommon for prisoners in open establishments to use their own transport to travel to work placements. Indeed, while Lord Archer was at North Sea camp, about 24 prisoners did that each day. The fact that the Prison Service has been criticised both for being too harsh and for being too lenient on Lord Archer suggests that it has got it about right bearing in mind the unusual challenges posed by this particular prisoner.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put it to the Under-Secretary that too many prisoners are held in overcrowded local prisons such as Lincoln and that they could quite well be held in open prisons? It would be a great help if he could expedite the process of categorisation so that yet more people now held in the crowded local prisons could be transferred to the open prisons.
    Hilary Benn: I agree about making sure that categorisation is undertaken as quickly as possible, and I have recently raised the issue with the Director General of the Prison Service for precisely the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. However, it is important to ensure that the prisoners allocated to open conditions are suited to those conditions. The proof of the success of the current arrangements is that, from memory, about 250,000 licences for leave from open prison were granted last year, and the failure rate is 0.1 per cent. That is testament to the robust nature of the current arrangements.
    David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that more prisoners should be allowed on day release schemes when that is considered appropriate and that any abuses committed by Archer should not be used as an excuse to discourage such schemes? They can be very useful in making sure that, when the prisoner leaves prison, he or she can lead a useful life. Are there not other ways of reducing the prison population? When the offence is less serious or there is no danger of violence, could not non-custodial sentences be used more than at present? Our prisons face a crisis, and I believe that my hon. Friend understands that.
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the prison system currently faces considerable pressures. He will have heard the statements on sentences made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor and about the need to consider the appropriate use of custody and to reserve it, in particular, for dangerous offenders, sex offenders and persistent offenders. My hon. Friend is also right to speak about the importance of allowing prisoners to resettle within the community. My original reply referred to the social exclusion unit report, because all
    532
    the evidence demonstrates that, if prisoners lose contact with their families and lose their job or their home, it is much more difficult for them to resettle when they come out of the prison gates. Having a job is an effective crime prevention measure, because the statistics clearly tell us that a prisoner who walks out of the prison gates with a job to go to is half as likely to reoffend as someone with no job.

    Community Policing (Nottingham)
    Mr. Graham Allen: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of Nottinghamshire about community policing, with particular reference to the city of Nottingham division. [75318]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have met the chief constable of Nottinghamshire on several occasions on which a variety of issues, including community policing, have been discussed. My right hon. Friend visited Nottingham on 18 April.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for the personal interest they have taken in Nottinghamshire constabulary. They will know that we in the city of Nottingham division are losing bobbies on the beat. In addition, our local police stations are losing large numbers of officers to response units—in effect, those stations are being hollowed out. Is the Minister aware that, at a time when the Government are, rightly, being congratulated on having more officers employed in the United Kingdom than at any other time in history, people on some of our estates and in some of our communities are seeing less of those police officers? Will he please keep a watchful eye on the issue, so that the Government's rhetoric about community policing, which we all support, is matched by the reality of policing on the ground?
    Mr. Denham: I recognise that my hon. Friend has deep concerns about the reorganisation of policing in the city of Nottingham. There is honest disagreement between him and the chief constable about the implications of the reorganisation—the chief constable would argue that it is increasing the number of officers available for beat work. We need to find a way forward. In January, the city of Nottingham will be subject to a routine basic command unit inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I have written to the regional HMI and asked it to ensure that it examines those matters during the inspection.
    Mr. David Cameron: Is the Minister aware that Nottinghamshire, like many other areas, will be a beneficiary of the unfortunate fact that police officers are fleeing the Thames valley in record numbers because of the high cost of living there? Is he aware that, within months, half of our police officers will be probationers? Will he comment on the concern felt by many superintendents about rumours that the Government are to tax pension lump sums? The Police Superintendents Association has announced that 20 to

    533
    25 per cent. of total numbers might be lost. Will he have a word with the Treasury and tell it to drop that stupid plan?
    Mr. Denham: We recognise the concerns about the south-east of England, which is why I, as Minister with responsibilities for the police, took the initiative a few weeks ago to bring together a team of people from police forces in the south-east and London to examine those concerns, as well as a range of issues including housing and transport. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in the next couple of years those forces will receive a ring-fenced part of their settlement—equivalent to 2 per cent. of their current pay bill in two years' time—for special priority payments; that funding can and should in part be used to address retention issues. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have no knowledge of any such proposals.
    John Mann (Bassetlaw): Is the Minister aware of the fact that, despite the major problems that my community has with drug-related crime, while I was carrying out an inquiry into those problems, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, as part of his Nottingham city community policing scheme, transferred 10 experienced officers from north Nottinghamshire into the city of Nottingham? Is it not about time that areas such as mine had equal priority with cities in policing matters?
    Mr. Denham: All areas have crime problems that must be tackled. My hon. Friend has rightly been persistent in raising his concerns about drug problems, but the chief constable of Nottinghamshire has to be able to make tactical decisions about priorities from day to day, and problems such as crack cocaine and gun-related violence in Nottingham have demanded a response. My hon. Friend mentions 10 officers, but let me put that in context: last year, the number of police officers in Nottinghamshire increased by 55, and this year—according to current projections—it should increase by a further 104. That is a substantial increase.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Minister not recognise that it is not only in the city of Nottingham—or, indeed, in the county of Nottinghamshire—that there is concern about police numbers, whether for community policing or any other purpose? Does he agree with the assessment that his proposals for the distribution of police grant might result in 34 rural or semi-rural forces—similar to Nottinghamshire's—losing large numbers of police officers? Dorset might lose 270 officers, Surrey 260, North Wales 300, and so the list goes on.
    What will he say to people in those areas who, despite the Government's assertions about record numbers of police officers, are seeing their forces being denuded of resources for other forces and the replacement of those resources by a very small number of community support officers? Would not the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, along with every other chief constable, prefer to have the lump sum of resources that he is supposed to have and to make his own decisions about how many officers or community support officers
    534
    he employs to provide the existing—and, preferably, enhanced—levels of policing that people expect in rural and semi-rural areas?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see what happens about the police funding formula. The Government have published a consultation paper that proposes six or seven different options, some of which point in one direction and some in another. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to calculate the worst possible case for every police force and say that that is what the Government are going to do. I recall that, when his party was in power, police officer numbers were falling. We now have record numbers of police officers, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a new target of 132,500 police officers. That option was never on the table in the 18 years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

    Migration Schemes
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on his plans to set up new sector based migration schemes next year. [75320]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 7 October two new schemes to help employers in the hotel, leisure and food manufacturing sectors to recruit workers from abroad to fill vacancies that they have been unable to fill from the resident work force. This is part of the continued development of our comprehensive policy of managed migration.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that such managed schemes are good news not only for the economy but for key cutting-edge technology areas such as engineering, information technology and medical research? People can enter the country legally and make a great contribution to our future wealth, thereby providing extra jobs that can give a real boost to the economy. In addition, are we not sending a clear signal to those who try to smuggle individuals into this country by clandestine measures that we want to undermine their terrible acts and put a stop to the despicable smuggling of people?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recent estimates suggest that migrants contribute a net benefit of about £2.5 billion to the economy, over and above any resources they consume. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is chairing a new Cabinet Committee that is looking into the social and economic impacts of migration. My hon. Friend is also right that the White Paper marked a radical shift in policy, based on a recognition of the positive contribution of migration while acknowledging that we need to manage it, return asylum to its proper purpose and bear down on the gangs that encourage people to enter the country illegally to work. We need better integration of refugees, including a UNHCR gateway, and to open up legitimate

    535
    routes into the United Kingdom for people to work. These schemes will be additional to the work permit and other existing schemes.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Everybody accepts the terrific benefits that this country has enjoyed over the years and centuries from the immigration of people with key skills, but is not this scheme one more example of the Government trying to paper over the disaster that is their asylum policy? Are not we still failing to deport even one in 10 of failed asylum seekers? At what stage will the Government recognise that they must look at more imaginative ways of tackling the asylum problem if they are going to avoid the sort of pressures that Members on both sides want to avoid?
    Beverley Hughes: We are already removing more failed asylum seekers than the Conservative Government did—indeed, we are now removing more than any other European country. The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We will not get on top of the extent to which the asylum system is being used by people to get into the country unless we send out the right signals to the countries that they come from, and part of that is being clear that we will bear down strongly on traffickers and smugglers and that people who arrive here will be dealt with swiftly and removed if their claim fails. At the same time, we want to make it clear that we welcome people coming here legitimately and that we are opening up new legitimate routes.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude that all immigrants should be used as cheap labour should be stamped on firmly? Will the working party examine closely the way in which immigrants are constantly and deliberately being used in an attempt to keep down wages and conditions in certain industries?
    Beverley Hughes: Indeed, the role that illegal working plays in encouraging people to come here, with the consequences for indigenous workers in some parts of the labour market and the economy that my hon. Friend describes, is a serious problem. That is precisely why the strategies of bearing down strongly on abuse of the asylum system and opening up legitimate routes in, as I outlined, are the two essential strands of a coherent policy—one that the Conservative party signally failed to introduce when it had the opportunity.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: I listened with interest to the Minister's comments on the new migration schemes. Will she amplify as fully as possible the meaning, effect and means of implementation of the new external gateway proposals?
    Beverley Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the new migration schemes that the original question was about or to the UNHCR gateway. That gateway, to bring in refugees from out of country, is currently being discussed with UNHCR and the voluntary organisations. We intend to institute a pilot scheme from April next year. We aim to start fairly small, with about 500 people. We are currently working up the details of the scheme, considering both how the gateway will work and how we can ensure more effective
    536
    integration of those people once they are here. Several European countries already operate such schemes, and we will draw on their expertise to ensure that we have an efficient and effective system in place early next year.

    Coroners Service
    Mr. Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on the review of the coroners service. [75321]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We established the review group last year. It published a consultation document in August and will report back by the spring.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local coroners should be both accountable and sensitive to their communities? Clearly, that has not happened in Durham. I raised serious concerns about the death of one of my constituents, Maureen Malta, in the local accident and emergency department, but the local coroner, Mr. Andrew Tweddle, arrogantly refused to publish the letter or even to give reasons for that refusal. Will my right hon. Friend take a look at that case and have a meeting with me and others who have concerns about the service in Durham?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), will write to my hon. Friend shortly. We certainly need to open up consultation on how to improve the services. I do not want to make a statement about the individual case, other than to say that openness and transparency are very important and I hope that the health care trust will respond positively to his approaches. The consultation paper in August showed that existing systems for the investigation of deaths were fragmented and failed to provide clear participation rights or standards of service for the bereaved. They lacked appropriate mechanisms for skilling and training those involved, and a proper auditing processing system. They did not even respond to modern legal baselines, so there is a great deal of room for improvement in a process that has been left to fester for too long in the 19th century rather than being brought into the 21st century.
    Mr. Colin Breed: May I make a plea that, as part of the review, the Home Office examine the need for a formal appeal procedure for coroners' decision processes? The relatives of people who have been killed are often left in an unhappy state of mind because of their lack of ability to appeal against the coroner's decision.
    Mr. Blunkett: I certainly do not rule that out, but we need much greater clarity as to what an inquest is for, how it fits in with the wider criminal justice system, and what the rights of the bereaved should be. We also need to narrow the number of occasions on which an inquest would be appropriate, so that we can use the resources, not least the pathology services, more effectively. I am always listening to the radio or watching the television and learning, as we did from ancient films, about the "Home Office pathologist"—but of course there are no Home Office pathologists, only a range of people who are taken on, for individual payments and on individual

    537
    contracts, to do the job. All that needs to be brought together if we are to ensure that the whole system is geared to providing answers to questions, to a search for the truth and to action on the findings, rather than the present vagaries.
    Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Law Officers' Department is holding an inquiry into the way in which deaths in custody are investigated and dealt with by the justice system. Clearly there is some overlap with the review of coroners, especially with regard to the investigative process. Although suspicious deaths in custody are few, one could argue that there is not currently great public confidence in any of the investigatory processes. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the coroners service review team and the Law Officers' inquiry will liaise to work towards a better and more open mechanism for dealing with this difficult problem?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I shall be happy for the review to do that, and to do it in conjunction with the development work for the establishment of the independent police complaints mechanisms that will provide a more transparent route for those who raise complaints about what has happened to people in custody. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety will publish the latest statistics shortly.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Home Secretary also accept that all too often the coroners service is signally failing the public? I shall give him a specific example about which I have been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn). The parents of constituents of mine were killed in a car crash in Teesside more than 18 months ago, but because of incompetence and alleged short staffing, there has been no inquest, and the coroner has still not acted. Is there really a shortage of staff, and is the Home Secretary doing anything about it? When will my constituents who are suffering have their minds put at rest?
    Mr. Blunkett: Those are all extremely good questions, but because the Home Secretary has no remit in such matters at the moment, the review will need to tell us how to develop sensible accountability, which will not take away the responsibility at local level, but will enable us to ensure that there is consistency and proper monitoring, and that we train those involved to be able to do the job. There is a kind of "ad hocism" here, which dates back to a distant bygone era. It is time to shed light on the process, and ensure that we use it sensibly so as to link it in with the criminal justice system in a meaningful fashion.

    Police (Paperwork)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What plans he has to reduce the paperwork police officers have to deal with. [75325]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We published the report of Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce on policing bureaucracy in September. It shows us how the police service can cut administrative burdens and reduce inefficient working practices, which together keep police officers off the streets. The Government have set up a joint group co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers to take forward and implement the taskforce report.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am very appreciative of my right hon. Friend's answer, but what progress has so far been made in implementing the report? More importantly, since this is really about getting police officers back into frontline policing, how are we going to monitor whether reducing bureaucracy is in fact equalling more policemen doing what they are employed to do?
    Mr. Denham: On my hon. Friend's first point, we kept in close touch with the taskforce while it was doing its work, so we were able to make a number of changes to, for example, the powers that can be exercised by civilian custody staff in the context of the Police Reform Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in July. We have therefore already made a start on the issues identified by the taskforce. Equally, we are discussing with the police service the best way to measure the taskforce's impact. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to develop an effective measure that indicates to us and to the public how we are gaining greater visibility and more officer hours on the front line as a result of these and other changes. When we have completed that work, we will publish that indicator for the police service.
    Bob Spink: Will the Minister tell us when the new computer systems in respect of arrest and taking into custody will be available for use in the service?
    Mr. Denham: The case and custody system, to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, is being successfully trialled in Warwickshire. I hope that, during the three years from next April, the system will be rolled out across the police service. We are looking in detail at the deadlines and timetables, but that is the time scale towards which we are working.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Has my right hon. Friend seen a piece of paperwork that is doing more to reduce the number of police officers on the streets of Slough than any other? It is an advertisement, issued by the Metropolitan police, showing a photograph of two terraced houses, both of which are occupied by police officers. The rubric states the following about the occupiers:
    "Both in their late 20s, both became police officers 6 years ago. One earns £22k a year and pays to travel to work and one earns £29k a year and travels to work for free."
    What can the Minister do to help those police forces on the periphery of London whose members are being poached by the Metropolitan Police Authority? In the

    539
    case of Slough, such activities are leading to an increase in crime in precisely those areas that we are targeting for reduction.
    Mr. Denham: I have not seen the advertisement to which my hon. Friend refers, but if that is what it says, that is not the way in which forces should compete for police officers. A few years ago, an agreement was reached and police forces did not attempt to recruit from each other's areas. At the instigation of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that was changed some time ago, when it was agreed that such recruitment exercises be carried out. However, it is essential that they be conducted in a responsible manner.

    Reoffending Rates
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on reoffending rates among young offenders in the last five years. [75326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): Reoffending rates are not normally measured, as they rely on self-reporting by offenders. Our target is therefore to achieve, by 2004, a 5 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates for young offenders within 12 months of original conviction, reprimand or final warning. Statistics published in June this year for the group dealt with in July 2000—just after
    540
    the start of the main youth justice reforms—showed a 14.6 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates compared with 1997.
    Mr. Robathan: Notwithstanding the hard work put in by many staff, does the Minister agree that young offenders' institutions such as Glen Parva in my constituency are not happy places? Contrary to what the Minister says, the number of those in such places who are reconvicted has increased by 58 per cent. in the past five years throughout the country. Does the Minister think that there are any lessons to be learned from past regimes—for example, approved schools—in terms of why the offending rate was so low then? Does he think that a case exists for a challenging regime of support, rehabilitation and training after custody, to prevent people from re-offending and being reconvicted?
    Hilary Benn: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. If he looks at the work that the Youth Justice Board is undertaking, what he describes is precisely what makes up the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes that youth offending teams are running up and down the country. They provide the rigour that is required to get young people to face up to the consequences of their offending, and they give them the support that they need to live their lives differently in future. That is precisely why we have invested in youth justice reforms, and the whole House will doubtless welcome the early indication that those reforms are succeeding in helping to reduce reconvictions.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October.
This European Council set the framework for the final stage of the enlargement negotiations. We are on course to finish those negotiations in December, sign an accession treaty with the candidate countries next spring and welcome them into the European Union at the beginning of 2004.
Enlargement has been a goal of successive British Governments. It was an historic obligation to offer membership to those nations that won their freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their membership will establish a single market of some 500 million people. We hope that those 10 countries will be joined by Bulgaria and Romania no later than 2007.
The European Council also welcomed the reforms undertaken by the Turkish Government. The Council agreed that Turkish progress had brought forward the opening of accession negotiations. At the Copenhagen European Council in December, we will decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature. For our part, the British Government look forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union in accordance with the conditions that all candidates have to meet.
The last stage of any negotiation is always the most difficult, and the last stage of the negotiation between the existing members of the European Union and the candidate countries is of course about money: what they pay into and receive from the EU budget, including structural funds and the common agricultural policy.
The European Union will be generous to the new member states. It is right that we should he, given our own interest in their stability and prosperity. But at the same time, we do not want to jeopardise the progress that has been made in reducing agriculture's share of the EU budget from more than 60 per cent. 20 years ago to 45 per cent. now. The reforms agreed in Berlin in 1999 are worth €7.5 billion to EU consumers and taxpayers. We want to extend that reform in two ways. First, the Commission has brought forward proposals for the mid-term review of agriculture under paragraph 22 of the Berlin conclusions of 1999 which, if agreed would de-link agricultural subsidies from production for the first time in the history of the European Union. Secondly, we want to limit the growth of direct payments to farmers once the candidate countries become full members.
Before the summit, the main argument was whether enlargement could be blocked by the disagreement between France and Germany over limiting agricultural spending. Fortunately, before the summit, they reached agreement that future agricultural spending should be capped up to 2013 at the levels of 2006 envisaged by the Commission. In effect, because of allowances made for an inflation rate of only 1 per cent., that will mean a real-terms reduction over and above the original Commission proposals. That aspect of the agreement was welcomed by all. However, there then arose the question of whether in return for that, reform of the
542
CAP, prior to 2006 when the current financial perspective runs out, would be postponed. That then dominated the latter stages of the summit.
In our view, such a blanket opposition to reform would have been wholly unacceptable. It would mean effectively destroying the current reform proposals of the European Commission. It would seriously inhibit the offer the EU can make in the World Trade Organisation Doha trade talks. Those talks are vital both for free trade and for the developing countries of the world. Those poor countries need agricultural reform in Europe and they need it badly.
Eventually, we agreed specifically that the limit on agricultural spending would be without prejudice either to the European Commission's mid-term review of agriculture based on paragraph 22 of the Berlin conclusions or to the Doha trade round. Those issues can now be taken forward by the Agriculture Council, which, of course, operates by qualified majority voting. Despite the difficulty in negotiating that, it would have been quite wrong for the possibility of CAP reform to have been hindered in that way. As a result of the summit outcome, enlargement remains on track and fundamental CAP reform remains on the agenda.
During the European Council, I also discussed with colleagues the issue of Iraq. We are all agreed on the need to ensure that Saddam has no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes. We are working hard for agreement on the terms of a tough new Security Council resolution. The key point has to be that the weapons inspectors should return, free to do their jobs properly, without any of the restraints wrongly imposed before. Should there then be a further breach by Iraq, I have no doubt that action must follow.
We also discussed the development of European defence. We agreed that Macedonia would be a good place to start and that we should therefore work urgently to complete the agreement between the EU and NATO.
In addition, we had a presentation from President Giscard d'Estaing on the convention on the future of Europe. In his speech today, I am pleased that the president makes it clear that Europe should co-operate as a union of European states, not a federal super-state, and I believe that his proposals on subsidiarity, the role of national Parliaments and Council reform will be welcomed, at least here. We are well placed in this vital debate.
Before concluding, I would like to update the House on the hostage crisis in Moscow that ended tragically with the loss of so many lives. At 9 pm local time on Wednesday, around 50 armed Chechens took several hundred hostages in a theatre in south-east Moscow. Among the hostages were three British nationals: Peter and Sidica Low and their son Richard. Peter Low and a few others were released on Thursday morning. I spoke to President Putin from Brussels on Friday. Britain sent a team of counter-terrorist experts to help. President Putin told me that he had no doubt that the terrorists were prepared to kill all the hostages; that they were heavily armed with explosives; and that whatever decision he took would be immensely difficult. After the siege had ended at 5.30 am local time on Saturday, I rang him again to welcome the ending of the siege. I asked him and he was able to tell me that the safe release of Sidica and Richard Low had been ensured.

543
It is too early yet to know the full facts of what happened, but I ask people to understand that when it was clear that the terrorists were starting to execute the hostages, the Russian authorities had to act. I know how hard it will have been to make the right decisions. But there are no easy, no risk-free, no safe solutions to such a situation. And I hope that people will understand the enormity of the dilemma facing President Putin as he weighed what to do, in trying to end the siege with minimum loss of life and recognising the dangers of doing anything that conceded to this latest outrage of terrorism from Chechnya.
Although it is clear that hundreds survived, many did not, and the loss of each innocent life will be mourned not just in Russia but throughout the world, and we in Britain send our deepest condolences to the Russian people at this time.
The attacks in Bali, the occupation of the Moscow theatre, the other terrorist attacks around the world, the murder of the American diplomat in Jordan this morning are all brutal and horrifying reminders of this new form of terrorist extremism. A deadly mixture of religious and political fanaticism is being pursued by those who have no compunction about taking human lives, no matter how innocent, and little about losing their own. The only answer is to defeat them by security, intelligence and policing but also to tackle head on, especially within the Muslim world, their perversion of Islam in the cause of extremism. I remain of the view that it is not only the methods of extremism but the extremists' ideas that must be countered.
Thanks to the outcome of the summit, the way is clear to finish the enlargement negotiations by December. In the worst days of the cold war it would have seemed incredible that countries that were under Soviet rule for nearly half a century could find their freedom. But they did. This opportunity and the challenge of enlargement have helped them catch up half a century in the last decade. I hope the House will welcome this important step towards a Europe united, democratic and free.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement and I join him in offering the Opposition's condolences to the Russian people for the terrible tragedy that they faced during the past few days. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our horror at the actions of terrorists in Moscow and in extending our sympathies to all the victims and their families.
As the Prime Minister said, hostage taking and terrorism are utterly unacceptable whenever and wherever they occur. I also agree that a huge and terrible dilemma faced the Russian President. No matter what we discover during the next few days and weeks, it was no less than one of the most difficult decisions that could have been made, although in due course we shall need to understand more fully exactly what weapons were used. Our condolences go also to the family of the US diplomat. As the Prime Minister rightly said, those events bring home to us the fact that the war on terror must continue and that those who say that we can take a break from it, or that we do not need to pursue it with so much vigour, are fundamentally wrong. They must remain on the sidelines of the argument.
On Europe, I congratulate the Danish presidency on keeping EU enlargement on track. The Prime Minister is right to say that enlargement is a great prize that is
544
worth fighting for. The 10 new countries seeking membership of the EU will bring 70 million customers for British goods and services in a single market extending from the Atlantic to the Baltic. The prospect before us is of a new Europe built on co-operation between stable democratic nations and the prosperity of open markets—[Interruption.] I know open markets make Labour Members very uncomfortable but they will have to live with them.
The choice will be between an old Europe that is always seeking to centralise power or a new Europe that is apparently about open markets and less regulation. In that context, it is a pity that the Prime Minister allowed the forces of old Europe to sideline him so convincingly at Brussels. Only four months ago, he told the House of the EU's commitment to breaking down the trade barriers, including those in agriculture. Yet he comes back from the summit saying that it was fortunate that France and Germany reached agreement. Well, if ever there was spin to cover failure, that was it. The Prime Minister welcomes a reduction from a position that should never have existed in the first place.
If the deal after Friday is so welcome, why was the Prime Minister storming around on the sidelines of the meeting saying that he was furious and angry. Apparently he even insulted President Chirac—[Interruption.] Terrible!—[Interruption.]—Oh yes, be careful; he will be joining us.
If the deal was so welcome, why were British officials unable to comment on the details of the deal between France and Germany for about 24 hours from the moment they arrived? Was that not because neither the Prime Minister nor his officials knew anything at all about the deal because they were not present in the first place? How does that square with the fact that, six months ago, the Prime Minister told the House:
"Britain is in there, shaping Europe's future … We will continue to get the best for Britain out of Europe. Under this Government, the days of weakness and isolation will not return"?—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 23.]
The Prime Minister said that reform of the common agricultural policy remains on the agenda. I assume that he means that reform is on the agenda in the same way as his colleague in No. 11 Downing street believes that leadership of the Labour party remains on the agenda for him.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what the total cost of the CAP will be after enlargement and how he will pay for it? [Interruption.] Labour Members hate the idea that the nonsense they have been pushing that they are at the heart of Europe has been exposed—they are not.
Will the Prime Minister tell us about the total cost of the CAP after enlargement and how it will be paid for? Will the money be found by cutting existing EU budgets? If so, why has so little been done to reform the EU structural funds and why did the Prime Minister not raise the fact that about £3 billion of the EU budget is still wasted in fraud and mismanagement?
The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that the British rebate did not make it into the presidency conclusions, yet President Chirac even today continues to state publicly that it is part of the deal. So will the Prime Minister confirm what we believe his Foreign Secretary said last week? [Interruption.] Oh yes. He said that the rebate won by Mrs. Thatcher is not up for

545
negotiation and never will be up for negotiation. If the Prime Minister agrees with that, when did he first tell President Chirac that he should drop the whole issue of the rebate; or did he ever tell him at any point during the conference?
Only two years ago, the Prime Minister assured the British people that the charter of fundamental rights would not impact on national law, yet his former Minister for Europe said that Britain would be prepared to compromise on allowing the CFR to be legally binding. So in the light of the report that was tabled at the meeting on the convention and given at the Brussels council, will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that Britain will veto any proposal to compromise and make the CFR in any way legally binding?
I have lost track—[Interruption]—of the number of times that the Prime Minister has come to the House. [Interruption.] Oh no. Again and again, we hear that this country is leading for Britain in Europe, but seldom has his failure to practise what he preaches been so transparent: a deal to extend the life of the common agricultural policy has been struck behind Britain's back; proposals to give away yet more powers from national Governments to the Commission have been tabled over British objections; and fundamental reforms that would secure the financial future of an enlarged European Union have been passed over despite the warnings.
The Prime Minister normally gets up at this point and lectures everybody about how he has been ahead of everybody else in leading for the Government. Instead of getting up and blaming the last Government or the Opposition, will he now tell British taxpayers how much more they will have to pay to foot the bill for his failure?
The Prime Minister: First, on Russia, we are in agreement. May I echo—I should have referred to it in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman's praise of the Danish presidency? It handled a difficult meeting extremely well and prepared the Council very well indeed, and the Danish Prime Minister's handling of the summit was excellent.
In relation to the agreement between France and Germany, I have to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are two quite separate aspects of the agreement—one was an agreement about limiting expenditure in the European Union. That is actually an advance on what was there before. Before the summit, there was no agreement that, after 2006, spending on agriculture should be limited at all. That was one aspect of the French-German deal, which was struck as a result of the disagreements between them.
There was then a second aspect: what France wanted in return for that deal was the abolition of any possibility of common agriculture reform prior to 2006. That is precisely what was resisted at the summit. That is why it was important to make sure that, after the summit, the mid-term review of the Agriculture Council continued. The purpose of the French proposals was to ensure that that review was effectively dead in the water. That review now carries on, and, as the EU Commissioner said in his statement today, it is important that the mid-term review is there, and it
546
should be completed at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.] With great respect, whatever is shouted at me from the Opposition Front Bench, we are fully supportive of the first point of the agreement—an additional limit on expenditure. We are not in support of the price for it—no CAP reform—and that was defeated at the summit.
Secondly, of course, it is extremely important to ensure that the European Union can make a proper commitment in the Doha WTO round. If we had ended up saying effectively that there would be no CAP reform prior to 2006, it would have been very difficult to make a constructive EU offer next year. I want to make it clear that I believe that it is in the interests not just of Britain but of Europe that we are able to make an offer in that WTO trade round that is of benefit not just to the developed world but to those poor and developing countries that desperately need access to our markets.
That is the importance of CAP reform. The reason why it is important that CAP reform is still on track is that the decisions on it will not be taken in the Prime Ministers' Council but in the Agriculture Council. That is important because the Agriculture Council will take its decisions by qualified majority voting.
In relation to the abatement, it is not up for grabs, for a very simple reason: the abatement compensates Britain for what would otherwise be a wholly unfair distribution of contributions. Even with the abatement, our contribution is three times that of France, for example, and without it our net contribution would be 13 times that of France. Only after enlargement, even with the abatement, will our contributions for the first time—as a result of the deal struck in 1999 at Berlin—come into line with those of France and Italy. It is therefore extremely important that we maintain it. As for French designs on it, that is a classic example of how Britain must take a sensible view. Of course, the French will want to take action against the British abatement, just as we want to take action on the common agricultural policy. They will make their position clear, and we will make ours clear; that, I am afraid, is the way that things happen. What is absurd, however, is to take the view that, just because there is an attack on the British abatement, we must give it up. We held firm at Berlin, when the Conservative party was telling us that we were going to give it up, and we will hold firm again.
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's points about the charter of fundamental rights, we have made it absolutely clear that it should not extend the legal competence or jurisdiction of Europe in any way at all.
In relation to the issues that he raises about leadership in Europe, it is, of course, important that the Conservative party—which, effectively, has an anti-European position—says that Britain loses all the time in Europe. It must say that Europe is essentially something done to Britain against our interests and our designs. The shadow Leader of the House is nodding, unsurprisingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Again!"] The shadow Deputy Prime Minister is nodding, too, as well as one or two others with an eye to the main chance. On economic reform, European defence and the future of Europe, I believe that, with other countries, we play a key leadership role. The right hon. Gentleman's problem is that, in order to make the case against Europe, he must always say that we are losing in Europe. In fact, Britain is not losing in Europe; Britain is gaining through a

547
constructive attitude in Europe. I say unhesitatingly something that he did not say: our membership of the European Union is in Britain's interests, and we will carry on playing our full part in Europe because it is the right thing to do.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the leadership of political parties, if he wants a piece of free advice, he should not raise that topic again.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely with the expressions of condolence and sympathy for all the Russian people who have lost their lives in the terrible events in Moscow at the weekend, and I express our relief that at least the Low family from our country have escaped with their lives. I thank our ambassador and all the diplomatic staff, who, as we know from media reports, have worked so hard on our behalf and on behalf of the British citizens immediately involved in that terrible situation.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the grotesque events in Moscow again underline the fact that, even in this day and age, some within the wider perimeter of Europe are still prepared to wage conflict on an indiscriminate basis? Although we rightly talk about the detail of these summits, it is surely always worth bearing in mind the fact that the whole European ideal was built out of the ashes of the second world war—out of two grotesque conflicts in the last century—and that the goal of growing stability, security and maintenance of peace and prosperity is something of which we should never lose sight.
In the context of this weekend's summit, we welcome the further progress made on enlargement, although perhaps the Prime Minister, like me, reflected just a few minutes ago on the fact that, if enlargement is to be made a reality, those who pay lip service to the practicality of enlarging the European Union also have to go through the motions and the Division Lobby of the House to give effect to treaties such as the Nice treaty, rather than opposing them at every juncture. So me of the comments that we heard a few minutes ago need to be viewed in that context.
Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that aspirant states wish to come into the Europe Union? Although it is marvellous that they are at last being liberated from old-style central command-and-control economies, they are none the less finding that existing member states and the Commission are still putting too much red tape and bureaucracy in their paths. Further emphasis needs to be given on ensuring that the enlarged Europe that evolves is more liberal and more free-trading than it is at the moment.
On the specific issue of common agricultural policy reform, which has to be the big disappointment of the weekend, too little progress—if, indeed, much progress at all—was achieved. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the agreement reached simply to cap subsidies is not a long-term solution? Does he agree that Commissioner Chris Patten was correct yesterday when he said that far-reaching reform remains inevitable? In that context, we have to get away from the wastage of EU resources and the unfair discrimination against emerging economies elsewhere, in the third world in particular. We also have to recognise the unfair penalties that the existing CAP imposes on our hard-pressed agricultural community in Britain.
548
How does the Prime Minister reconcile the outcome of the summit with the commitment to the phased withdrawal of EU subsidies in favour of the wider Doha commitments, to which we are already a signatory? Does he see any potential in coming times for assembling a coalition of interests within existing EU member states towards that end? Will the Prime Minister also reaffirm that the British budget rebate still requires unanimity for reform, and that some of the scaremongering in the media and elsewhere in politics is simply trying to mislead people on that fundamental issue?
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that our country would have greater leverage, not least on agricultural reform, if we were seen to be more of an active participant at the top table in Europe, especially as we are the fourth largest economy in the world? Are we not in danger of missing the boat at the formative stage of the single currency in the same way as we did at the outset of the establishment of the CAP? Did the Prime Minister have bilateral discussions on the single currency with other Heads of Government over the weekend? In that context, when will the next bilateral summit between France and Britain take place, and what items does the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss with the President of France?
The Prime Minister: I am sure it will be a wide-ranging discussion as always.
The position on the single currency is the same. We are in favour of it in principle, and in practice the tests have to be passed. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the abatement. Unanimity is required. It is important to explain, however, that abatement is merely a form of compensation. Sometimes it is treated as if it were a marvellous and unusual device that allows us to get an unfair advantage. That is not the case. In fact, it is the minimum necessary to compensate us for what would otherwise be a highly unfair situation. That will change over time because of the deal struck in Berlin in 1999. In the ensuing years after enlargement, Britain's net contributions to the EU will come into line with those of France and Italy for the first time since we joined the Common Market. At the moment, however, even with the abatement, our net contributions are three times those of France. It is hardly surprising if we are vigorously defending our position.
Again, it is important to understand the two completely different aspects of CAP reform. The summit was originally not about CAP reform, but about enlargement. Germany took the same view as Britain, which is that we need some cap on overall agriculture spending. This summit delivered such a cap, and we can do more on that if we do more on agriculture reform. That is why it was so important to resist the notion that, as the trade for the spending cap, reform should be taken off the table. It was never the case that the nature of reform would be decided at the Council, but it had to remain on the agenda, otherwise the continuing work of the Agriculture Council would have been suspended. Reform is on the agenda.
The right hon. Gentleman remarked on the Doha treaty, which is vital. He is right about the Nice treaty. I had forgotten that the Conservatives voted against the

549
Nice treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] In that case, it is a little difficult for them to say that they are in favour of enlargement, but we shall leave them to sort that out.
Finally, to emphasise a point made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is important that the next few months are remembered as those in which enlargement takes place. If anyone had said two or three years ago that we would have 10 new countries in the EU, they would have been thought very bold. Those 10 countries will join the EU, and they have made enormous strides to do so. When all is said and done, and leaving aside all the differences that emerge at any summit, what should be remembered is the enlargement of the EU, which is an historic and massive step forward for Europe.
Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that so far as the Government are concerned, enlargement is not a means of slowing down or hampering the development of the EU but an investment in democracy in the new member countries and, positively, a means of enhancing the potential of our new Europe? Does my right hon. Friend expect the new European force to be in Macedonia by 1 January? Is it the Government's view that Turkey should be given a start date for negotiations at the Copenhagen summit? What are the prospects of that happening?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that, over the next few weeks, there will be discussion of timetables for Turkey, and I do not want to prejudge the results of the Copenhagen summit, but I hope that we can give further significant welcome to the steps that Turkey is taking. On the possibility of European defence taking over the Macedonian operation, I think that that is an excellent idea, and it underlines why European defence is a good, sound project, because these are circumstances in which NATO does not want to be engaged. Obviously, it is important that European defence is used only in light of an agreement between Europe and NATO because it is important that European defence is seen as wholly complementary to the existence of NATO.
Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister is right to welcome enlargement and to talk about the importance of the world trade round, but on agriculture reform, he has clearly taken his eye off the ball. Does he not recall that on 23 September the Financial Times carried a letter from six EU farm Ministers entitled "The CAP is something we can be proud of", and that as France, Italy and Spain were all signatories, there is a clear blocking minority?
Is the Prime Minister further aware that on 3 October the Financial Times had on its front page a story headed "Berlin and Paris close to deal on farm reform"? What have the Government been doing in the meantime? Why did the Prime Minister's great friend Herr Schröder, whom the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have rescued from election defeat, team up with the French and apparently defeat his own interests? Faced with that coalition, how can the Prime Minister believe that the mid-term review of agriculture reform is still on track?
The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely why—for the very reasons that the European Commissioner Franz Fischler gave today, when he said:
"the fundamental issues and the aims that we addressed in the MTR remain unchanged … The underlying question is: Is there an urgency to arrive at a decision on the future common agricultural policy …?' My answer to this is clear. We must seize the opportunity to build a strong and sustainable CAP before it is too late."
That is what he said today.
The point that I am trying to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that one part of the French-German agreement, the limit on CAP expenditure after 2006, is an advance on what existed before the summit. Before the summit, there was no such agreement. If we had simply had the European Commission proposals, there would have been no limit on agriculture spending after 2006; now there is.
What was unacceptable was the idea that in return for that, we should abandon CAP reform in the Agriculture Council and the mid-term review. As Franz Fischler has just stipulated and as was agreed at the summit, that mid-term review continues, so the way is open for agricultural reform. Of course there will be attempts by countries to get together a blocking minority; that is the same as it was before the summit—but the important thing is that, as a result of the decision of the Council summit, there is no way that the matter can now be taken off the agenda.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We welcome the progress that has been made on Turkey. But have we misunderstood the Prime Minister? Did he undertake that there would have to be a breach by Iraq of the freedom of weapons inspectors before military action was taken? How does that lie with the statements over the weekend by Colin Powell that there would be no difficulty in getting a coalition, and that this was the key week in relation to Iraq? If there is no difficulty about getting a coalition, who is to form that coalition, other than the British and Ariel Sharon?
The Prime Minister: I think that there is a large measure of agreement. We are obviously working on a UN resolution now. Most people accept that the weapons inspectors should go back in, without any restraint or hindrance, unlike what happened before, but that if Iraq again plays the same game as before, action should follow. Most people can agree to that. It is a reasonable position which gives Saddam the chance to come back into compliance with the UN, but makes it clear that compliance will be enforced.
Sir Peter Tapsell: What is the point of the policy of step-by-step sacrifice of aspects of British national sovereignty as the price of being, as the Prime Minister likes to put it, at the heart of Europe, if, when a crucial negotiation about the future of the common agricultural policy is held, the matter is settled at meetings between the French and German leaders behind his back, and all he gets is an unprecedented insult from the President of France?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind who is insulting whom. He is wrong

551
about the summit. The part of the deal that was unacceptable was the part of the deal that was resisted, with the greatest respect—a point that, no matter how many times one makes it, does not seem to have penetrated the Opposition. The reason for that is exactly the point that he makes in the first part of his question. He and his fellow Conservative Eurosceptics must say the whole time that Europe is something terrible. They therefore have a view of British national sovereignty that really means in the end that Britain being in Europe is a giving up of British national sovereignty. The fact is that Britain gains as a result of co-operating with other European countries. We gain through the single market, we gain through co-operation on issues such as defence, we are gaining on issues such as economic reform, and it is important for Britain to be in Europe and at the centre of Europe—[Interruption]—yes, I believe that, because I believe it to be in the British national interest.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an air of unreality about the arguments on the common agricultural policy? I listen to the Tories every time the matter is raised. They give the impression that they do not like it. The truth is that if it were ever proposed in the House, every Tory MP would vote to put the money in the pockets of the farmers and the Countryside Alliance. As for the dustup with President Chirac, if there is to be another row, let us have it about the euro. I will give my right hon. Friend a bit more advice: he should take the Deputy Prime Minister with him. He would put President Chirac in his place.
The Prime Minister: I always get immensely constructive and occasionally idiosyncratic advice from my hon. Friend, and I will reflect upon it.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I welcome the Prime Minister's reference to Turkey in his statement. Does he agree that Turkey is a particularly valued ally because it is an Islamic state, but it is also pluralist and pro-western? Does he also agree that it occupies one of the most important squares on the strategic chessboard? Have not the EU leaders sometimes been unwise in the past to appear to shun Turkey? Given that Britain understands our strategic interests, will the Prime Minister become a positive advocate of Turkish membership of the EU in the future?
The Prime Minister: I agree exactly with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is important for Britain to be an advocate for Turkey, on the basis that Turkey abides by the rules of the European Union. I hope that there is a growing recognition within Europe and within Turkey that Turkish membership of the EU is in the end a good thing for Turkey, for Europe and for the wider world. We have tried consistently to support the case for Turkey while making it clear that it must abide by the same rules as everybody else in Europe.
Joyce Quin: I welcome the progress that has been made towards enlargement. However, is not one of the strongest cards in the hands of those who want CAP reform the fact that an excellent alternative to the CAP already exists
552
through the rural development regulation, which is a much more flexible way of helping rural areas and avoids distortions and the effect on the world economy that the present CAP has? Therefore, will it not be vital during the review of the CAP to build as wide a coalition of support as possible in favour of the rural development approach?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The rural development regulation is important. Our ability to move forward on that was untouched by any deal at the summit.
Mr. Alex Salmond: My hon. Friends welcome enlargement. Indeed, we would rather see Europe even larger.
Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to discuss the fishing industry at the European Council? The industry will be affected by enlargement and it faces an immediate crisis with the proposed closure of the white fishery around Scotland, which will cost thousands of jobs and economically dismantle entire communities. Can the Prime Minister offer two commitments? The first is that the fishing interest will not be traded away in pursuit of wider British interests in Europe, as has happened so often in the past; and the second is that, over the coming weeks he will fight as hard for our fishermen as the French do for their farmers.
The Prime Minister: On the common fisheries policy, hugely difficult decisions will have to be taken because of the depletion of fishing stocks. Of course we shall fight very hard for the interests of our fishermen; we do so on every occasion. As any Government will find at present, the situation is difficult. There is no doubt, as the scientific report shows, that there is significant depletion of stocks. I am well aware of the effects of that on fishing communities not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. We will do our utmost to ensure that any deal that is secured protects, in so far as it is possible, the interests of British fishermen.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's careful and precise words on Iraq, which should have wide support on the Government Benches, and I share his pleasure that the year after next we are to be joined in the European Union by two Commonwealth countries—Malta and Cyprus. Does he agree that it is out of the question for Turkey to become a member of the European Union as long as its armed forces are occupying a third of Cyprus? Does he also agree that the best way to get Turkey into the EU, as we would wish, is for its Government to facilitate and use their influence to obtain a settlement in Cyprus?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand if I say simply that we are working very hard to try to secure an agreement in respect of Cyprus, and I hope that that can be done. That is in the interests of everyone within the EU and it is in the interests of Turkey. We are supporting strongly the United Nations efforts in that regard. It is probably better if I do not comment on the matter further as the negotiations are at a delicate stage.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As the Prime Minister raised the question of hostage taking in

553
Moscow, will he tell us whether he can think of one good reason why President Putin is refusing to divulge to his own doctors the nature of the poisonous gas that has made so many of the hostages so ill? Will he use his good offices to make representations to President Putin to enable his own doctors to know what antidotes they need to apply? Otherwise, much of the sympathy which President Putin deservedly had for his dilemma will promptly evaporate.
The Prime Minister: I understand the concern behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that, consistent with Russian security, further answers will be given to such questions. I hope that people understand that the Russian President, as I could tell when I spoke to him on Friday, was faced with an agonising and painful decision. These people will stop at absolutely nothing and have no hesitation in killing large numbers of innocent people. We know that those taking hostages had explosives strapped to their bodies and were willing to give their lives in a massive terrorist attempt to destroy as many lives as possible. These are difficult decisions, but I am sure that, in due course, we will get some answers on those points and others.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that throughout the countries in eastern and central Europe whose joining the European Union has been agreed to, the part played by him and the Government in seeking and supporting enlargement has been very much welcomed. Does he recognise that his statement with regard to Romania and Bulgaria and the target date that he envisages for them is seen as very important? Once the other 10 countries have joined, it is vital that those two countries can also do so at the earliest possible opportunity, in line with the indications that he gave.
The Prime Minister: I very much hope that we will see the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria not later than 2007. I know that both countries are making enormous efforts to ensure that that happens. When we reflect on Europe and the balance of advantages and disadvantages, there is no doubt that it is the prospect of membership of the European Union that has had a transforming effect on the countries that used to be under the control of the old Soviet Union. Indeed, even in parts of the Balkans that have troubled this nation and other European nations for 100 years or more, there are signs of change and improvement as a result of their hope that in due course, obviously over a long period, they will secure European Union membership.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the Prime Minister's equivocal answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), will he give the House an absolute assurance that at Copenhagen he will not agree a rendezvous date for Turkish entry into the European Union unless a settlement on the Cyprus problem has also been reached by that time?
The Prime Minister: I will not give such an undertaking. Very difficult issues need to be resolved. We both want Turkey to be inside the European Union
554
if we can possibly achieve that and we want a resolution of the Cyprus issue but, frankly, I do not think that that will be encouraged by my laying down ultimatums or adopting fixed positions at this point in time, in the light of a set of circumstances that is obviously changing.
Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continuing to play a pivotal role in the enlargement process. He will know of the case of Catherine Meyer, which has been raised with him before. He will also know that last week at the Foreign Office an undertaking was given to Lady Meyer that he would raise her case with Chancellor Shröder. Was he able to do so and what action does he think Chancellor Shröder will take to improve the operation of the German courts?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the issue to which he refers has been raised many times in the past few years. I should tell him that I have today written a letter to Chancellor Shröder about the subject. I am well aware of the concerns that he expresses and he will know that they are shared by many people.
Mr. Michael Jack: Commissioner Fischler is entirely correct to say that the CAP should be reformed, but in my reading of the written presidency conclusions, there was nothing in terms to say that all parties would be committed to the process of reform of the CAP. The statements from the French and Germans indicated a postponement in that process until 2006. Where can I find a clear written statement that France, Germany and others will actively support and participate in all the discussions about CAP reform?
The Prime Minister: The short answer is that, certainly in relation to France, some countries may well not agree with common agricultural policy reform. It is their right not to do so. However, the fact is that, with regard to the attempt to ensure that that reform would not take place—or, in other words, that the discussion would end—their position on such reform was the same before the summit as it is afterwards. They are entitled to take whatever position they choose. What they were not entitled to do, in my view, was to say that the issue of CAP reform should be taken off the agenda. That is what was prevented at the summit and what is important.
Although I understand that it is sometimes difficult to follow such issues all the way through, I emphasise again that the basic part of the French-German agreement on limiting CAP expenditure was a step forward on what existed before the summit. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect, it was. Prior to the summit, there was no agreement that there should be any limit on CAP expenditure. There is now a limit on CAP expenditure, and—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign has not understood, which is hardly surprising or, indeed, unusual.
As a matter of fact, there is already a financial perspective up to 2006, so we have already got a financial deal up to 2006. The question was what would happen after that. Before the summit, there was no agreement to limit CAP expenditure, but the demand of Germany—supported by Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and other countries—was that there had to

555
be a limit. What was unacceptable was that, in return for that limit, CAP reform bit the dust. That is not now going to happen. Of course, France will carry on arguing its position, but we are able to argue our position in the Agriculture Council where, unlike the Council of Ministers, the decision is taken by qualified majority voting.
Mr. Derek Foster: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's report on progress towards enlargement. This must be a historic moment for European peace and democracy. He also holds out the prospect of further progress on reform of the CAP. Does he agree that if, by the end of the negotiations in the Agriculture Council, the European Union is not able to grasp this unique opportunity radically to reform the CAP, that would be greatly to the EU's shame?
The Prime Minister: It would be. The other thing that means that CAP reform must happen in the end is the world trade round. Nothing is more important than making sure that the trade round succeeds. Europe will have to make an offer in the trade round and that offer will have to be about reform and about the reform of agricultural subsidies. That is why it is so important that we carry on the fight for that.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister will be aware that the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that, for the first six months of this year, the United Kingdom had the highest number of asylum seekers in the world, with the Federal Republic of Germany coming second. Is there any prospect of the Dublin convention being made to work by our EU partners? Following enlargement, will it not be even more difficult to control immigration in the wider EU, particularly if there is visa-free access to and from the Kaliningrad enclave, as the Russians propose?
The Prime Minister: It is correct to say that Britain and Germany have the highest number of asylum seekers in Europe, though countries of a similar size, such as France and Italy, use different ways to calculate the figures. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this subject and the Dublin convention as a serious issue. I had lunch today with the Prime Minister of Greece, which takes over the presidency of the EU in the first six months of next year. We discussed the issue at length and we agreed that there had to be fundamental reform of the asylum system in Europe. Otherwise, in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman indicates, the problems will intensify on enlargement. That is why it is important that we get the reform in place, and we will certainly support it. However, the position has changed in that there is now a common will across Europe that recognises that we all face the problem and that we must return integrity to the asylum system in Europe.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the significant constitutional changes that there have been in Turkey over the past couple of years, notwithstanding Turkey's strategic importance to the EU, and notwithstanding most people's hope that Turkey will
556
eventually join the EU, does it not have some way to go in terms of respecting human rights before its admission into the EU can be hastened along?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, certain criteria have to be met by any country that joins the EU. It is worth pointing out that Turkey has made progress, and the summit specifically welcomed that progress. Of course, Turkey has to abide by the same rules as any other member of the EU.
Mr. John Maples: Did the Council have any time to discuss the stability and growth pact? Presumably, the Prime Minister agrees that fiscal discipline is an important ingredient of currency stability, but that agreement is now being deliberately flouted by major members of the eurozone, in particular France and Germany, where, he tells us, he has good contacts. If that agreement is to be so flouted, does it make him more or less inclined to take Britain into the euro?
The Prime Minister: There are two issues. The first, which Britain has raised on many occasions, is the flexibility of the stability and growth pact, in particular the differences between borrowing for different reasons—for example, for investment or for consumption. That is why we have an attachment, born out of experience, to the rules set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. On the other hand, it is important that any changes in the stability and growth pact reinforce discipline within the eurozone and do not undermine it. It is for that very reason that the current discussions about the best way forward are taking place.
Mike Gapes: Mr. Putin would have been damned if he did not act and damned if he did. Is it not clear that extremist terrorist actions involving suicide bombers will be with us for the foreseeable future? Will the Prime Minister hold urgent discussions not only with our EU partners, but with other members of the Security Council and NATO, to co-ordinate best practice, advice and techniques for dealing with the more extreme forms of hostage taking?
The Prime Minister: We will continue to discuss that important issue at every level. One thing is clear: those groups are operating anywhere and everywhere in the world and they will stop at nothing. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As a major part of the CAP is spent on dumping surplus food production, and as the EU is still increasing its food production and as east Europe has fantastic potential for increasing food production, how on earth can the Germans and the French propose that spending increases be restricted to 1 per cent.? Does that not remind the Prime Minister of the accountancy principles used by Enron? Seriously, is he not beginning to find, like all his predecessors did, that the policy of cooperation and reform in Europe simply does not work?
The Prime Minister: Actually. for once, the hon. Gentleman has rather effectively made the point that I was trying to make to his colleagues. He is absolutely

557
right to say that by, for the first time, limiting spending after 2006—in other words, limiting overall spending, including for the accession countries—a squeeze will be put on agriculture spending. That has now been agreed—
Sir Teddy Taylor: It will not happen.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says it will not happen, but instead of trying to predict the future, let us both agree—unlike his party's Front Benchers—that it would be a very good thing if we did manage to achieve that limit. That is the very point that I am making, and I am glad that he has come to my assistance in educating his party's Front Benchers.
The part of the French-German agreement that is right and should be supported is the limit on common agricultural spending. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to ensure that that is achieved, and I agree. However, one of the things that people wanted to do in return for that is to abandon any idea of delinking subsidy from production—delinking the two being part of the Fischler proposals from the European Commission. It is for precisely that reason that we rejected the idea that we should abandon reform and abandon those proposals, and that is what was secured at the summit. For once, in a European debate, I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
4.28 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have in my hand the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", and I seek your guidance. Many of our constituents would consider it extraordinary that tomorrow the Commons is to discuss whether we close down at 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, rather than Colin Powell's statement that this is a key week and that there would be no difficulty in forming a coalition against Iraq.
My point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me where in "Erskine May" the parliamentary rules suggest that there is any rule to prevent an hon. Member raising an issue of urgent public importance under what used to be Standing Order 9 and then 10, and which is now 24?
As I understand it, pages 309 and 310 suggest that it is practice and custom rather than rules that prevent an hon. Member who is determined to do so from raising an issue under Standing Order No. 24. If it is custom and practice, it is one thing; if it is rules, it is another. Were it not so important a subject, I would not be difficult about custom and practice. However, the issue that I wish to raise—war and peace—should surely take precedence over tomorrow's business, which, however important it is to Members of Parliament, can surely wait.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow me to move as a matter of urgency that the House discuss Colin Powell's statement at the weekend that this was a key week and that there would be no difficulty in finding a coalition? If that is so, the only coalition that one can think of is the British Prime Minister and Ariel Sharon. When Secretary Powell spoke about there being no difficulty in getting a coalition—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience as a Member of Parliament, which we all respect. However, he is in danger of turning a point of order into a point of debate. I must advise him that, within the powers given to Mr. Speaker to interpret the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker has already ruled that he cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's subject for debate. I certainly cannot alter the ruling that the Speaker has made in that respect.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm whether the ruling existed before Madam Speaker Boothroyd and whether it is enshrined in the rules of the House of Commons? Perhaps there could be reflection on that subject, because custom and practice is one thing; rules are another.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been the custom and practice of this House for 10 years, as was established during the time of Mr. Speaker Weatherill.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper, the Government propose to move two orders tomorrow suspending the devolved Administration—the Executive and Assembly—in Stormont. You would

559
not want me to go into the substance of that issue, and I will certainly not do so. However, the proposal involves the suspension of the constitution of part of our country and imposing, essentially, a form of colonial rule on Northern Ireland. This is an important and controversial matter. Obviously, the Government do not want the arguments to be aired too publicly and the issues to be exposed to public view, so they have decided to take the orders in Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House—where, self-evidently, they belong. Is there any power open to you to enable us to debate that controversial procedural decision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer is no. This is a matter for the Government to decide, as is laid down in the Standing Orders, and is not a matter that the Chair can determine.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to my previous point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At your convenience, could we have the reference for when Mr. Speaker Weatherill made such a ruling? Mr. Speaker Weatherill was a very benign Speaker in these matters, and I am curious about when the ruling was made.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was 16 October 1991. I should say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that all Speakers are benevolent.

Opposition Day
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Access To Facilities Of The House
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the first Opposition motion. I have to advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the serious breaches by Sinn Fein/IRA of their obligations under the Belfast Agreement and the ceasefire, which have been recognised by the Government in the decision to suspend the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; believes that good faith has not been observed by Sinn Fein/IRA; and, unless Sinn Fein honourable Members commit themselves to a public statement that all terrorist organisations. including the IRA, should rescind violence, resolves to rescind the resolution of 18th December 2001 granting facilities and other support to Sinn Fein honourable Members who have chosen not to take their seats.
  I should like to take this opportunity to welcome, very sincerely, the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. He comes to this delicate task with a distinguished record of service in Northern Ireland and knows the position well, which is encouraging for all of us.
  Although we shall no doubt disagree from time to time, I hope that I shall be able to co-operate constructively with him in tackling an issue that both our parties agree is of great importance.
  Let me try to dispose of a rather unattractive, although I fear all too characteristic, piece of cant and spin doctoring that this issue has suffered from over the past couple of weeks. The Government know perfectly well that the special status conferred on Sinn Fein Members last December has not worked. They know that it was a mistake: a part of at least four sets of crucial mistakes in their Northern Ireland policy. They know that we were right to oppose it, and they are now trying surreptitiously to distance themselves from it and imply that the resolution last December was not their fault. They want to make it sound as though the House spontaneously decided that the creation of a special status—what Baroness Boothroyd called an associate status—would in itself be a desirable reform, and that if it was a mistake, that is nothing to do with them.
  When questioned on the special status by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the former Secretary of State said:
  "that is a matter for the House."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 204.]
  He simply dismissed the question and evaded all responsibility. The Prime Minister used the same formula last Wednesday, when he said: understand"—what a wonderful way of distancing oneself—
  "that office facilities are a matter for the House, not me."—[Official Report, 23 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272.]
  In fact, that is mere eyewash—I might have been tempted to use a less parliamentary expression. The decision to confer the special status and override

  561
  Baroness Boothroyd's ruling in 1997, as well as the ruling in 1924, was taken solely and exclusively at the Government's behest, purely and simply as part and parcel of their misconceived Northern Ireland policy. Before it was even revealed to, or discussed in, the House, it had been discussed with, and offered to, Sinn Fein. I do not say that the changing of our parliamentary rules was bartered or sold to Sinn Fein, as that would hardly be the appropriate word, given that nothing was received in return, but it was secretly and squalidly promised to them by the Government, who must take full responsibility for that act, about which they now evidently feel guilty enough to wish to dissociate themselves from it.
  I said that the decision was part of four grave sets of errors in the Government's Northern Ireland policy. The first mistake was the decision to release all the terrorist prisoners without any decommissioning having occurred. That was a fundamental error—I should perhaps say a foundational error, as it is the origin of the other mistakes. It sent the wrong signal from the start about how the Government intended to manage the peace process and may well have sacrificed the best opportunity that we had to get decommissioning concluded within the time scale set out in the Belfast agreement.
  The second mistake was not to respond at all to successive Sinn Fein-IRA breaches of the agreement and the ceasefire. We all know what they were: Florida; Colombia; the evidence of active targeting in March this year; the Castlereagh break-in in April; and the spy ring in the Northern Ireland Office, which the Government have apparently known about for some time. In short, we are talking about the Government's whole policy of turning a blind eye. No wonder those in the republican movement who are least committed to the peace process were encouraged to believe that they could get away with almost anything. The Government had given them an irresistible argument to use against their colleagues in the army council who might genuinely have wanted to take their obligations seriously and move towards adopting an exclusively democratic and peaceful course.
  The third error—an egregious and unpardonable one—was not merely to fail to respond with any sanction or penalty to those breaches, but to offer new concessions, going beyond the agreement, to Sinn Fein-IRA during that period. There were several such concessions, but the worst were the promise to give an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists—so far we have succeeded in resisting the implementation of that—and the special status for Sinn Fein MPs, which unfortunately we did not succeed in resisting.
  The fourth error was the suspension of devolution, rather than the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive, as a result of the latest crisis. That was an error in two senses: it was a moral and political error because it penalised the innocent—indeed, the whole peace process—rather than the guilty alone; and it was a pragmatic error because, although it is easy to suspend institutions, it is very much less easy to envisage, still less to bring about, the circumstances in which they can be restored. It is generally a mistake, in politics as elsewhere, to walk into a problematic situation when one cannot see the exit on the other side.
  562
  There was another way; we spelt it out for the Government in the debate in Opposition time last July. It was not to propose an exclusion motion in the Assembly—although that is what the previous Secretary of State promised, but failed, to do. We explained in July why that procedure would not work. We said that it was unfair and unreasonable to expect one party in the nationalist camp to bear the main onus of the exclusion of the other. We therefore offered to support the Government in taking the powers here in Westminster, and permitting the Secretary of State to exclude from the power-sharing Executive any party in breach, or associated with persons in breach, of the ceasefire or the agreement.
  Of course the Government, with their vast majority, did not take the slightest notice and, when the crisis came, that power was not even in the Government's armoury; that option was not available to be considered. Government policy has now brought us to this regrettable and worrying impasse. However, the Opposition do not intend to satisfy ourselves simply by pointing out the Government's errors. We have an obligation to say what we would do if we had those responsibilities now.
  We would do two things. First, we would pass the Opposition motion tonight. Let me make our position on special status clear. In case anyone needs reminding, let me repeat that we wholeheartedly support the Belfast agreement—[Interruption.] We support the Belfast agreement, and that concession was never required by the agreement—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the House wishes to quarrel with that idea, but the concession never had anything to do with the agreement itself.
  Secondly, we find special status obnoxious in principle, and I am surprised that the Leader of the House and the rest of the Labour party do not feel the same. Anyone elected to a democratic Assembly or Parliament should take his or her seat on the same basis as everybody else who has been duly elected, or not at all.
  Chris Ruane: If the rules of the House were changed so that the oath of allegiance was made, say, to our constituents, so IRA Members—or rather, Sinn Fein Members—said that they would be prepared to sit in the House, would the hon. Gentleman object to their having offices in the House of Commons then?
  Mr. Davies: Of course we would not object to Sinn Fein members taking their seats on the same basis as everyone else. If for some reason the rules of the House were changed—indeed, we are to discuss certain changes in those rules tomorrow night—the changes should apply to everybody. Whatever the rules happened to be at any time, we would expect all Members who wished to take their seats, and get offices and public money, to abide by them. I should have thought that that was a pretty simple idea.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that those of us who take the oath do so in the belief that we come here to serve not only our constituents, but the state as well? That is the very basis on which we serve here.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed. I echo entirely the hon. Lady's words, and I do not think that any difference exists

  563
  between us in that regard. She is a very distinguished parliamentarian indeed, and she must have been as offended and concerned as the rest of us were when the Government suggested creating special status for some in this place. I should make it plain that we would not expect special status for ourselves, and we would oppose giving it to the Scottish nationalists, the Liberal Democrats or anybody else.
  We hope that, in due time, Sinn Fein MPs will, just like other hon. Members, take the seats in this House for which they were duly elected. I remind the House that, for a long time, Sinn Fein had a policy of abstentionism from all democratic assemblies. In the case of the Dail in Dublin, it has overcome that inhibition; its representatives take their seats there and they play a normal part in the democratic life of the Republic of Ireland, which is how it should be. Sinn Fein also overcame that difficulty in the case of Stormont, and before the Assembly's recent suspension its representatives took their places in it. I hope that, in due time, it will overcome the problem here and Sinn Fein MPs will take their seats. But whether or not they do so, the same rules must apply at all times to all duly elected Members of this House, and on the same common basis.
  Kevin Brennan: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman in hoping that Sinn Fein MPs will one day take their seats in this House, but how will excluding them from its facilities in the manner suggested in the motion encourage them along that path?
  Mr. Davies: If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it precisely 180 degrees wrong. If Sinn Fein were considering overcoming its particular difficulty and changing the policy of abstentionism—as it has done in respect of the Dail and of Stormont—the Government have relieved it of that dilemma by introducing special status last December. They have made it unnecessary for Sinn Fein to take that third step.
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Mr. Davies: I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to intervene again he will have to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will certainly not prevent me from finishing a point that I am glad to make, and which he has enabled me to make.
  The fact is that the Government's ill-conceived decision to confer special status on Sinn Fein last December has actually released it from that dilemma; it has not had to take, or has at least been able to postpone, that decision. If we had gotten our way and that provision had not gone through, Sinn Fein would indeed have had to face that dilemma. It would have needed to decide whether there was any sincerity in its claim to want to represent its constituents' interests in this House, or in its signing of the Belfast agreement, which states explicitly that, until the matter is changed by majority opinion in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland remains a full part of the United Kingdom. Sinn Fein should therefore have no objection to taking its seats, even though, perfectly honourably and respectably, it wants—like the Social Democratic and
  564
  Labour party—to change the position in due time. Of course, the SDLP has always pursued that objective by entirely constitutional and democratic means.
  I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), to whom I am grateful for his intervention, that the Government have got the matter precisely 180 degrees wrong.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that one Sinn Fein MP went to the heart of the issue in pointing out that one reason why he has not taken the oath and sat as a full Member is that he regards this as "a foreign Parliament"?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I remember that clearly, and that has been Sinn Fein's position for a very long time. If we are democrats, we have to accept a majority decision that goes against us. One would hope that, if there is any sincerity in Sinn Fein's signing up to the Belfast agreement, its representatives would accept that, for the time being and under the terms of the agreement, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that this Parliament is not, therefore, a foreign Parliament.
  They can come and take their seats here without in any way weakening that desire ultimately to change Northern Ireland's status. In that event, Northern Ireland would be part of a different country. There is no contradiction between Sinn Fein saying that its aim is to have a reunited Ireland and a separate Parliament and, in the meantime, its representatives taking their seats here. Until such time as Sinn Fein is able to persuade a majority of people in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Belfast agreement, to vote to change Northern Ireland's status, there would be no contradiction in taking those seats, as long as Sinn Fein is prepared to abide by democratic rules and live up to the promises made in the agreement. Those two conditions go to the heart of the quandary about Sinn Fein's behaviour.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I agreed so much with what the hon. Gentleman said about terrorism a moment ago that I shall give way to him.
  Mike Gapes: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend— I call him that because we have similar views on Europe—but does he accept that the logic of his position would be much stronger if the Northern Ireland Assembly had voted to exclude Sinn Fein? His argument does not take account of the fact that the Sinn Fein members are in the same position regarding the suspension of the Assembly and, therefore—although there are reasons why it was suspended, which we can doubtless debate later—his position is premature.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's point is slightly convoluted, but I think that I followed it. He has not followed what I have said. We have never suggested that anybody should be excluded from the Assembly in Northern Ireland; we say that they should be excluded from the Executive, and that is a different matter. The power-sharing Executive is an artificial construct—the Unionists sometimes call it an involuntary coalition—

  565
  and people sit on it not by virtue of having received a majority of the votes in Northern Ireland but by virtue of the Belfast agreement. Therefore, if they cease to comply with the Belfast agreement, they lose that entitlement to sit on the Executive. On that basis, the exclusion of Sinn Fein would be justified by its bad behaviour, as I have outlined.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend accept that the only person being premature in this debate is the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), because his argument would mean that we would have to wait to catch Sinn Fein-IRA spying on us in this place before we could exclude them?
  Mr. Davies: The evidence for the breaches that I have listed is overwhelming. The Florida gun-running episode, for example, was the subject of a determination by an American court—in other words, a legal process in a country with a recognised judicial system. Moreover, it is a country that is not known for a bias against Irish nationalism or republicanism—far from it. It is difficult to think of a more objective validation of an accusation. Similarly, the Colombian situation was the subject of a report by the international affairs committee of the House of Representatives, so it was also objectively validated. The other breaches that I listed have been subject to a determination by the Chief Constable, and all parties have accepted that.
  Of course, the guilt or innocence of individuals must be determined by a court, but whether a crime has been committed is normally determined by the police. If someone burgles my house, I may have to wait some months before it is decided whether the suspect whom the police have arrested is guilty, but the fact that a burglary took place can be determined on the spot by the police. I have been rigorous when I have talked about the breaches. They happened and that cannot be denied. I would be sorry indeed if the Government were in denial about those breaches, because that would be very alarming. They are such grievous breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement that the Government should have done something about them. It was indefensible that they did not.
  We lost the vote last December, but it was passed on the basis of assumptions by the Government that have proved excessively optimistic. It has now become clear that the hope of better behaviour from Irish republicanism, on which the Government were counting, has simply not materialised. We have seen all the breaches that I mentioned and we have also seen very little progress in decommissioning. However, the Leader of the House expressly said last December that we would be "more likely" to see more decommissioning if we granted the special status.
  Of course, there has been no progress on other implementation issues in the Belfast agreement, such as Sinn Fein accepting the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.
  The expectations that the Government were counting on—some would say naively—which the Leader of the House made explicit when he was trying to justify the unjustifiable last December, have been shown to be
  566
  false. The Government made a major miscalculation and, in my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the position should be rectified.
  The motion represents a sanction, and a sanction is badly required, but the motion itself is conditional. That is a vital point. I have said that special status is not viable or acceptable in the long term, but we have a choice about when and how we end it. Under our motion, it would still be open to Sinn Fein to keep its special status for the time being—pending a global solution, when I hope that its members take up their seats in full—if it unequivocally renounces violence. That must of course mean a commitment to disband the IRA, renounce the armed struggle definitively, abolish its military structures and complete decommissioning in accordance with the agreement to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain. In other words, we have lived up to the tactics that we have consistently urged on the Government. Our sanctions are contingent and balanced, as our concessions would be. They are not unilateral and unreciprocated.
  What has happened over the weekend further vindicates our approach. When we called the debate in July to press for the power of exclusion from the Executive, on the very hour of the very day that that debate was timed to start—5 o'clock in the afternoon—we had the IRA apology. This time, within 36 hours of our putting down a relatively robust motion, Gerry Adams has made his most encouraging statement yet—not excluding disbandment. [Laughter.] Perhaps it is all coincidence, or perhaps we should initiate debates on Northern Ireland more frequently, and put the matter to the test.
  Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and his party genuinely believe that, on account of their motion, the IRA and Sinn Fein altered their strategy?
  Mr. Davies: It was an extraordinary coincidence, was it not? The Opposition debate in July, which had the clear and announced aim of introducing a motion to enable the Secretary of State to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive, coincided with the IRA apology. It was timed for that very moment. It could, of course, be coincidence, as could the link between this motion and the statement made by Gerry Adams over the weekend. I merely say that perhaps we should initiate more debates and put the matter to the test. Presumably, in good scientific fashion, when the correlation recurs after a certain number of experiments have been conducted, we shall be able to draw a conclusion.
  We have been urging another issue on the Government for more than year. We first asked them last October to attempt to negotiate a global and comprehensive accord that is multilateral, interlinked and timetabled, which I have called a programmed process, covering the implementation of the Belfast agreement and the resolution of all other outstanding matters, including the Weston Park matters. I urge the Government once again to take on board, as they sadly have not done yet, what I said over and over again and at great length in our debate in July. No party in Northern Ireland will make a significant move unless it knows in advance what proportion of the total price to be paid that move represents, what it will get in return,

  567
  and when, so timetables must be involved as well. Everyone needs to see the end game and to know the details and timing of each step towards it. There must be clear provision for what happens if there is noncompliance along the way. All the concepts that, until now. the Government have resisted—linkage, penalties for non-performance, timetables—will be essential if real progress is finally to be made.
  Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that even if the Government set down such a timetable they will adhere to it? He will recall that the Government said that the release of convicted prisoners from the Maze would be phased with decommissioning. They made that clear but, at the end of the day, every convicted terrorist was released before any decommissioning took place.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I made that point myself and we should make it over and again. The Government should never be allowed to forget it. The Belfast agreement provided that decommissioning should be completed within two years and that prisoner releases should be completed within two years. It is hard to believe that anybody could be so naive as to have delivered 100 per cent. of their side of the bargain while nothing whatever on the other side was delivered. That was not merely an error, but a fundamental error which set the Government on the wrong course, and they have been following that course ever since. Through this debate, I am trying to ensure that they get back on the right course and go forward in the right direction.
  I hope that the Government have learned that their policy of unilateral concessions and turning a blind eye, or even their attempts to reach piecemeal agreements or understandings with one party or another individually—a course that immediately arouses the suspicions or opposition of others—simply will not work.
  My hon. Friend asked what guarantees there would be that, if we set a deadline, Sinn Fein or others would meet it. I have not suggested that anybody should set a unilateral deadline; I have been putting forward a multilateral and comprehensive concept. It is extremely important that everything in the package is interlinked and that everybody knows precisely who has to do what and by when.
  I hope that I have made it clear that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between us and the Government on the right tactics to be pursued. Their tactics have not worked and we are in a terrible mess, so I hope that they will pay serious attention to good advice from the Opposition.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his argument? I thought that he was arguing that giving special status to Sinn Fein MPs was unacceptable and unsavoury, and wrong in principle. However, he also seems to be arguing that the Government's tactics of negotiating and horse trading are not being followed perfectly. The process that he describes is one of horse trading, negotiation and concession, inducements and rewards to Sinn Fein. Can he confirm that that is his argument and that there would thus be nothing wrong in principle with agreeing to what he describes as an amnesty for on-the-run
  568
  terrorists, to changes to the policing legislation or to giving access to facilities in this place, but merely that he wants the horse trading to be done more perfectly? Is that right?
  Mr. Davies: As always, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is known for both his experience of Northern Ireland and his mental agility, so if anyone were able to defend the Government from the Back Benches it would be the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that the Leader of the House has been remarkably silent during all my strictures against the Government.
  The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is wrong, however. He is right to the extent that the type of comprehensive solution that I have set out involves incentives and deterrents. I am happy to agree that those concepts are involved.
  However, introducing the whole issue of special status was the Government's doing, and it was quite otiose, gratuitous and extremely foolish; it was never in the Belfast agreement.
  The right hon. Gentleman probably knows the Belfast agreement backwards—I have tried to learn it at least forwards if not backwards during the past few months—and there was no suggestion of special status. It was wrong to offer it because it was wrong in itself. First, it is obnoxious in principle, as I have already said, and, secondly, it was perverse. I have already explained why it was perverse: it prevented Sinn Fein from grappling with the real issue of whether it would end up taking its seats here properly.
  Mr. Mandelson rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall have to wind up my speech in a moment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to do so later, and I look forward to his contribution. He is right to say that a package approach is required, but introducing into the package an element that was not required under the agreement, such as special status, seems to have been extremely damaging from every possible point of view.
  The new Labour Government have a vast majority and are protected by their army of spin doctors—[Interruption.] Of course, that is the case, and the whole country knows it now. However, I am particularly sad that they chose to play fast and loose with the honour of Parliament, with the procedures of the House and with the fundamental equity that ought to exist between all Members who are elected to take their seats.
  I shall end on a positive note. The Government are now embarking on at least a change of personnel, and I have sincerely welcomed the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to the Front Bench. If, in the light of the disappointments of the past four years—they must be extremely disappointing to the Government privately—and the failure of their tactics, they are prepared to reconsider and to go forward on a more realistic and robust basis, we shall be delighted to support them, and I mean that very sincerely.
  However, we can make a good start tonight by making it clear that, if there is no movement and no compliance, we must have the courage to withdraw

  569
  concessions as well as to make them, and that the concession of special status for Sinn Fein cannot stand if there is no countervailing and appropriate response from those who have benefited from it. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable and sensible signal to send to all concerned in Belfast, and I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
  5.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the fundamental need for the affairs of Northern Ireland to be settled on an exclusively peaceful, democratic and inclusive basis; and does not believe that expelling any party to the peace process from the parliamentary precincts is likely to encourage them to renounce violence and to pursue a political settlement within that process."
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for his kind words of welcome, and I look forward to working with him and other Conservative Members who are interested in Northern Ireland.
  I am very conscious of the accomplished act that I have to follow: my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) led Northern Ireland affairs with a very sure touch. I have admired—I am sure that many others have done so, too—his commitment, toughness and breadth of thinking, and Northern Ireland will miss the unique contribution that he was able to make. The nature of his new role as Minister without Portfolio means that the House may hear less of him for a while, although those listening to the "Today" programme may well be more fortunate.
  Despite my sadness at leaving my previous job as Secretary of State for Wales, it is very good to be back among so many people in Northern Ireland's political life with whom I worked closely when the Belfast agreement was prepared. I still believe that that agreement was one of the greatest achievements of statesmanship anywhere in the world in recent years. That is not just, or even mainly, to the credit of the British and Irish Governments: the main contribution came from those in political life in Northern Ireland who worked on it, and often took great risks for it, and they deserve our admiration. Some of those people are Members of the House—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Some are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I profoundly hope we shall see up and running again before long. However, many in both of the governing parties in the House have also shown great breadth of vision and willingness to take risks. Without those qualities on the part of the last Prime Minister, as well as the present one, and on the part of my predecessors before and after 1997, we should not have made the strides that we have. We should have in mind their insight and their courage as we consider the motion this evening.
  Of course, some political parties in Northern Ireland disagree fundamentally with aspects of that agreement. I respect their convictions, too, and I believe that they are driven by a commitment to advance Northern
  570
  Ireland towards a happier and more peaceful future. I look forward to discussing those matters with them in the coming days.
  I have happy memories of my encounters with those in Northern Ireland politics. I am therefore very sorry, in many ways, that on my first appearance in the House as Secretary of State the motion obliges me to disagree with a number of hon. Members, including some who would support the Belfast agreement. As the motion refers to larger questions about the circumstances that have led to the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland, I hope that I may set out some of my impressions of those matters, of how we might move forward and of how the issue of facilities here may impact on that.
  Four and a half years on from the conclusion of the agreement on Good Friday 1998, I still believe that it offers the only way forward for Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland has benefited substantially from it, and many of those benefits were delivered through the mechanism of devolved government. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred to the fact that mistakes have been made over the last few years—mistakes by Governments, perhaps mistakes by the Assembly, and mistakes by politicians. The thing that I remember most vividly about Good Friday 1998—probably no one in the House this afternoon was present for those negotiations—was that, when the business was concluded in the late afternoon, George Mitchell, who chaired the talks, said that the agreement had been signed but that the difficulties lay ahead, and that, inevitably, the road would be bumpy in the years following the agreement.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also said that, in his view, the Government could have done certain things during the past four years to improve the situation. I am not saying for one minute that this Government or any Government do everything right, but I know that governing with a big majority in the House of Commons—the biggest for many years—was not the answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. It helped, of course, but, as far as Northern Ireland was concerned, if the agreement was to be successful—as I believe that it will be—majorities in the House of Commons did not matter. Ultimately, it does not matter what a British or Irish Government can do. With a majority of 100, or whatever it was, of course we could have passed the Belfast agreement, perhaps in a matter of weeks. We could have imposed an agreement on the people of Northern Ireland, but it would have failed miserably, as we know, and an agreement is only possible if it has support among all political parties in Northern Ireland, as far as that can be ensured.
  Of course, not every party in Northern Ireland agreed with the agreement. Those who did agree, however, knew full well that, without each other, it would surely fail. That is the fundamental error in the remarks of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. He thinks that the Government or Governments can achieve that end, but we cannot. It can only be achieved through the parties, and, of course, through the endorsement of that agreement by the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum.
  Mr. John McFall: I welcome my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State. I know of the great

  571
  work that he did in the lead-up to the Good Friday agreement. He will make mistakes in the future, because the political situation is imperfect, but he will listen to the politicians and, more than anything, he will listen to people in the community.
  Will my right hon. Friend keep the headline issue in mind as he undertakes his privileged job? Since 1994, when the IRA ceasefire began, many families have been able to stay intact because fewer people are in their graves as a result of the disorder. That is the success of the Northern Ireland peace process. The aim of ensuring that there is safety and peace in those communities should keep my right hon. Friend and others going.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend, who was a Minister in Northern Ireland for some years and played his part in the development of the process. Anyone who returns to Northern Ireland and reflects on what it was like before the agreement will understand that irrespective of what problems we face now and have faced since the agreement was signed, the world has changed in a remarkable way. I started to take an interest in Northern Ireland when on the Opposition Front Bench in the mid-1990s. Anyone who compares the earlier Belfast, or any other town or village in Northern Ireland, with the city now will see the difference not simply in the number of people who have died, which is the most important consideration, but in the quality of life.
  As Secretary of State for Wales, I worked with a successful Assembly in Cardiff and I know that the benefits of a devolved Assembly are enormous, as are the benefits of the agreement. It is not just what the Assembly has done in Northern Ireland, but the fact that people from Northern Ireland run their own affairs.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Used to.
  Mr. Murphy: Of course, and we aim to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running as soon as possible.
  Real achievements have been made and there is greater potential in the devolved government system. Northern Ireland has been changing rapidly and for the better. For example, there have been new policy initiatives on travel for old people, the organisation of industrial development promotion and the better performance of services for agriculture and health. The physical fabric has been improved with, for instance, the building of the Odyssey centre, which is new since I last worked in Belfast. I believe that people in Northern Ireland want devolution back and I shall apply all my efforts to securing that at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and I have at least that much in common.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister must realise that the fundamental problem is the lack of trust in Sinn Fein-IRA. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) highlighted the improvements in Northern Ireland, but there have been increased terrorist activities in Colombia as a result of Sinn Fein-IRA's activities. Sinn Fein-IRA could not be trusted in Stormont. Can they be trusted here?
  Mr. Murphy: Trust is important, but it has to be between all parties. Everything that might go wrong,
  572
  everything that has gone wrong now and again and everything that went wrong before the agreement was signed stems from the lack of trust. That is not confined to one side, however. Both sides have a problem with trust, which has been the case traditionally and historically. Trust cannot happen overnight.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to tell the House that events in the past months and years have caused trust to evaporate. The suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a direct result of a lack of trust between political parties there. It is the job of the Government and Members of the House of Commons to ensure that that trust is restored. The motion does not help to achieve that end and trust between parties in Northern Ireland will not be helped one jot if the House agrees to it. I am not suggesting that hon. Members who believe that the motion is right are insincere, but it will not do the trick.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend address the fundamental problem that there are two classes of Members in the House of Commons? There are some who accept responsibility to the United Kingdom and their constituents and some who do not. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but that is the case.
  Does the Secretary of State accept that situation, because it is not only fundamental but extremely dangerous?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend raised those issues in a previous debate, and of course she is entirely right to say what she thinks. However, the motion that we are debating would perpetuate the situation, because if Sinn Fein agreed with the conditions that it sets down, there would continue to be two classes of Member in this House. The Leader of the House will deal with the matters specifically related to the House when he winds up the debate. He will have heard what my hon. Friend said. My interest in all this, which I am sure is the same as that of most Members, concerns the fact that if there is any action that the House can take to improve the chances of peace in Northern Ireland, we should take it—it is as simple as that.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of trust. He said that passing this motion would not enhance trust in Northern Ireland, but when trust has been given, as it was given by the Government last December, and abused, should nothing be done about that?
  Mr. Murphy: Indeed it should, and I hope to address some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman later in my speech.
  Mike Gapes: I add my voice to those that have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. I had the pleasure of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary when, as Minister of State, he played such a vital role in negotiating the Good Friday agreement, and his appointment is well deserved.
  Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agreement is not the property of any of the eight parties who signed it or of the two Governments but remains the property of the people of Northern Ireland because of the referendum in which they endorsed it? It is therefore

  573
  foolish for people to try to play games with issues surrounding the agreement which could undermine it and reverse the progress that my right hon. Friend so excellently negotiated.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. When he was my PPS he, too, played an important role in the events leading up to the Good Friday agreement.
  As the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach jointly emphasised when devolved government was suspended, an inclusive Executive built on trust, along with the other related institutions established by the agreement, offer the only means whereby Northern Ireland can be governed in the best interests of the community. They offer a sustainable basis for fair and honourable accommodation between Unionists and nationalists.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Murphy: In a moment.
  As the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also stressed, it is essential that concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means are removed. The time has come for people clearly to choose one track or the other. I know that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will agree with every word of that.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I genuinely wish him well in his new appointment.
  On the question of trust, is it the case that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have been not only inextricably linked to the IRA but heavily involved in the IRA for several years, and they are probably still on the army council? Is it the case that Sinn Fein-IRA were plotting and spying in the Stormont Administration with a view to possibly using the information later in terrorist activities? What leads the Secretary of State to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are not using the facilities in the House of Commons to plot and to spy on Members here, including himself, with a view to possibly using the information later in terrorist activities?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would not be right for me to comment on those matters because they are the subject of an inquiry.
  Kevin Brennan: I echo the words of congratulation to my right hon. Friend. I have known him for some years so I will not go into detail, as others have.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be equally, if not more, dangerous to deny normal facilities to Members of this House, even if they have not taken the Oath, when they have been democratically elected in their own constituency by people who may not believe that they should be part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Murphy: The answer is yes. It would be wrong to deny the constituents of those constituency MPs the right that every one of us shares. I will touch on that matter in a moment.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: The motion seeks to deny access to this place not to the electorate in
  574
  Northern Ireland, but to the people who were elected to it and who will not take their seats. If they do not take their seats, they cannot participate in the House. What. therefore, does the Secretary of State imagine their allowances are being used for?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers made it clear in their election campaigns that they would not take up their seats. Under our constitution, the way in which we elect Members to the House means that they were elected by a majority of the people in their constituencies. There is still an onus on them to represent not only those who voted for them, but those who did not vote for them. My right hon. Friend the Leader will return to that.
  As the Prime Minister made crystal clear in Belfast earlier this month, nothing other than what I have described can work. The essential trust underpinning the agreement cannot be restored unless it is clear to everyone that debate and peaceful resolution of differences is the only track being followed. With that exclusive commitment, we can make very rapid progress. Without it, the Government will do all they can to secure the continuing benefits of the agreement, but the future of the devolved institutions, and of Northern Ireland more generally, is inevitably cast into doubt.
  There is of course a need for commitment. Everyone must be assured that there is a willingness to work in the institutions on a genuinely inclusive basis. Again, all parties in Northern Ireland—and all parties in this place—must leave that in no doubt. It is highly relevant to the motion that we are discussing tonight.
  As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, the question of violence, and preparations for violence, is crucial. The Prime Minister has said that he believes that the leaders of Sinn Fein, who are Members of this House but have not taken their seats, want the agreement to work. From what I knew of them in the past, I am also convinced of their commitment. I believe that they have brought their movement a very long way in the cause of peace. I believe that they are dedicated to making the agreement work on a constitutional basis.
  Let us not forget how far the republican movement has come in its record in making constitutional politics work in Northern Ireland. The conscientious and industrious participation of Sinn Fein Members in the Assembly and Executive in recent years could not have been imagined a few years ago, and I interpret the remarks of the president of Sinn Fein at the weekend as continuing in the same direction. It was a thoughtful and detailed speech, which merits careful consideration. I hope to discuss it with him shortly when I meet all the parties in Northern Ireland this week.
  However, much that has happened in Northern Ireland in recent months has led to doubts—doubts that I entirely understand—about the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, in line with the Mitchell principles, on the part of the republican movement as a whole. There has been deplorable violence on the part of loyalist paramilitaries as well. It is one of the most acutely painful reminders of the past that we had hoped that Northern Ireland had left behind. We will make every effort to deal firmly with that violence, as we will with violence and criminality from any quarter.

  575
  My predecessor took resolute steps, as has the new Chief Constable. That work will go on with vigour while I am Secretary of State. But there is a difference, in that the loyalist parties have not formed part of the Administration in Northern Ireland, whereas Sinn Fein has.
  Activity appearing to be the work of parts of the IRA has had a profoundly destabilising effect, and we must tackle it. However, we must be clear about the extent of that activity. The context of the motion would have been different had that activity been considered a breach of the ceasefire. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my predecessor set out how they would deal with the question of ceasefires in their statements on 24 July. I, of course, stand behind that approach, and I will act with no less resolution.
  There has been much to cause worry, and entirely understandable worry. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio expressed concerns about violence from paramilitary groups on all sides in Northern Ireland. He had not reached the conclusion that there had been a breach of the IRA ceasefire of 1997. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his recent speech, we need to move beyond ceasefires to acts of completion.
  The challenge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has laid before the republican movement is to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means. I believe that all who uphold the agreement should do all that they can now to help the republican movement to do so. I do not believe that the motion would help lead the republican movement to that further transformation.
  We are asking that those within the movement who still believe that violence, or the implicit threat of violence, still has a place in the advancement of their legitimate political aims should change that position. I do not see how the withdrawal of office facilities and other associated entitlements in this place could realistically influence the paramilitaries to abandon the course of violence. I cannot for one second agree that the debate has led to what the president of Sinn Fein said during the weekend. I am sure that that is not so.
  Withdrawal of the facilities that were accorded at the end of last year would give only further grounds for saying that both Parliament and the Government are unreliable, and that their word to nationalism can never be relied on. Whatever we may think of the merits of that view, it is a widespread one. [Interruption.] I shall repeat that because those who know Northern Ireland will understand that whatever we may think of its merits, it is a widespread view there. We must do all that we possibly can to neutralise such suspicions and make it clear that legitimate nationalist aspirations, like legitimate Unionist aspirations, will be allowed the fullest opportunity to advance by consent within an exclusively non-violent and democratic process.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I too welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am interested in hearing his argument about not applying sanctions to IRA-Sinn Fein. Why did the Government take sanctions against
  576
  the Ulster Defence Association and why did they not believe in that instance that that would not help to bring the UDA into a democratic process?
  Mr. Murphy: The sanctions to which the hon. Gentleman is referring would have had an entirely different impact from the sanction that the motion would introduce. The motion would not move Sinn Fein in the direction that we want it to move. If the motion were passed, it would have exactly the opposite effect. That is my fear. In my mind, we have been left in no doubt that that would happen. That was the central thrust of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. That is central to the full implementation of the agreement. Indeed, on entering the political talks in 1997, it committed itself to the Mitchell principles. One of Martin McGuinness's concerns was to subscribe to a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, as one of the elements derived from the Mitchell principles, in the pledge of office when he took the post of Minister of Education in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: I also congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. We have had Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, and I look forward to the day when we will have an Ulsterman as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Then we will truly be British.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, will he define what a ceasefire is? We still await the resolute action from his predecessor on defining the term. The present definition, from the Provisional IRA, is that it does not kill British soldiers or shoot members of the police force. Everything else, both nationally and internationally, is allowable. Does he accept that definition?
  Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the terms were laid out in the conditions of 24 July and have been repeated over a number of years. The Secretary of State has to take into account all the difficulties that he or she might have, consider the circumstances in the round and take a decision on whether the ceasefire has been breached. The hon. Gentleman knows the conditions that must be met. My predecessor took the view that they did not apply and that the ceasefire had not been broken. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as I, too, look forward to the day when an Ulsterman is in charge of devolution and the Northern Ireland Assembly—the day when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann returns as First Minister.
  All those who know Northern Ireland politics, including, I suspect, the authors of the motion, know how a condition of the sort that is proposed would be seen. It would be taken as a clear snub to people whom the Prime Minister and I believe are sincere in trying to bring the necessary transition to a conclusion. The fact that that transition has been too slow is not a reason for making it more difficult for the journey to be concluded. Hon. Members may protest that that is not their intention, but in the light of recent history, that is how it would appear. Both the Prime Minister and the

  577
  Taoiseach have made it clear what steps are needed. I do not believe that the proposed declaration adds anything to them.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State is arguing that it is generally right to exert pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to observe peaceful and democratic means. In that case, why is it wrong specifically to exert pressure on them as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) proposed, by denying them facilities in this place? Why would that not exert pressure on them to use peaceful and democratic means?
  Mr. Murphy: Negotiations are dealt with and pressure—if that is the right term—is applied to everybody in the process in the proper way, within the terms of the process. It strikes me that the tabling of Opposition motions on the Floor of the House is not the right way of developing a peace process in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case. At the end of the day, as one of his colleagues said, for the people of Northern Ireland, the question is one of trust. How should trust be restored? I do not think that one restores trust by supporting Opposition motions in the House of Commons. The points that have been made in the debate should certainly be made, but deciding unilaterally to take a course of action outside the proper process will not necessarily mean that we arrive at the desired outcome that all of us want—the restoration not only of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland, but of peace. The combination of the two is very important.
  The message that all of us who wish Northern Ireland well and want to see it advance politically need to send out is that Sinn Fein and its associates must pursue their objectives in purely constitutional ways. The resolution on facilities was passed last December as a further opportunity for them to proceed down that constitutional path. It was not an endorsement of their abstentionist policy. It would be much more satisfactory if Sinn Fein Members took a full part in the proceedings of the House, but for the present, they decline to do so. Their attitude is regrettable, but a very curious message, liable to be interpreted in a very negative sense, would be sent out if we agreed to the motion at a time when we are pressing Sinn Fein more intensely than ever before to follow constitutional ways. The motion would at least conditionally cut off an avenue to constitutional activity. I do not believe that that makes sense.
  Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State said that the motion would send a very negative sign to the nationalist-republican community and especially to IRA-Sinn Fein. What sort of sign does he think it sends to ordinary, decent pro-Union people in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Murphy: I agree that everybody in Northern Ireland wants peace and prosperity whether or not they agree with the Belfast agreement and that, of course, everybody's views must be taken into account. We must understand that. However, I return to the central point: if we want Sinn Fein and the republican movement to
  578
  take a certain route, I do not believe for one second that we would improve prospects in that regard by taking away what this House granted some months ago. There are other ways in which pressure should rightly be exerted on everybody who is involved in violence in Northern Ireland, but we delude ourselves by thinking that people will look at this debate and say that taking away facilities will somehow completely change the atmosphere in Northern Ireland. Of course that will not happen.
  Instead, it will send the signal that we in the House of Commons have unilaterally used the motion to go down this path when everyone knows that the only way to bring back the Assembly and to get Sinn Fein and the republican movement into the process is to go through the process that was set up by the Belfast agreement. The agreement was not formed after a couple of debates in the House of Commons or anywhere else. It happened because people in Northern Ireland voted for it and because there had been months and years of negotiations involving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister and previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of both parties. The only way to proceed is by continuing that process, not by having debates every now and again and hoping that they will change the world. It will not work like that. The only way that the process will develop is by sticking to what we have already done in the agreement and ensuring that we implement it in the fullest possible form.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State appears to be arguing that allowing Sinn Fein-IRA to have facilities in the House of Commons is integral to the Belfast agreement. That is his argument and the whole tenor of his speech. Will he therefore tell the House, on his first outing in his new role, which particular sections and paragraphs of the agreement state that that is the case?
  Mr. Murphy: That is not my argument. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would not have said what he has just said. I am saying that the only way that we can move forward in Northern Ireland is to ensure that we implement the agreement in all its forms and ensure that there are proper discussions, negotiations and talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland—and between Governments as well—so that we arrive at a settlement that would satisfy all sides. That is the only way to proceed.
  The House decided some months ago to give these privileges to the Members concerned, and I do not believe that taking those privileges away today would help the peace process at all. In fact, I think that it would probably hinder it. However, this debate is not central to the peace process—far from it—and that is why I am saying what I am saying.
  Mr. Waterson: The Secretary of State may be right that the debate will make not a jot of difference to what happens in Northern Ireland. However, does he not think that there is a hint of irony in the fact that one reason why it may not is that those hon. Members who might have something to contribute to the debate from

  579
  their side of the argument may be in their offices watching it on television without the slightest intention of coming to the Chamber to participate?
  Mr. Murphy: I do not know whether those hon. Members are watching the debate on television. However, if they are, I hope that they will take the main message in my remarks. If they commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means and people in the republican movement understand that they have to earn the trust of those in the Unionist community—and vice versa—we will have an Assembly back in Belfast working for the benefit of all the people in Northern Ireland. That is what we want. To repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we have reached the stage when we must address such issues. We cannot carry on in the way that we did in the past. What the president of Sinn Fein said at the weekend was a move in that direction, but I wait with interest to hear what he will say to me later this week.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said, we should bear in mind another important interest group—the constituents of hon. Members who follow the policy that I have described. There are about 250,000 of them and some will have voted for Members who sit for their constituencies, and others will not have done. They should all be entitled to a proper constituency service. That was another reason why we provided last year for these facilities to be made available in the House. That reason remains as valid as ever.
  I also know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House had serious concerns last December about the resolution that was approved. It was a departure for the House, and I understand why they hesitated over it. I nevertheless believe that it was the right thing to do. In my view, it has led Sinn Fein Members to more engagement with other hon. Members, and that is wholly beneficial. I am aware that a number of Members have attended open sessions that Sinn Fein Members have organised. That kind of opportunity for dialogue should not be lost.
  Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Northern Ireland Office team. Does he acknowledge that during last December's debate the point was made, and accepted by the Leader of the House and by the House itself, that any facilities that the House offered should be offered to Sinn Fein Members on exactly the same conditions—in terms of constituency work and the purposes for which office costs allowance was used—as exist for any Member of Parliament; and that, in addition, Sinn Fein Members were equally required to fulfil the obligations of the Register of Members' Interests and so on?
  Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I am told that those requirements have been met.
  Much though the position in Northern Ireland has improved over the years, everyone who has spoken today, whatever their point of view, understands that we are at a sensitive juncture. On the question of those who are involved in government being committed to exclusively peaceful means, we have come to what the Prime Minister described as a crunch. Unless we have such a demonstrable commitment, we risk all the progress that we have made being stalled.
  580
  I come back to the Northern Ireland Office after an interval and with a determination to see the process brought to a conclusion. The Prime Minister has made clear his view about what is now needed. My first step will be to listen carefully to what all the parties have to say about the way forward. It will be very important for us to work in close consultation and partnership with the Irish Government to ensure that the implementation of the agreement continues and that the obstacles to an early restoration of the devolved institutions are removed.
  The motion before us is not likely to speed us towards that objective. Indeed, I think that it would take us in the opposite direction. I believe, therefore, that the House should reject it.
  5.47 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I welcome the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to his new appointment. As I am the longest-serving Northern Ireland spokesperson in the House, I was hoping to get the job myself and thus fulfil the dream of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) that an Ulsterman would finally be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, I bear the right hon. Gentleman no malice and look forward to continuing the close and constructive working relationship that he and I enjoyed when he was Secretary of State for Wales.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who is now Minister without Portfolio and chairman of the Labour party. No doubt, his experiences in conflict resolution as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be barely adequate to the task he faces in his new role.
  It is clear both from this afternoon's debate and from previous debates that Sinn Fein having access to the facilities of the House is a highly sensitive question and one that has caused division in all the major parties represented here today. It is easy to understand why the pressures have grown recently, given the dramatic television pictures of the police raids on Sinn Fein's offices in the Assembly and the subsequent suspension of the devolved institutions. The arrest of a Sinn Fein member of staff at the Assembly and the accusations of an informer in the Northern Ireland Office have brought the process, which was already under massive strain, to near breaking point. However, I remind the House that those pressures have been building for 12 months and that they have always been present. To draw short-term conclusions from what is simply another step in a long-term process is therefore rather inappropriate.
  Little more than a month ago, some two weeks prior to the police raids on Sinn Fein's offices in Stormont, the collapse of the Assembly appeared to be inevitable because the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), had already promised his party's ruling council that he would pull Ulster Unionist Ministers out of the Executive if the IRA had not disbanded by January. Now let us be clear about this. It is inappropriate for the Conservatives to suggest in their motion regarding Sinn Fein Members' access to the facilities of the House that the recent activities of Sinn Fein—or a breach by it of the ceasefire—have directly, specifically and unilaterally led to the suspension.
  This is not the first time that we have discussed these matters, nor is it the first time that some parties have sought to gain political capital out of a difficult

  581
  situation. Last November, after much negotiation, the Assembly met to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. More than 70 per cent. of MLAs voted for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and Mark Durkan but, because of the divisive voting system in the Assembly, they were not elected. A few days later, the vote was repeated, with a similar number of MLAs voting as they had done before. This time, the vote was carried because some members of the anti-sectarian Alliance party pretended to be sectarian to maintain a framework within which everyone has declared that we hope to build a non-sectarian society.
  So we are discussing today a series of difficulties that are not that different from what we have observed before. It comes as little surprise to me that the strains have come to the fore, but it is somewhat disappointing that the question of access to facilities in this House is being tied into a strategy for long-term gain when what is under discussion today is a tactical question.
  The political crisis in Stormont has been brewing against a backdrop of continuing violence across Northern Ireland. There is no question about that, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said. He is right to suggest that a number of people in Northern Ireland have not experienced a peace dividend and still suffer punishment beatings and the underlying levels of violence that they would have expected or hoped to cease by now on account of the Good Friday agreement four years ago. Ordinary and decent citizens who support the agreement are fed up with the daily toll of stone throwing, graffiti painting, sectarian intimidation and pipe bombs.
  However, in considering the access to facilities and how to move forward, we must remember that various parts of the community that have been involved in violence in the past are still involved in violence. There are loyalist elements in Northern Ireland who are doing every bit as much to destabilise parts of Northern Ireland as republican paramilitaries.
  It is in that context that I want to focus on what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said in moving the motion. It is rare that I find myself so much at variance with the hon. Gentleman. Although I will seek to disagree with much of his argument, he is perfectly entitled to take that position, as is the Conservative party.
  Mr. Eric Forth: That's very good of you.
  LembitÖpik: I am pleased to hear how heartened and relieved Conservative Members are that the effective Opposition in this Chamber have granted them the right to be wrong.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford gives us the opportunity to take a cool-headed and deeper look at the true dynamics of the question of how we move forward. He suggested that, a mere 48 hours after the Conservative party had tabled the motion, the IRA had acted accordingly to move
  582
  forward. That is fantastic and if, on that basis, 48 hours from now, similar progress can be made, a tremendous service will have been provided to the peace process. If, as the motion says,
  "Sinn Fein honourable Members commit themselves to a public statement that all terrorist organisations, including the IRA., should rescind violence"
  within 48 hours, I might be tempted to join the Conservative party myself, and I have little doubt that the Secretary of State will do the same. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps that is a bridge too far in the world of hope. If it were that simple, we would have made more progress in the past.
  I am concerned about the four fatal errors that the Conservative party believes the Government have made. The first is the decision to release all prisoners without conditions at the time. The second is the policy of turning a blind eye to transgressions; presumably primarily on the republican rather than the loyalist side. The third is to offer new concessions on what, by implication, was a unilateral basis. The fourth is the suspension of the Assembly, instead of the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive. I want to examine those criticisms and compare them with what the Conservatives themselves had to do in government to move forward.
  Let us examine the real world of Northern Ireland politics, and the dealing, bartering and pragmatic decision making in which any Prime Minister of any party and any Northern Ireland Secretary must engage to make progress in Northern Ireland. There are four things for which the Conservatives could have been criticised up to 1997: first, the squandering of an opportunity by having talks with the IRA at a time when the IRA had not even declared a ceasefire; secondly, turning a blind eye to all the carnage of the bombing, which, thankfully, has ceased in large part, but which was going on when discussions were held at the top level of a Conservative Government with people who had in no sense renounced violence; thirdly, giving concessions to terrorists—and let us remember that the whole debate about amnesties was commissioned by a Conservative Government, not by a Labour or a Liberal Democrat one; and, fourthly, failing to suspend those talks when some particular atrocities took place and before the discussions came to public light.
  Unsurprisingly, other parties who understand the need to interact responsibly in this Chamber did not condemn John Major when he took a risk by having background talks at a time when the level of violence was significantly higher than it is today in England and Northern Ireland. It is to the credit of John Major, and not his damnation, that he was willing to do that.
  I find it disingenuous in the extreme that the Conservative party in 2002 is willing to condemn a Government who are making rather less dangerous decisions on negotiations with former and allegedly current paramilitaries than it did when in government six or seven years ago. My counsel to the Conservatives would be that hypocrisy is the most dangerous strategy of all to pursue in Northern Ireland. Even though the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is being perfectly sincere in what he says, the mere semblance of hypocrisy is dangerous. As the Secretary of State

  583
  implied, what is said here can on occasion be interpreted in a damaging way among those who take a moderate line on both the Unionist and nationalist side in the discussions.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: I am happy to give way, but let me stress again that I am not seeking to score points but to make progress.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned hypocrisy several times and connected me with it, implying that I am speaking or behaving hypocritically. In other words, he assumes that I do not believe what I am saying. He knows that I have said consistently exactly the same thing about Northern Ireland and delivered exactly the same analysis and recommendations since I assumed these responsibilities. On what possible basis does he think that I do not believe what I am saying?
  Lembit Öpik: As the record will show, not 30 seconds before the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I was very careful to say that I did not question his sincerity. It is not my style to seek to gain political points against individuals by personalising attacks. I shall underline again the point that I am making, which is an important one. The semblance of hypocrisy, or the appearance of a contradiction between what the Conservative party says in opposition and what it did in government, right up to the Prime Minister himself, is what can cause damage to those, particularly on the Unionist side, who seek to take a moderate course, because we all know that there are significant elements that are seeking to move the Ulster Unionist party in particular in a more hard-line direction. I have absolutely no axe to grind about the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks.
  I often disagree with his analysis, but he is perfectly entitled to his view. I am not denigrating him but simply suggesting that the Conservatives have some explaining to do—perhaps they will take this opportunity to do it—about why their policy is so different now from what it was six years ago.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: In the pushmi-pullyu world of Liberal Democrat thinking, can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is castigating the Conservative Government for talking to the IRA or congratulating them on getting the peace process rolling?
  Lembit Öpik: The great thing about being a Liberal Democrat is that we tell the truth, so we do not have to remember what we said. I think that I have made it pretty clear today, and in other debates that the hon. Gentleman may or may not have attended, that I do indeed congratulate John Major and Conservative Secretaries of State on having initiated the very process that the current Government are seeking to proceed with. I would like to think that there is not a soul in the House who would detract from that achievement. Indeed, I have said that it was the one enduring contribution that John Major made to British politics. I hope that I do not have to spell it out any more clearly
  584
  than that. It is disappointing that that achievement is apparently being fogged by the party's current move away from his strategy.
  A cool analysis of the motion reveals an inference that the ceasefire has been breached. Individuals may believe that, but as the Secretary of State clearly stated, there has been no determination that the IRA has breached the ceasefire and it is not helpful to suggest otherwise. [Interruption.] No, there is a clear process to determine whether the ceasefire has been breached, and we could have a separate debate on that.
  Let me emphasise again that the trigger for the suspension was quite evidently a judgment call that this was the best way to continue the peace process. Allowing the institutions to collapse by the walk-out of loyalist politicians would have been much more destabilising than the current situation. The motion does not appropriately reflect what is going on in the real world of Northern Ireland politics. That may be a drafting issue, but the record does not make allowance for that, so we should not approve it simply on the grounds that it makes the erroneous inference that the ceasefire has been breached, quite apart from the question of facilities.
  The subject of facilities is one on which I would be less inclined to take strong issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his party. Different views are taken on it, even within my party. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and I take the view that it would be inappropriate to take away the facilities, as Sinn Fein moderates have done a lot to try to convince their hardliners that political dialogue is the most effective way of achieving their objectives. To his credit, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford often visits the Province, as I do. I have been left in absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of Sinn Fein activists and officers now recognise that peaceful dialogue is the best way forward. Let us not pretend or suggest that Sinn Fein or the IRA now actively desire violence as an outcome. However despicable or unforgivable it may be, it was always regarded as a process.
  There are divisions between hardliners and moderates on both the loyalist and the republican side. In my judgment, allowing access to facilities in the House has considerably helped the republican moderates in trying to persuade their skeptics—those who would be more inclined to revert to violence—that peace can work and political dialogue can be effective, and that the republican cause is best served by moving away from the damaging approaches of the past.
  Those who take a different view should consider that not as a profound matter of principle—although some have expressed it in those terms—but as a judgment about the best way of strengthening the hand of the moderates in the republican community, whom we desperately need to support, allowing them to point to what is going on in Westminster and show what will be destroyed by reverting to violence. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, it depends whether we take a carrot or a stick approach. By and large, I believe that in this situation the carrot will work better than the stick.
  If we take away the facilities, it will be a gift to the hardliners and those who would say that we were never sincere about giving them the chance to participate

  585
  actively in Westminster. Still worse, there could be a change in the power arrangements on the republican side, simply because the promises that had to be made from the inside to maintain what has been largely an effective ceasefire would have been broken.
  There is an even more fundamental reason why I believe that the access to facilities should continue. In truth, all the major parties have taken advantage of the fact that they can now have direct dialogue with individuals from Sinn Fein. Only a few days ago, I witnessed a heated discussion between Mitchel McLaughlin and a Conservative spokesperson. There was no love lost in that discussion, but I was pleased to see the dialogue, because dialogue has probably been the single most important key to unlock progress on peace.
  Continuing to allow access is a relatively modest measure. Access has afforded us much better opportunities to talk to Sinn Fein and understand its perspective, and it further ties the party into the democratic process. I have been grateful for the opportunity to speak informally to Sinn Fein Members in the Corridors, just as I talk to colleagues from other political parties. That is where much of the work gets done in Northern Ireland politics.
  This is a free vote for the Liberal Democrats, but I advise my colleagues not to support the motion. Those who seek to deny Sinn Fein access to facilities should tell us the answer to this question: why would the removal of the opportunity to be at the heart of the democratic process in the United Kingdom make republicans more likely to want to participate?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. As time for the debate is somewhat limited, I make a plea to hon. Members to be brief so that as many as possible can contribute.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I share hon. Members' profound sense of disappointment about the suspension of the devolved institutions. Surely we all agree that the sooner they are back up and running the better. The motion, which stems from that suspension, represents yet another departure from the bipartisan consensus that used to exist on Northern Ireland affairs, but seems to have disappeared along with Conservative Members' ministerial cars and red boxes. That seems an irresponsible approach to Northern Ireland affairs, which I have criticised in the House before, as I did in the July debate. It is symptomatic of the Tory party's failure not only to act as an Opposition, but to emulate a Government in waiting.
  Let us compare the Tory's stance with the stance taken by the Labour party in the 1992–97 Parliament. At every opportunity, those on the Labour Front Bench avoided trying to score political points off the Government, not only because we agreed with the general thrust of the Conservative Government's policy in Northern Ireland, but because we understood that scoring political points not only undermined political reputations but risked people's lives. We also
  586
  understood that if we were to form a Government, which we fully intended to, we would have to live with the consequences of all our pronouncements on Northern Ireland policy. Because the Labour party took a responsible approach to Northern Ireland, it could build cross-community support for the Good Friday agreement when it came to power.
  The current Conservative policy and approach to Northern Ireland can only mean one of two things. Either the Conservatives do not believe that they will be in Government any time soon—that is the explanation that many of my hon. Friends think is true—or they would like to sound the death knell of the Northern Ireland peace process if they were in government. Does anyone seriously believe that if the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the peace process could continue for five minutes after his appointment? It would be dead and buried, and all the effort that has gone into securing the peace in Northern Ireland would be behind us.
  I must conclude that the Conservative motion is nothing but a red herring and an excuse for the Conservative party to attack the Good Friday agreement and the Government's policy of implementing it. It does not deal with the substantive issues that led to the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is opportunistic, partisan and cynical, and does nothing to address the real issues facing the people of Northern Ireland.
  I ask the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen to tell me, given what they know about Northern Ireland's history and the personalities and parties involved today, in what way the motion, if carried, would benefit the peace process? What would be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland, not least for the constituents of the four Members of whom we are talking, if we returned to the situation that prevailed before? Nothing. The motion is simply an excuse to kick the Government and the Good Friday agreement—and, consequently, the people of Northern Ireland.
  Last time the Opposition arranged a half-day debate on Northern Ireland, I said that when I voted to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation in the House, I did not do so with joy in my heart or a spring in my step. However, I can honestly say that I am glad that the Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty) now use the facilities here.
  I remember how, when members of the IRA were invited to come to Westminster during the 1980s, often at the invitation of Ken Livingstone, they would set up their soapboxes with slogans such as "Troops out" or something similarly sophisticated. However, now Sinn Fein has office accommodation in the House, when its Members come into the Palace they are confronted by other MPs who want the Good Friday agreement to succeed, and they have to justify their position. Because that courageous step was taken, we now have the opportunity to challenge Sinn Fein Members on the real issues, instead of their surreal sloganising of 10 or 20 years ago.
  It should be remembered that, whatever the wording of the motion, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and

  587
  Bellshill (Dr. Reid), did not cite the activities of Sinn Fein when, on 15 October, he told the House the reasons for the suspension of the devolved institutions. He said:
  "the recent difficulties in Northern Ireland stemmed from a loss of trust on both sides of the community."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 191.]
  I will not say that it is dishonest, but it is certainly misleading for the Conservative party to suggest that anything that has happened in the past month should change the decision of this House to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation. Surely the question that we must now ask is not whether we should take away Sinn Fein's right to accommodation, but what we can do to foster trust between the different parts of the community in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's loyalty in being here for his Front-Bench colleagues today, but can he ever foresee a situation in which it would be appropriate for a Labour Government to withdraw those facilities?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, but I have to remind him that it was not the Government's decision to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation in the House of Commons. If Sinn Fein—or rather, the IRA—were to stop the ceasefire and return to violence, I would certainly consider voting to take away Sinn Fein's right to offices in the Palace—but the decision was made by the House of Commons, not the Government.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Harris: I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question pretty truthfully.
  Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sinn Fein-IRA have been involved in breaches of the ceasefire? What positive action would he recommend the Government to follow to try to stop those breaches of the ceasefire?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. There is art accepted process for deciding whether any party to the agreement has broken the ceasefire, and that has not happened. Under the agreement, the IRA has maintained its ceasefire. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the three years leading up the signing of the Good Friday agreement 343 people lost their lives in Northern Ireland, whereas in the three years following the signing 53 people lost their lives? That was 53 too many, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that reduction is not a prize worth holding, I have to doubt the priorities of his party's policy on Northern Ireland.
  Bob Spink: I accept that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been tremendous advances over the past decade—advances started by John Major. However, does he accept that there is not a perfect peace in Northern Ireland now, and that we need positive action to try to return Northern Ireland to peace?
  Mr. Harris: I find the whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument spurious. I believe that the hon.
  588
  Member for Grantham and Stamford was a member of the Conservative Government, although I am not sure; I could be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman can correct me if he wants to. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) when I say that that Conservative Government conducted negotiations with the IRA before a ceasefire was even—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I bring all hon. Members back to the motion under discussion?
  Mr. Harris: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude now, because I realise that some of my hon. Friends would like to speak.
  I would welcome the day when the Conservative party decided to contribute positively to the debate on Northern Ireland—but the motion before us makes no positive contribution, and in the meantime I deeply resent having to waste precious House of Commons time debating an utterly pointless and cynical motion that adds nothing to the debate and provides nothing—not even a glimmer of hope—for the people of Northern Ireland, whom the Conservative party claims to want to represent.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackay: The best news in last week's Government reshuffle was the news for Northern Ireland, and I am genuinely delighted to see the new Secretary of State take his place. Those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland matters for some years warmly recall the immense amount of work that he did as a Northern Ireland Minister of State—work that often went unsung, and was not often in the headlines or the publicity. The right hon. Gentleman will have the confidence of all parties in the Province in what will clearly be a difficult job in the months ahead, with direct rule. Naturally, like my Front-Bench colleagues, I wish him well.
  I must point something out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), although I shall do so gently because he is a new Member of the House and was not present when there was a Conservative Government and, as he said, a so-called bipartisan policy with the Labour Opposition. We immensely resent the suggestion that there has been a breakdown in the bipartisan policy now, whereas it was sacrosanct when there was a Labour Opposition.
  I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that year after year, when we renewed the prevention of terrorism orders—[Interruption.] If he thinks that they have nothing to do with Northern Ireland, he should not be representing Glasgow, Cathcart. Time and again, the then Labour Opposition voted against the renewal of those orders. When the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour party, new Labour was gradually introduced and the attitude changed: it went so far as to abstain, although no further than that. So we need no lessons in bipartisanship.
  As the Secretary of State, who was actively involved in the events surrounding the agreement, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) have rightly and kindly said, the original architects of the agreement were the then Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, and Lord Mayhew. That work was

  589
  continued by a new Administration, a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. Since then, we have strongly supported the Belfast agreement, which we consider the right—and, indeed, the only—way forward for lasting peace in Northern Ireland. What upsets us immensely is that not everybody has stuck by the agreement. Let me be blunt. The British Government, the Irish Government, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party have stuck by the agreement; it is Sinn Fein-IRA that, from time to time, in a significant sense, has not.
  I shall not rehearse the arguments that were put so well today by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). We all know about the failure to decommission illegally held arms and explosives, the terrorist activity in Florida and in Colombia, and, most recently, the very serious incidents that caused the then Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly and to return to direct rule.
  The concession to allow Sinn Fein MPs to have office facilities and special status, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) described it, forms no part of the Belfast agreement. It is separate from it—a point on which there seems to be some confusion in the House. I should just about have been prepared to make that concession if Sinn Fein-IRA had fulfilled everything that it signed up to in the Belfast agreement: if it had renounced violence for good and if there was no terrorist activity, intimidation, extortion, or any of the other problems to which the Secretary of State rightly alluded, and which gave rise to the suspension. To have offered that concession in the prevailing circumstances was a serious error of judgment, which has since been underlined by events. Since last December, matters have got worse rather than better; otherwise, the Executive and the Assembly would not now be suspended and the Secretary of State would not have made the robust remarks that he rightly made today about the problems of Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I find it extraordinary that the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Glasgow, Cathcart should imply that my colleagues on the Front Bench are somehow wrong to table this motion for the first half of our Supply day. This is a serious issue on two counts. First, should we give concessions to people who have let us down? Surely, the answer is no. If a concession is given in the hope of receiving more, and less is received, in most normal circumstances that concession would be withdrawn. That would be the reasonable, straightforward thing to do. Secondly, there is the question—raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others—of the principle of having two classes of MPs with differing status. I am extremely worried about having two such classes. I believe that every Member should take the oath and, having done so, enjoy the full facilities.
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Mr. Mackay: I shall not give way because, as you have rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, many others want to speak.
  590
  The circumstances must be very special indeed to warrant allowing two separate tiers of Members. The Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP have the perfectly legitimate policy of not wishing their respective parts of the United Kingdom to remain part of it. Nevertheless, as non-violent parties, their representatives swear the oath, take part in the proceedings of this House and have full facilities. The provision is a huge slap in the face to them. It is almost saying to them, "You might as well be violent." The message that it sends in Northern Ireland is particularly bad. The Secretary of State will share my view—
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take interventions, may I ask whether it is in order for him simply to rehearse the arguments of last December's debate, rather than discussing the motion before us?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate and argument.
  Mr. Mackay: That might have been a better point of order if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) had bothered to turn up for most of the debate.
  The key point of the motion is that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the matter is one of judgment. We believe that the judgment was wrong last December, and that it is doubly wrong now in the light of events. We also think that only in the most exceptional circumstances should two tiers of Members be allowed, and that such circumstances are not apparent at the moment. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members—I know that some Labour Members will be voting with us tonight—to vote for this motion and reverse the decision that was wrongly taken last December.
  6.27 pm
  Chris Ruane: I shall try to be as brief as possible, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) wishes to speak as well.
  The peace process is one of the greatest things that Labour has achieved since we came to power in 1997. I have a personal perspective on this issue. In 1916, my taid—my Welsh grandfather—Ned Roberts was in the trenches of the Somme, and my Irish grandfather, Torn Ruane, was imprisoned in Frongoch, in Wales, for his part in the uprising. When I talk to my cousins in Ireland, they agree that the peace process is the greatest thing that we have achieved. We need to keep a sense of history and a perspective on where we are today. We are looking at the potential solving of a 900-year-old problem, and that is the way in which to pursue it. We must not behave like political pigmies who try to score cheap party political points on this issue. We must retain a sense of the moment, and of the magnitude of our achievement, in the context of the past 900 years. As far as I am concerned, the progress that we have made is as great as the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and, from a UK security sense, as the collapse of the Berlin wall.

  591
  It was Winston Churchill, a previous Conservative leader, who said:
  "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
  This issue is about opening dialogue at all levels: in Northern Ireland, in the voluntary sector, in the Churches, and in the trade unions. It is also about opening dialogue between politicians who have not talked to each other, and whose main means of communication for 50 years has been the bomb and the bullet. Channels of communication have indeed been opened by Lord Temple-Morris—again, a former Conservative—who set up the excellent British-Irish inter-parliamentary group. I recently joined that group, which includes representatives from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, from the Assemblies of Northern Ireland and of Wales, and from the Parliaments of Scotland, southern Ireland and the UK. Indeed, all political parties are represented—except the Unionists. I urge them to join the British-Irish inter-parliamentary group.
  David Winnick: It is called the council.
  Chris Ruane: Indeed. I should at this point pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on behalf of that organisation.
  When I go to those meetings, I am impressed by the contributions of Conservative members of the council. They seem to lose their party political bias—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.
  Chris Ruane: Conservative Members speak on that council with a clarity that is missing in the Chamber today.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that opening the facilities of the House to Sinn Fein has led to that party holding open sessions here, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House have attended those. I attended one last week, with Mitchel McLaughlin, and I made several points to him, the key one of which was the need to look after the working class Protestant vote in Northern Ireland. Everybody else appears to have benefited from the peace process, except that group. They have lost trust, and that was the message that I—as the Catholic grandson of a 1916 man—took to Sinn Fein. Without the Palace being open to Sinn Fein, I would not have been able to pass that message on. Sinn Fein is realising that more needs to be done for working class Protestants and understands that trust needs to be earned. It is not present at the moment and we all need to do as much as we can to foster it.
  We have seen what can be achieved through dialogue. The abstentionism that we used to see in southern Ireland is now gone. Sinn Fein is in the Dail. It is part of an effective partnership in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its representatives do not talk about bullets there, but about bed spaces and the educational curriculum—the bread and butter of ordinary politics in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein representatives sit on committees and act as Ministers. That is the way forward—opening dialogue and building peace and trust, through forums, groups and elected bodies.
  592
  We have seen the benefits of the peace process: no members of the police or Army have been shot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) pointed out, 353 members of the public were shot in the three years before the peace process started, but only 53—still 53 too many—in the years after. Unemployment has fallen dramatically; house prices are up; the café culture is back and people can go to nightclubs. A sense of normality is now present.
  There has been some progress—Sinn Fein members in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly have been talking to British Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Movement has taken place on decommissioning. We have also seen an apology—although some people view it as only weasel words—from Sinn Fein for the deaths on all sides over the past 30 years. This weekend, Gerry Adams even said that he could foresee a day on which the IRA would disband.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Chris Ruane: No, I do not have time. I have been told by my Whip that I must finish, and I never disobey the Whips.
  Progress has been made and will continue to be made, as long as we are not party political. I ask Opposition Members to give peace a chance.
  6.33 pm
  David Burnside: If I were not an Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament, I would still vote the same way tonight because of my concern about the double standards being set for Members of this House. If I had never been to Northern Ireland or known anything about it, I would still recognise the double standard that has been set, with two classes of MP. Because Sinn Fein threatens violence, it gets something special that would not have been allowed to a Scottish nationalist or a Welsh nationalist. That is a double standard. It demeans this House to grant facilities to that organisation,
  I am slightly concerned by the suggestion in the motion that Sinn Fein should say something and then everything will be all right. The issue is larger and it is a matter of principle. When I came to the House for the first time, I swore my allegiance—some choose to affirm theirs. I then had the responsibilities of a Member of this House and can he called to account by it. I can be disciplined by this House. Can Sinn Fein Members be disciplined by the House? Of course not, but they can take £400,000 out of the generous office costs allowance to help the campaign of a political and terrorist organisation.
  I do not know what dream world the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) lives in—somewhere near Hollywood, I think, and I do not mean Hollywood in Northern Ireland—but the proof has been seen in the last four and half years. It includes international terrorism in Colombia, which saw drug money from FARC going into Sinn Fein-IRA's coffers. That needs to be investigated. We have seen violence on the streets with Sinn Fein-IRA involved. It is one unitary organisation. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the army council. Decommissioning is a joke and the 2008 deadline is meaningless. The importing of arms from Florida was a major crime.

  593
  What took place while we were fighting an election? The £5 million robbery of spirits and cigarettes from the docks in Belfast was by Sinn Fein-IRA—one organisation. The Secretary of State should ask his security advisers who carried out that robbery. He should also ask his security advisers about the events at Castlereagh and Mr. Bobby Storey, who reports to the army council and is on the general headquarters staff, Belfast, which reports to Adams and McGuinness. Is that a ceasefire? We are not fools in Northern Ireland.
  We have seen spying at the heart of Government in the Northern Ireland Office. The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), was supposed to be tough. He was not very tough when the NIO was infiltrated. If the Home Office or the Foreign Office had been infiltrated, would those responsible be granted concessions in this House? Of course not, and that is double standards. We await the report on that spying at the heart of Government, but we know what will happen. It will be put behind us and we will hear nice words from Sinn Fein-IRA. Those nice words will be more lies. After all, an organisation based on revolutionary terrorism—Sinn Fein-IRA—has no problem with telling lies to the Secretary of State's face, in 10 Downing street or in the White House.
  Sinn Fein representatives should not have been granted the facilities in this House. We welcome the opportunity that the Conservatives have provided for this debate. All the democratic politicians—which excludes Sinn Fein—in Northern Ireland, certainly all Unionists, feel distaste that while we spend some £100,000 on constituency offices to provide a service as Members of Parliament, Sinn Fein-IRA is granted a special class of membership of this House. Sinn Fein-IRA is an illegal terrorist organisation that has not given up violence, does not adhere to the Mitchell principles and is involved in international crime and terrorism. That special treatment is what used to be called appeasement. There has been nothing but appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA from the time that the agreement was signed four and a half years ago.
  I hope that the motion and debate tonight will put even a little bit of pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to make progress. I do not trust them. I do not believe that they are committed to going the full way to become fully democratic politicians. The evidence of the past four and a half years suggests that they are still playing the double game of the Armalite and the ballot box. They talk about their mandate, but they are involved in national and international crime and terrorism. The Unionists will support the official Opposition tonight and we thank them for giving time for this debate, which is necessary because the Government continue to refuse to face up to Sinn Fein-IRA as a terrorist organisation with a political front.
  6.39 pm
  Mike Gapes: This debate is not about the facilities for four Members of Parliament or the two researchers who they employ and the cost to the public purse. This is a debate about symbolism. Unfortunately, many debates about Northern Ireland, as I learned in
  594
  my two years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, are about symbolism rather than reality. This is a debate to make certain people feel good: if the motion is passed, they will feel that they are not tainted by the fact that in day-to-day politics they have to deal with matters that they find unpleasant.
  The debate is also symbolic because if the motion is passed, that could be interpreted to mean that we reject the concept of parity of esteem. Those who vote for Sinn Fein—many of them young people who do not support the IRA but support a political party because of its work within the communities on issues of social and economic concern—would regard it as a rejection of them.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mike Gapes: No, I have only four minutes.
  I have no remit and am not an apologist for terrorist organisations of any kind. I was in the Standing Committee that considered the Terrorism Act 2000. I have denounced terrorism whether it comes from Hamas, loyalists or the IRA. However, we must think about the political significance of the motion. Are we saying, in effect, that the Belfast agreement is dead and that next year's Assembly elections will not take place? Are we putting up the ramparts and telling Sinn Fein that it is out of the system because it has inched grudgingly towards the political process, rejected a partitionist solution and then taken part in partitionist institutions? Are we saying that it is out of the system because its members have rejected the concept of taking a place in the Executive but have then become Ministers with responsibility for health and education? Are we saying that it is out of the system because it has moved away from its paramilitary past insufficiently, sometimes incoherently, and often not in the best way? Nevertheless, surely all right hon. and hon. Members accept—or perhaps some will not—hat there has been a significant change within republicanism over the past 10 years.
  If we adopt the motion today, we are effectively putting an end to all that and saying to that large constituency in Northern Irish politics—some 20 per cent. of the people—that we are no longer interested in the process of moving from violence to democracy. I believe that that would be foolish and the wrong thing to do at this time. I am not saying that the House might not change its mind, but this is not that occasion. To take such a decision would be premature; it would be subject to wrong interpretations and would set back the peace process. I hope that the House will reject the motion resoundingly.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This has been an important debate; it has been as much about signals, responses and judgments as about the precise nature of the agreement that the House made last December regarding access to the facilities here. I think that that is right, because the specifics of Westminster must be set within a much broader context, as all the speakers in the debate have done.
  In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was at pains to stress that we are talking about nothing more nor less

  595
  than the judgment about how one responds to developing circumstances and, more specifically, to the situation in which concessions or gestures are made repeatedly as part of the process yet find no response. Whether it is the release of prisoners, turning a blind eye to breaches of the agreement or, as we argue in the motion, the needless offering of House space to Sinn Fein-IRA, the judgment to be made is what is the correct response when concessions are made and nothing is given in return.
  I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. Some years ago, he and I spent many hours together in Standing Committees considering education legislation, and I have the greatest respect for his abilities. We all look to him to carry his new onerous responsibilities with his typical style and integrity.
  The Secretary of State admitted to doubts about the current circumstances. He said that recent events had had a profoundly destabilising effect. He then went on to quote the Prime Minister—he would, wouldn't he—but in this case it was the Prime Minister's challenge to Sinn Fein-IRA and the reference to "the crunch". Our complaint is that there are no crunches. That is the whole point of the debate—we want to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister wants to appear decisive, talking about forks in roads and crunches, yet none of that seems to appear in what his Ministers, in their various capacities, do. We are looking for an indication, whether it has to do with what happens in the Northern Ireland Office, as it is now reconstituted, or with what the Leader of the House says in a few minutes, that the Government are looking seriously at the subtle but important interplay between concessions that are made and expectations that are raised and constantly dashed—in this case, as so often, by Sinn Fein-IRA—when nothing happens.
  There is no response by the Government to the actions or inactions of Sinn Fein-IRA, only an endless succession of concessions. The one about which we are most interested today is a matter for the House. I resent suggestions from Labour Members that to bring this matter to the House of Commons is frivolous, in breach of some bipartisan approach, unnecessary or irrelevant. If the House of Commons cannot debate its own aspect of the peace process, if we cannot have a debate about the facilities that we have offered—wrongly, as we thought at the time, and even more wrongly now—what on earth can we debate? For Labour Members to suggest, not once but several times, that there is something wrong-headed about bringing this matter to the House, is something that I cannot accept.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) pointed out, the sad reality is that since we made this concession to Sinn Fein-IRA in December of last year, the situation has become worse. We have here another example of how a concession has been made by the House of Commons to Sinn Fein-IRA and not only have we had nothing in return but there has been a material worsening of circumstances. We are not talking about giving in yet again, turning the other cheek or a blind eye and expecting that to induce Sinn Fein-IRA to behave better. That is what Labour Members have suggested throughout the debate. We do not believe that that approach has worked or will work, because there is no evidence that that is the case. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to come forward with a
  596
  different approach. In his admirable opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford took care to suggest that there was an alternative approach, that we have given thought to it and that we have ideas on the matter. Ours is not simply a negative response, but it is one that we feel honour bound and duty bound to make. We ask the new Secretary of State to examine what his predecessors have done since he was last in the Northern Ireland Office and to make his own judgment, with the benefit of hindsight, on what response there has been to this seemingly endless series of concessions.
  What kind of signal do we at Westminster want to give the electorate, the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein-IRA and the other political parties in Northern Ireland? That is what we are most concerned with today. As Her Majesty's Official Opposition, we have initiated this debate because we believe that it is the right thing to do. What response can we give? Do we turn yet another blind eye? Do we turn yet another other cheek? Will we give yet another concession to Sinn Fein-IRA, only to find that the situation gets worse and there is no response? Labour Members and the Government seem to be arguing that this is a one-way street.
  That simply will not do. It is not good enough. It is not an appropriate response. We have run out of other cheeks—if I may put it in that way.
  Our challenge to the Government, to Ministers and to the House is that we should ask ourselves whether that approach is honest and will work. Although we opposed access, if someone could have demonstrated that the concession the House made last December had brought positive effects, I have no doubt that we should have taken a very different attitude and I doubt that my hon. Friends would have felt the need to table the motion. However, sadly, one can only conclude and report that what the House did in what it—or rather Labour Members—saw at the time as a spirit of generosity has been met with repeated slaps in the face.
  There has been a negative response to the concession that has been made, so for once it is time to say that we feel it right to withdraw that concession and to give a different signal. That is the proper response at this stage. I hope that when Members vote in a few minutes, they will reflect on that point and will be prepared to take that sort of attitude rather than merely continuing to take the same stance.
  I hope that Labour Members, the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State will accept the motion in the spirit in which we offer it. I hope that we shall hear no more from Labour Members to the effect that we are wasting everybody's time, that to hold political debates in the House of Commons is inappropriate and that, for goodness sake, to be partisan is positively passé. A few us still like a bit of partisanship every now and then, but we did not table the motion in that spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford set out the argument carefully and responsibly and I hope that, in that spirit, Labour Members will consider our comments and respond to them. I retain the forlorn hope that, even now, we may have persuaded the Government and the Leader of the House of our case.
  6.52 pm
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Let me begin by agreeing with all the contributors to the debate who have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his new office and responsibilities. It is a privilege to support him in this debate.
  The debate has been short. Its brevity has the advantage that we can still remember with clarity the remarkable opening speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It contained an extended cadenza in which he condemned Government policy in Northern Ireland as squalid, egregious and mistaken—[Interruption.] It was fairly comprehensive.
  The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view but I hoped that, having expressed it, he would have spared us the cant that he wholeheartedly supports the Belfast agreement, which is kept alive by those same policies. However, I found that passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech marginally more convincing than the subsequent section in which he told us that the speech made by Gerry Adams last week, in which he envisaged a future without the IRA, was entirely prompted because he was worried about what the hon. Gentleman might say in this Opposition day debate and had nothing whatever to do with the thoughtful speech made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the preceding week.
  The hon. Gentleman's passion in denouncing our wickedness in granting Sinn Fein access to these precincts would have carried more conviction if the previous Conservative Government had done anything to deny Sinn Fein access to these precincts during the 1980s when no peace process was in being at all.
  We are at a difficult moment in the peace process, when it is important that we all proceed with great care not to make worse the prospects for restoring momentum once again to the process started by the Belfast agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out the gravity of the situation in his speech earlier this month, when he stressed that the core of the Belfast agreement was that in return for political equality all parties committed themselves exclusively to peace. He spelt out to republicans that retaining the option of violence does not give them leverage but increases resistance to progress. It does not push us forward, but holds us back. As the Prime Minister said, the IRA cannot continue to be part in and part out of the peace process. If it wants the political benefits of a normalised Northern Ireland, it has to give up for all time the option of ever going back to the military struggle.
  Equally, however, the House must not lose sight of how far we have come over the past five years. It is too easy to point to the faults in the peace process, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did, and never to recognise its strengths and its achievements.
  Sectarian violence still claims too many lives, but each year they are numbered in tens, not in hundreds as they were at the height of violence. With peace has come new investment in the Province, which has the fastest growth in the UK. Tourism has risen and unemployment has come down. Those are the real gains of the peace process for the ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland. Those are
  598
  the products of what the hon. Gentleman denounced as the Government's squalid, egregious and mistaken policies.
  The rational course for reasonable people is to do all that we can to maintain the process of putting political dialogue in the place of military confrontation. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) pointedly and fairly asked how the motion would help us to talk to Sinn Fein. No one intervened during his speech to try to tell him how it would help.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I and my Front-Bench colleagues have said over and again with great emphasis that we are wholly committed to the Belfast agreement. Indeed, the agreement was a remarkable achievement for the Prime Minister, but what a pity that the mistaken and ill-conceived policies that he has adopted since have unfortunately recently taken us backwards so that we have a major reversal—the suspension of devolution in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he supports the Belfast agreement and yet fail to support any of the steps that are necessary to keep it in play and keep the dialogue going. He cannot expect the Belfast agreement to continue under its own steam with no offers of help, no progress, no debate and no negotiations, and without the compromise that inevitably comes from negotiations. That is, of necessity, what the process is about.
  I have listened to the debate throughout and I have not heard one Opposition speaker explain how the motion will help us to make progress on the peace process or the Belfast agreement, or how expelling Sinn Fein from the precincts will encourage its members to choose political dialogue. From time to time, access has been helpful. Last week, Michelle Gildernew booked a room in the House where Mitchel McLaughlin debated current developments with MPs from all parties. That is the type of political dialogue and scrutiny that access to the precincts was intended to develop.
  During the statement on the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that he had been able to arrange a meeting in the precincts between Gerry Adams and one of the exiles from Northern Ireland. I do not comprehend how those who propose to deny Gerry Adams and his colleagues access to the precincts imagine that it will help the task of reconciliation to make such meetings more difficult.
  Last December, when I put the motion granting access before the House, I said that it was a modest contribution to the peace process. Opposition Members should not exaggerate the practical consequences of that motion, nor should they be under any illusion about the symbolic impact of withdrawing access. I expect that those who propose the current motion fully understand how seismic that impact would be.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked what signal would be sent if we passed the motion. It would be a loud signal that the British Parliament has withdrawn from a step that we

  599
  took only last year. It would be held up as evidence that even when the republican movement seeks political progress, we refuse to have anything to do with it. If we were to pass the motion, we would strengthen not the moderates in the republican movement, but the extremists who have never believed that the political route would lead to progress.
  Our strategic goal must be to draw Sinn Fein into political activities—the only legitimate way forward. No Opposition Member has told us how it will help that strategy to tell those in Sinn Fein that, even if elected, we in the House will shut the door in their face and that, even if they represent 250,000 electors, they will not be given access to the support or the offices that they need to work for their constituents. The reason why Opposition Members have not told us the answer to that question or said how the proposal would help is that there is no answer.
  I have no problem with those who want to vote for the motion because they want to have nothing to do with Sinn Fein, but I ask them not to mislead themselves into imagining that, by excluding Sinn Fein from the House, they will somehow make it easier to include them in a political process.
  Opposition days are a due part of the democratic procedures of the House. They help the Chamber to retain its role as the grand forum of the nation's political differences, and they give the Opposition and the Government the occasion to rehearse the political divisions. The process of peace in Northern Ireland should not be an issue on which the House is divided. I would acquit the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford of having proposed a frivolous motion; it is profoundly serious, and it is thoroughly partisan.
  I asked for a trawl of the records, and it failed to discover a single example, in 18 long years of opposition, when we ever opposed the Conservative Government's policy on Northern Ireland on an Opposition day.
  HON. MEMBERS: "The Prevention of Terrorism Acts."
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cook: We supported all the openings that they made to the IRA. We supported them when they talked to the IRA even in the middle of a bloody bombing campaign on the British mainland. We supported them when they had secret communications with the IRA. We supported them in all that because people do not make peace by talking to their friends; they make peace by talking to their enemies. We supported them because there was a better chance for peace if the IRA were confronted by a united Parliament, and, for that reason, we would have a better prospect of success if they gave us the same support now.
  This is a sensitive moment in the long troubled history of Northern Ireland. It is a time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs to speak with the authority and backing of the House. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give him our full backing by rejecting a partisan motion that would take us further away from the political dialogue that is the only hope Northern Ireland has of a permanent peace.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 336.

  Division No. 330]

  [7.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Amess, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Howard, rh Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bellingham, Henry

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, rh David

  Cameron, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Pickles, Eric

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Dodds, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Evans, Nigel

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Selous, Andrew

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Francois, Mark

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Streeter, Gary

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Greenway, John

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hague, rh William

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hancock, Mike

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Trimble, rh David

  Hermon, Lady

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  601

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waterson Nigel

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Wilshire, David

  Chris Grayling

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Corston, Jean

  Cotter, Brian

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baker, Norman

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Barrett, John

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Hilary

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blunkett, rh David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Denham, rh John

  Borrow, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Doran, Frank

  Breed, Colin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burnham, Andy

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cairns. David

  Flint, Caroline

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Challen, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  602

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Heyes, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Holmes, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hutton, rh John

  Miliband, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jowell rh, Tessa

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keeble Ms. Sally

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Diana

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kidney, David

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lamb, Norman

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Love, Andrew

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rendel, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  603

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Salmond, Alex

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ward, Claire

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Southworth, Helen

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, rh John

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Derek Twigg

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the fundamental need for the affairs of Northern Ireland to be settled on an exclusively peaceful, democratic and inclusive basis; and does not believe that expelling any party to the peace process from the parliamentary precincts is likely to encourage them to renounce violence and to pursue a political settlement within that process.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that at three minutes to seven o'clock, four Members of Parliament were seeking to access the car park—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the point of order that the hon. Lady is raising. Would those Members who are staying in the Chamber please be quiet?
  Miss Kirkbride: Are you aware that at three minutes to seven o'clock, four Members of Parliament were seeking to access the car park but that the security barrier had not been raised, despite the imminence of the
  604
  vote? Will you advise me what Standing Orders of the House require Members of Parliament to carry around green security passes? What advice would you give me on what to do with my car when a vote is imminent and I am not able to access the car park?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There was fairly good warning of the vote at this time. Perhaps Members will have to be a little more aware and allow themselves a little extra time to reach the House.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I and a couple of other Members had trouble getting to the Lobby because on the passage between Portcullis House and Norman Shaw North there is a new security door where a pass is also now required. Your advice will be sufficient when we know exactly when votes will take place, but it will not be sufficient for a running Whip.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that they are required to carry their passes with them at all times. I have no doubt, however, that the office of the Serjeant at Arms will have heard the comments made in the Chamber.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Due to the inordinate length of time taken by the Front-Bench spokespersons of the three main parties in the last debate, only five Back-Bench Members were able to contribute: three of them were from the Government side, one was from the official Opposition, and one was from Northern Ireland. Although we were here during the debate, no Member from my party was called, despite the fact that this matter is of intense interest to our constituents in Northern Ireland. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, in future, those of us who have something to contribute on behalf of our party and our constituents on a matter of relevance have the opportunity to do so?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the frustration of the hon. Gentleman and others who would have wished to contribute to the previous debate, especially given their particular interest in it. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is an Opposition day and that, as the main Opposition party decided to have two debates today, a limited amount of time was available.
  Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the considerable concern that many Members expressed about the new security arrangements, which seem to impede without necessarily making things safer, are there any plans for someone to explain to the House why they have been put in place, how much they cost, and whether they will in any way enhance our security?
  Madam Deputy Speaker:I have already made some observations on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has further concerns, I suggest that he has a word with his party's Whips.

  Human Rights Act
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing powers of the Home Secretary and in other respects; further notes that the Government has not so far made any defining statement about its intentions relating to the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights; and calls upon the Government to work with all political parties which are represented in the House in order to construct a lasting settlement that can bring the Human Rights Act 1998 into conformity with the democratic will of the people and the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long.
  Our intention is to try to enable a debate to take place on the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 currently influences our daily lives and affects the working of Parliament.
  I declare an interest as a barrister, as registered on the Order Paper. At the time of incorporation, various barristers, including Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC, stated:
  "We are entering a new age of constitutionalism for public lawyers. Bliss it is in this age to be alive, and to be young must be the very heaven."
  The bliss has not reached me in any material form since incorporation, but nevertheless I declare an interest as a barrister.
  The Government and the House may recollect the extensive debates in the Chamber at the time of incorporation. Insofar as I participated in them, it was as a broad supporter of the principle of incorporation, as the Minister may be aware. I spoke in support of it for a number of reasons. I saw many advantages to the possibility of judicial input by English judges into the decision-making process of the jurisprudence that was being built up. I also saw the possibility of the much greater use of the margin of appreciation through the basic facts of cases being decided here and the opportunity that that would afford for our courts to be seized of matters that might otherwise end up in Strasbourg. There had been frequent complaints that the Strasbourg judges had great difficulty in grasping our customs or the background to particular cases from this country. In that context, I saw incorporation as an enormous advantage for the English judiciary.
  It is clear that in a number of decided cases, incorporation has brought about real benefits. Some have been contentious, but one can understand how the dialogue between the judiciary and the Executive has sometimes led to interesting results. At one time, there was no possibility of a child born of artificial insemination knowing the identity of his biological father. That was challenged under article 8 and has been changed. The policy that a prisoner should not be present when prison officers examined legally privileged correspondence was also held to be wrong under article 8. I cite that because I accept that those are examples of a dynamic relationship that may produce better law and enhance human rights.
  Some of the decisions have come as a surprise. My constituents were relying heavily on the possibility that a challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would enable them to get away with not disclosing their identity when they were caught by speed cameras. The European Court of Human Rights held that the
  606
  measure was proportional to what the Government intended. If litigation continues, the Court may find that there is a right to administer corporal punishment in private schools if the parent has authorised the teacher to carry it out. So Government policy on some matters may be challenged.
  I accept that the courts have not been flooded with decisions. The evidence shows that, despite early prognostications that a massive flood would paralyse the court of criminal appeal, it has not happened. Having been saddled with the responsibility, the judiciary appears to be able to deal with it without the courts grinding to a halt.
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Before the hon. Gentleman gets deep into his contribution, will he clarify the depth of his support for incorporation? I recall that, during the passage of the Human Rights Bill, he condemned incorporation because it removed the right of Parliament to introduce capital punishment. He was quoted as saying:
  "We are usurping the rights of citizens of this country to pronounce on this issue and we are doing it for no good reason."
  Just how committed is he to the legislation?
  Mr. Grieve: I fear that the hon. Lady is badly briefed by her civil servants.
  Beverley Hughes: By The Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Grieve: In that case, the hon. Lady may be badly briefed by The Daily Telegraph. If she reads Hansard, she will find that, in Committee, I argued against a decision taken by Back Benchers to fetter the ability of Parliament to discuss the issue of capital punishment. I explained that it was not in the Government's original Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary resisted it in the Chamber and said that he thought it a bad move. I explained to the House—I could quote verbatim because I have reread what I said—that I was against capital punishment, which remains my view, and would not vote for its reintroduction. I also said that the House was making a grave and unnecessary mistake that would irritate public opinion. From my mailbag afterwards, I concluded that there was indeed some irritation of public opinion on something that was unnecessary for incorporation and that the Government did not intend. I hope that that deals with the hon. Lady's point. In future, she should rely on Hansard rather than on newspaper cuttings.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: May I embarrass my hon. Friend further by drawing attention to the difficulties that he experienced when we discussed the Human Rights Bill in 1997 and 1998? I think that he will confirm that he needed persuading that it was sensible to support the Opposition stance on Second and Third Reading.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I explained that my principal concern was that I did not like the Henry VIII clause, which was why I did not vote in favour of the legislation. That clause went against the central principle of Parliament's involvement in the human rights process. If there is a basic theme, it is precisely that.

  607
  The Minister will be aware that Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, gave a lecture to the British Academy on 15 October in which he made a telling point about the way in which the Human Rights Act operates. He said that it is:
  "already obvious that the result will be changes, significant changes, to our constitutional arrangements … What is the primary concern of the Human Rights Act is not so much rights in the ordinary common law sense, but values."
  That is what the House must address. As we have watched the Human Rights Act develop, we have seen examples that have been tweakings of the law. However, we now have to deal with a series of matters that have come into the public focus that relate to fundamental issues about the role of Parliament in decision making, as against that of the judiciary, and to how the Executive should respond.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman quotes the recent lecture by the Lord Chief Justice. We read reports of that and I have a full copy with me. Will he remind the House of the Lord Chief Justice's conclusion on whether he supported the Human Rights Act? If the interpretation of his comments is right, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only the Lord Chief Justice but all the senior judges support incorporation and believe that the present position is defensible, right and constitutionally proper?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right and I read the text of the address, which was extremely interesting.
  Moreover, I do not necessarily disagree with that position. What interests me, and what has provoked this debate, is the role of Parliament in this process, especially in light of the Government's comments—to which I shall turn in a moment—about where they appear now to see the limits of the Human Rights Act and where they would see fit to intervene to override it if necessary. That is the matter that I seek to bring to the attention of the House and to have debated this evening.
  The first issue is sentencing tariffs for mandatory life sentences. The newspapers are full of the matter, and it is time that the House paid attention to the principles underlying it. The House will be aware that, as matters stand, it is highly likely that the Home Secretary's discretion in this matter will be abolished, and of course there will be some who welcome that. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has tabled an amendment to the motion which perfectly properly sets out his own deeply held view, which I have known for a long time, that it is high time that the discretion was abolished. That is a legitimate subject for debate.
  We face a situation in which a principle that was clearly enunciated when capital punishment was abolished may be overturned. As I indicated to the Minister, I would have supported the abolition of capital punishment if I had been in the House in the 1960s, and I certainly would not vote for its reintroduction today. When it was abolished, the Home Secretary gave a series of categorical assurances about how he would continue to exercise discretion in respect of mandatory life sentences. He put that firmly on a public policy basis, arising from the need to reassure the public, tempered of course by the role of the parole board and, as we would now have it, by potential judicial review.
  608
  That position prevailed until 1983 when, as the Minister knows, the tariff policy was announced in Parliament. The tariff was no longer a secret matter, and by 1991 it was being communicated to the person in prison and arrived at after consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, acting, of course, on the recommendation of the parole board.
  We have to face the fact that that principle is now being challenged. The European Court of Human Rights accepted it, apparently without difficulty, in the case of Wynne in 1994. However, the Wynne principle seems to be fast disappearing as the legal foundation on which the European Court is likely to act, and, moreover, on which our domestic courts are acting. In the case of Stafford, the European Court disregarded Wynne.
  The facts in that case were odd because there was no doubt that the position of Mr. Stafford, who had been released on licence and then re-imprisoned for non-violent offences with his licence revoked, was unusual. Nevertheless, the Government were certainly not saying that they thought it wrong that the Home Secretary should have that power, because although the decision was made by the Home Secretary of the Conservative Government, it was endorsed by the incoming Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He adopted and argued that case, and it was thrown out.
  Now we have the Anderson case, which is before the House of Lords and goes much further. If there is a decision, and there is much commentary to support the view that the way in which the European convention on human rights operates would incline the Court to overturn the Home Secretary's discretion, there will be a challenge to the Executive's discretion as exercised by the Home Secretary, and that will apparently be wholly contrary to the Home Secretary's views and principles on this matter. That raises important issues.
  After the Stafford ruling, the Home Secretary said:
  "I am concerned that this judgement may serve as encouragement for those who would like to remove the Home Secretary's powers to set tariffs for adult murderers. If this judgement were to be used to support a legal process to achieve this, I would seek to use domestic legislation to enshrine the power of Parliament to provide adequate punishment for the guilty."
  Indeed, the Home Secretary went further and said:
  "We will study today's judgement in detail. My overarching priority will remain protecting the public from dangerous offenders, while doing everything we can do to assist and support victims and their families. It is crucial that jurisprudence does not interfere with this basic right on behalf of the elected government."
  Of course, the consequences of such a decision would be profound. There are some 260 murderers in prison whose tariffs fixed by the Home Secretary are no longer than those recommended by the judges. There are between 60 and 70—I do not have the precise figure—who have already served longer than the judge's recommendation. There are 23 people on whole-life tariffs who may be subject to review, including some of those who have been sentenced for the most horrific crimes, which have excited serious public disquiet. There are also some 1,300 people in prison who would be likely to apply to the parole board for review. The Home Secretary has apparently nailed his colours firmly to the mast and said that he would not tolerate that.

  609
  That is not the only example of the Home Secretary setting out his position. There is also the matter of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearings and the Home Secretary's attitude to the right to detain potential terrorists who have been refused asylum in this country but are allowed to remain because, not surprisingly, there is no third country to which to deport them. Initially, the Government's claim was turned down on the fascinating ground that the Home Secretary could not discriminate between nationals and non-nationals. On Friday, that judgment was reversed.
  Although the reversal is useful and interesting, and its terms make it clear that, in a national emergency, there can be discrimination between nationals and non-nationals, it expressly does not deal with the question of what would happen if there were no national emergency. I do not know what the Government's position is on that point, and I hope that we will hear more from the Minister about that. The Home Secretary made clear in the House his concern about the fettering of his discretion in that way, and I certainly did not understand it to be confined to issues of national emergency.
  That is a second example of a case that may well end up in Strasbourg in which the Executive, in the person of the Home Secretary, have expressed the gravest concerns about the judicial interpretation of the Human Rights Act. However, there is no point in blaming the judiciary; it is only doing its job. The question for the House is what limits it wants to impose on that judicial discretion and at what point it wants to reassert itself, either to back the Executive in seeking to override such decisions or—and this option is open to it—to tell the Home Secretary that it will not back the Executive.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that before incorporation we were signatories to the convention, and that the remedy was to go through all the courts in this country and then to Strasbourg. Does he agree that the same applies now? Even if Parliament were to pass, or hold to, a law that offended the convention, and the European Court of Human Rights found against it, we would have to change the law or be in breach of the convention. So far, we have always changed the law because we have never been willing to argue that others should obey the law when we do not do so.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and, as I tried to explain to the House earlier, one of the reasons that I argued in favour of incorporation when the House debated it several years ago was that those decisions might eventually be made. There are two riders to that. One is the number of cases likely to get to Strasbourg, and therefore the change in the volume. The second point, which we cannot ignore, is the extent to which some of the jurisprudence and some of the principles that have been enunciated are home-grown. After all, in the Anderson case, the Court of Appeal was the forum that said that the Wynne case in the European Court of Human Rights appeared to be flawed and should no longer be followed, even though the Court of Appeal felt that it was not its job to interfere with the
  610
  Executive's discretion in that case. That is an example of the much more dynamic relationship between our own judiciary and the Executive.
  Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that, eventually, the same decision could be arrived at, we need only look at what has happened over the past six months to see that the volume and intensity of the challenges are growing. That is why I believe the House should consider the matter. I assume that the Home Secretary's position would be identical in respect of tariffs for life sentences if the case were taken directly to Strasbourg.
  Simon Hughes: That is an interesting question.
  Mr. Grieve: A very interesting question. Eventually, irrespective of what the House does, it is possible for the case to end up in Strasbourg, and the Government are faced with a number of ways of dealing with it.
  Mr. John Redwood: Is it not the case that as soon as we sign such a convention, if we do so in good faith, we are effectively saying that we trust the convention and the international community more than our own democratic system? The purpose of signing such a convention is to fetter the discretion of our elected Ministers. Is not my hon. Friend's argument really against the idea of signing a convention, if he is a strong supporter of democratic decision?
  Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point. It is possible for the House and the Government to find themselves in conflict with the interpretation of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights.[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that that is inevitable. I am never quite sure about inevitability, and of course there are mechanisms available for the Government to derogate under certain circumstances, if they believe that it is necessary to do so. That is precisely why this evening's debate seems so important.
  Given the Home Secretary's repeated assertions that he will not be budged on tariff life sentences or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission because he believes that he has a duty to the public that it is important that he discharge, I should like to hear how the Minister reconciles that with the point raised by my right hon. Friend, and how she explains the Govt's position on the matter.
  Vera Baird: Is not the timing of the debate disastrous for the Opposition? Why are we trying to debate what the Executive might do if their powers are struck down, when the case in Anderson has not yet been decided, and the Home Secretary has just been upheld by the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. Grieve: I am afraid that Idisagree entirely with the hon. and learned Lady. Human Rights Act points are being taken every day in the courts, so we cannot say that matters are sub judice on the Human Rights Act, or we would not be able to discuss its generality at all. The matter is extremely topical. After all, the Home Secretary could have said nothing. He could have said, in respect of the tariff for mandatory life sentence prisoners, "I will wait upon events", but he did not. He

  611
  made the choice to come out with a series of public pronouncements that put him on a direct path of potential conflict with the judiciary, judicial decisions and ultimately, potentially, with the European Court of Human Rights. There is a very legitimate subject to debate.
  The hon. and learned Lady might have a persuasive point if the Home Secretary had said nothing. Then she could argue that we should wait and see what happens, but it is the Government who are briefing the press about the Home Secretary's position and the Home Secretary who is going on television and radio to say how he stands on the matter, and we would like an explanation of how the Government view it in principle and in practice.
  Vera Baird: The debate is premature, because the possibility cannot be excluded that, if the Home Secretary lost now and the case as to his powers to set a tariff went to Strasbourg, it is conceivable—not very likely, but conceivable—that the court in Strasbourg would find that it was within our margin of appreciation in implementing the Human Rights Act, so the issue would simply never arise. Why should we speak about theories, when there is no practical purpose to be served?
  Mr. Grieve: I am afraid that I disagree entirely with the hon. and learned Lady. The matter has arisen, and it is a matter of which the House should be seized. Are we to say that when the Home Secretary comes out with a series of public pronouncements—made, some might suggest, probably unkindly, for political advantage—the House should not debate the implications, in the light of the Government's stated approach to the operation of the Human Rights Act and its incorporation into our law?
  There are other aspects that we need to examine. It is interesting, because it is directly linked to the situation in respect of tariff life sentences, that there has been another decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ezeh and Connors, which effectively said that early release for prisoners, as previously enshrined as a matter of mercy, and possibly of administrative convenience and practice, has been turned into a right under English law. The result is that, as the Minister will know, prison governors can no longer award lost remission, because it is no longer thought to be a remission period; it is not supposed to be part of the sentence at all.
  I have had several letters—I do not know whether my hon. Friends have received similar correspondence—arguing that the sentencing system in this country, from mandatory life sentences for murders through to the tariff and period served by other criminals in prison, has become a fantasy world. That is a direct consequence of the working of the European convention on human rights. What is the Government's view on that? Do they welcome it? If so, will we move towards a system that would appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, with a determinate sentence for murderers or different categories of murderer? Or will we move towards a situation that was highlighted briefly in the "Justice for All" White Paper, with the judge imposing some different sentencing regime, where the period that one gets is the period that one serves? The Government need
  612
  to respond to these issues, which are the direct consequences of the operation of the convention and its incorporation into our law.
  Why has the Home Secretary chosen to dig his trench on the issue of adult murderers' mandatory life sentences? He opposed the ending of his discretion in the case of juveniles in the Thompson and Venables case, but he did not challenge it. I appreciate that there are distinctions, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister this evening why the Government accepted that, even though they opposed it and argued against it in court, yet nailed their colours to the mast over adults. I should be grateful to hear how that distinction was arrived at. It is an important one, which the House should know about.
  In addition, we must face the fact that there are some opposite effects of incorporation. For example, every piece of legislation coming before us now has that famous imprimatur that it is human rights compliant. As the Minister knows, that is merely a mantra that seems to be recited ad nauseam. Often, it does not appear to bear much relation to the legislation that we pass. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will know that when we discussed the Proceeds of Crime Bill serious reservations were expressed about whether the process of civil confiscation is Human Rights Act complaint. The Executive seem not to be in the least bit concerned about that issue.
  Almost daily we see massive impacts on the freedom of the citizen. During the weekend—I was struck because I had previously missed the point—I found that teachers being vetted have to give their bank account number and the maiden name of their mother, which is the usual device by which banks check people's identity. Apparently, the data are being processed abroad. The procedure was introduced with the laudable aim of preventing paedophiles and sex offenders from moving into the teaching profession.
  There was not a squeak from the Government about human rights implications. Presumably, it suits the Executive's decision-making process that such checks should be introduced, but I think that they constitute a massive intrusion into personal freedoms. That brings me—I hope that the Minister will listen—to the nub of the issue: the role of Parliament in the process that I have described. I do not know whether she has bothered to read what was said at the time of the incorporation of the Human Rights Act, including what I said. However, I made it clear—I still believe in this passionately—that if the Act is to work, Parliament's involvement in the process must be constant and frequent.
  The Joint Committee on Human Rights does extremely good work but that is not what I would see as frequent parliamentary involvement in the process. The Government should have initiated debate on certain matters a long time ago, including on tariff life sentences. It was clear that the Home Secretary had a view that might well be challenged and found to be unsustainable.
  We have had an extraordinary paradigm shift in the way in which we run our affairs. Some might argue that that is for the better. However, it involves a dialogue between the Executive and the judiciary, from which Parliament is effectively excluded. I have serious doubts

  613
  about that process. As the dialogue continues, there is a danger that the process of justice, Parliament and the Executive will be brought into disrepute with the public. We have only to see how the public respond to the news about some of these matters. In my opinion, many people are deeply concerned about—this is how they see it—their rights disappearing down the plughole, with parliamentary scrutiny lessened and the judiciary intervening in cases where frequently the public cannot see that a human right is being infringed.
  In the Simms case, Lord Hoffman said:
  "Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights … But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost."
  Surely the issue before the House is that there are compelling examples where it would appear that the Government do not feel that they have done anything contrary to human rights, but, undoubtedly, we as a House are not squarely confronting the issues before us. That is why it is important that the matter should be debated.
  7.54 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people; and further notes that the Human Rights Act enshrines the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long."
  I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to his role in opening the debate. Given that this is the Opposition's debate, I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, did not choose to open it himself. I am surprised not least because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield so faithfully reproduced his right hon. Friend's thesis as outlined in various media outlets and written pamphlets recently from which it is plain that this is a subject dear to his heart. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) put her finger on it. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman did not open the debate because his plan to put the Government on the spot, as he saw it, has failed. I think that he was expecting the Court of Appeal last Friday to find against the Government on whether our anti-terrorism detention measures were discriminatory. So confident was he that he put out a press release the day before offering to help the Government sort out what he called the problems with the European Court of Human Rights.
  The right hon. Gentleman then sought this debate. Unfortunately for him, the Court of Appeal found unanimously in the Government's favour on all counts. The right hon. Gentleman having hoped to put the Government on the spot, I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who consequently found himself in a bit of a spot. That is why he made the contribution that he did: there was nothing much left to say.
  614
  Given that the Opposition selected this topic for debate, we might at least have expected the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to enlighten us on the Opposition's policy on the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Instead, the only thing that is clear is that they are not clear. When speaking about these matters on "Today" a week ago, the right hon. Member for West Dorset admitted:
  "I don't myself yet have a clear view."
  One week further on, I do not think that it is any clearer. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to sort out some of the Opposition's misconceptions about the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, and to deal with some of their errors.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I wonder whether the Minister thinks that there are times in our political history when there are issues that arise and politicians, although they may not immediately know the answer, have the feeling that there are questions that need to be discussed, or whether she thinks that that is an impossible conjunction?
  Beverley Hughes: Not at all. I do think that politicians have a duty to stimulate debate on important matters even though they may not fully have resolved what the issues may be. However, I should have thought that they would have a reasonably clear idea of where they stood on some of the principles. What we heard from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield leaves us in a complete fog as to where his party stands and the course of action that it is proposing as a result of the dilemmas that he has outlined tonight and the right hon. Member for West Dorset has outlined in his pamphlet.
  Mr. Grieve: I must point out to the Minister that she is in government. It would be nice to hear from her the Government's position on the matters to which I referred. It is the Government who usually lead on these matters. The hon. Lady knows that in respect of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—and on tariff life sentences—we indicated clearly that we fully understood the Government's position. I do not understand what the hon. Lady is getting at.
  Beverley Hughes: The Opposition may have said that they understood the Government's position on detention measures and SIAC, but they did not agree with them. I shall try to take up that point in attempting to unravel the Opposition's motives and the course of action that they really want to propose—I suspect that they are fearful of doing so—in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.
  At the moment, we are not sure whether the Opposition support the ECHR and the HRA or are against them. Half the time, they seem to think the ECHR is bad, while the rest of the time, they think it is good. That may reflect the fact that they are divided on so many issues. Indeed, we have heard different propositions from different Opposition Members. Their official spokespeople wished the Human Rights Bill well on Third Reading and in the other place, but they talked a few months later of repealing the legislation. A year ago, their leader told the Prime Minister that the ECHR was "an obstacle". Last week, the right hon. Member for West Dorset seemed to think that the Human Rights

  615
  Act was all that stood between an over-mighty Government and our traditional liberties. He practically cheered the judges on, but this week, his party kneels at the shrine of the democratic will of the people. One wonders where it will be next week.
  I should like now to deal with one of the central aspects of the Opposition's position, which is also one of the fundamental flaws in their argument: the proposition that there is a choice to be made between democracy and human rights.
  Mr. David Cameron: I should like to ask a question before the Minister leaves the subject of great court victories won by the Home Secretary. Is she aware that in October last year, he won a great victory when Shafiq ur Rehman, a gentleman whom he had been trying for five years to deport—obviously, the process cost a lot of money—lost his appeal to the House of Lords? Will she explain why the Home Office miraculously turned around 10 days later and said that he could stay?
  Beverley Hughes: I shall not be distracted into dealing with a particular case. I should like to deal with some of the fundamental principles that the Opposition say they are raising. Their premise is that there is a choice to be made between democracy and human rights, but in our view, there is no such choice, as they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is surely one of the hallmarks of democracy and a parliamentary system, because it shows that society values every individual person.
  Reference has been made to the well-reported speech made by the Lord Chief Justice the other week, in which he said that human rights came with true democracy, whether Governments wanted them or not. He could have added that that was the case whether Oppositions wanted them or not. He referred also to the words of another senior judge, who summed up the relationship between human rights and democracy by saying that human rights were not a substitute for the processes of democratic government, but a complement to them. We certainly strongly subscribe to that view and I would have thought that we could all agree on it.
  Mr. William Cash: On the question of the choice—
  Beverley Hughes: I have not yet given way, but I shall do so now.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted; I am touched by the hon. Lady's generous effort. The choice between democracy and human rights is crucial and relates to the amendments as well as the motion. She says that no such choice has to be made. In that case, why did the Home Secretary recently refer to the need to change the Human Rights Act in order to achieve conformity with what he thinks will be the democratic will of Parliament?
  Beverley Hughes: I do not think the Home Secretary has proposed to change the Human Rights Act himself. In relation to some of the cases raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—I refer to the Anderson case in particular—he referred to the need to preserve the view of the House about the role of Parliament in determining policy on punishment, especially with
  616
  regard to murders. We cannot anticipate the judgment, but if necessary, we will use domestic legislation to preserve that position. That is the point that hon. Gentleman made. [Interruption.] That does not involve a choice between the two very important cornerstones of our society—human rights and democracy—in relation to any one issue.
  It is astonishing that the Conservatives find that issue so hard to contemplate. I want to deal with it later, but as they are finding it so hard to understand, I shall also rehearse it a little now. In any mature democracy, the extent to which human rights, parliamentary sovereignty and the democratic will of the people have to be negotiated around each other is part and parcel of modern life. That is part of a mature democracy and the constitutional settlement that we accepted when we helped to draw up the European convention on human rights. It is clear that Opposition Members cannot carry in their heads the idea that those issues cannot be reduced to simple edicts and are not one-dimensional. We are here to deal with the extent to which human rights, sovereignty and democracy have to be worked out in a democratic system.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she has been patient and has hence contributed to the debate. I do not seek simplicities. Does she recognise that there are times when the democratic will and the convention as it is interpreted by the judges may come into conflict? She appears to do so, as she refers to negotiation. In that case, who is to prevail in the negotiation and by what mechanism and against which criteria will they do so? That is our question.
  Beverley Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, those issues are not new. For 50 years, we have been considering the extent to which human rights butt up against parliamentary decisions and the laws of this country. What Governments of every complexion have had to do in that situation has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They have to consider whether their obligations to the international community and international law should prevail. So far, those are the decisions that Governments of every hue have decided are important. Those are the issues that any Government face. What we are getting down to is what the Conservative party is thinking about as a solution to some of those dilemmas, but perhaps does not dare mention.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Beverley Hughes: Yes, I am a lady.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government's view that if an ECHR ruling found against the UK Government, they would accept that judgment, as all their predecessors since we ratified the treaty—we were the first country to do so—would have done and amend the law accordingly? Therefore, if the Home Secretary were found not to be permitted by the convention to set tariffs for adult life sentence prisoners

  617
  or others, the Government would accept the ruling and the judgment that such sentences should be set by the courts and not Ministers of the Crown?
  Beverley Hughes: I can say that we have no intention of reneging on our obligations under international law or of pulling out of our commitments to working with other countries on all those issues and being part of the family that subscribes to the convention. Indeed, major changes to our law have followed as a result of decisions of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The judgments were not always convenient at the time, but in the end, all Governments, whatever their hue, have put the rule of law above political considerations. I repeat that that is what a mature constitutional democracy is all about.
  My point is that most of what the Opposition spokespeople are complaining about—this is reflected in the confusion in their motion—comes not from the Human Rights Act, but from the ECHR.
  I listened carefully to hear whether the Opposition would commit themselves to denouncing the whole ECHR as is technically possible. Is that their real agenda? That would be something when all Europe—west and east—accepts the ECHR, inconvenient though its outcomes may sometimes be, as the bottom line of civilised behaviour. The Human Rights Act does not change the ECHR or our international legal obligations under the treaty in any way. It does not change one word of convention rights, but allows us to enforce those basic rights in our courts rather than having to pursue them in Strasbourg.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Beverley Hughes: I shall finish this point first, because I have been fairly generous in giving way.
  The Act is primarily about access to justice in our own courts. Of course, it is true that our judges, and not those in Strasbourg, are more likely to hand down decisions that may ask the Government to think again. I wonder whether the Opposition prefer such judgments to come from Europe or from our own courts. We know what answer the Strasbourg court gives to that question, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has already referred to it. It gives what it calls a large margin of appreciation in favour of domestic legal systems—and quite right too.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister seemed to be coming to the nub of the argument, but then shied away from it. If I understand her correctly on mandatory tariffs for life sentences, she appeared to suggest that the Home Secretary would legislate to overturn any possible decision taken by the House of Lords but might, if the decision went against him at the European Court of Human Rights, accept that. Is that the position? Would he legislate if the House of Lords were to tell him that a sentence were contrary to the convention but would accept the decision of the court in Europe itself? The House is entitled to know.
  Beverley Hughes: The House is entitled to know when we know what the House of Lords judgment will be.
  618
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said, the hon. Gentleman's speculation is entirely premature. We will face the issue if and when we meet it.
  The Opposition's second argument is that our current system of subscribing to the ECHR, and the Human Rights Act's incorporation of that, takes power from Parliament and puts it in the hands of judges. However, as we are already signatories to the convention, the Act simply means that British rather than European judges are allowed to pass judgment. The Attorney-General rightly pointed out this month in relation to the Guinness four hearing that Parliament could today legislate deliberately and incompatibly with a convention right. The domestic courts would, of course, be obliged to give effect to Parliament's expressed intentions.
  The Act is about the rule of law and not about the rule of lawyers and judges. It is crystal clear about parliamentary sovereignty. I refer Members to sections 4 and 6 that make it clear that the courts can issue a statement of incompatibility if they believe that primary legislation is incompatible with convention rights. However, that is not a strike-down power of the kind found in legislation in some other countries. Section 4 (6) clearly states:
  "A declaration under this section ('a declaration of incompatibility')—

  (a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and

  (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."

  That is not to say that a finding of incompatibility does not matter, but neither should incompatibility in the way that the Opposition see it be regarded as a defeat or as a disaster for democracy.
  As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, my Department faces some challenging decisions, and we are not alone in that. However, the Conservatives need to have a more mature perspective on such issues. Let us consider some past cases. Did parliamentary sovereignty, democracy or liberty crumble because the Court of Appeal used the Human Rights Act to challenge the Prison Service's blanket policy on taking all babies away from their mothers at the age of 18 months? I do not think that they did. The decision gave us an opportunity to consider the matter again. To put it simply, the judges were telling us that we could have a general policy, but that we had to be sure that it did not suffocate individual rights.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Beverley Hughes: No, I want to make progress because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Similarly, was it a disaster for democracy to hear that the Court of Appeal also applied the Act to overturn a system of in-built bureaucratic delay in which a tribunal made people wait eight weeks after making an application? It was not.
  Another misconception that the Tories, or at least some of them, have is that Europe forced the Human Rights Act on us. They should know—perhaps they will tell the Daily Mail—that the ECHR is not Euro-law from Brussels. It results from Winston Churchill's creation, the Council of Europe. They do not understand that the Act was not an imposition, but a

  619
  policy choice. It was the result of a clear manifesto commitment that the Government made to enable people to achieve their rights in this country.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to traditional British liberties that have served our country well for so long. Two centuries ago, John Wilkes could talk of the liberties of Britons to do what the law did not forbid. Since then, successive Governments have passed thousands of laws while, in the meantime, other countries set out the values that they shared in law. The people of those countries enjoyed the benefits of that. Apart from this country, only two developed nations had no constitutional settlement of this kind. Now there are none.
  We need to remember that, 50 years ago, British lawyers helped to enshrine our basic liberties into the ECHR. However, people could claim them only in Strasbourg. One thing perplexing about the Tories' approach to the issue is that they try to portray the ECHR as counter to British values, our way of doing things, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy and concepts of liberty as outlined in their motion. In fact, the ECHR enshrines those British values, because those values were incorporated into the convention at the outset.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister referred to views maturing. The Government have adopted the principle of a European constitution, and she knows from the statutes that emanate from the convention that a number of matters clearly set out the idea of making the fundamental charter of human rights legally binding within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That would make it somewhat autochthonous, if I can use that expression. Will she therefore acknowledge that, in relation to the European Court on Human Rights, the Government are giving way to the idea that that jurisdiction could be subsumed into an overriding supreme court as envisaged, for example, by Professor Dashwood's constitutional treaty?
  Beverley Hughes: No, I do not acknowledge that that is the logical conclusion.
  In a democracy, such as that in the United Kingdom, human rights are not an absolutely rigid set of standards to which every other aspect of social and political life must bow. Our intention in incorporating the ECHR through the Human Rights Act was to provide a framework within which important and inevitable dilemmas would be debated.
  Individual rights have to be set alongside the public interest. One person's rights can infringe on the freedoms of others, and Governments have the responsibility of balancing the rights of the individual citizen to freedom with the rights of the people as a whole, for example, to security and protection. Public protection from terrorists, dangerous offenders and others is the prime duty of Parliament; it is the Government's priority too. For individuals, rights are not absolute and unfettered: they have to be balanced with responsibilities.
  Today, the Opposition have shown, yet again, that they are not able to grasp some of those issues. They are looking backwards, not forwards. They are out of touch and that, I fear, is why they are still out of government. The Labour Government have brought the framework
  620
  of human rights into British law—a framework that now allows our courts to help us to strike the balances in the best possible way, as we develop a stronger sense of mutuality between individuals and between people and Government and, in so doing, develop a stronger, more cohesive society in which our international obligations are to the fore. The Labour Government understand that. We are committed to human rights, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy, and we have had the courage to bring those things together in a new settlement that fits us for the 21st century, and does not take us back in the 18th century, where the Opposition would like us to be.
  8.21 pm
  Simon Hughes: Although I need not formally declare the interest, I am a lawyer and I both trained and worked at the Council of Europe dealing with human rights matters, before entering Parliament.
  I welcome the debate because it is on an important issue, although I share the Government's surprise that the subject has been chosen at this time by the Conservative party. There are all sorts of reason for that surprise, including those enunciated by the hon. And learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I understand the position stated by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that one does not have to have a view before testing the view of the Government, but it strikes me that the Conservatives have not answered the fundamental question in the motion, which is whether we in the House, and the parties in the country, think that sentencing ought to be done by judges, or that in some cases the power ought to be reserved to Ministers. On that issue, I have not heard a clear statement of position from a Conservative Front Bencher, and the Government have voiced apparently contradictory positions. I shall happily return later to the Liberal Democrats' position, because this is one of those debates—it does not always happen—in which I can in all honesty tell the House that, on all the issues relevant to the debate, Liberal Democrats as a party have a clear position and has had one for some time.
  Other reasons, not enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, for my sense of slight surprise at the motion on today's Order Paper are first, that I had always assumed that the Conservative party supports the rule of law—I hope that it still does—and secondly, that I have recently and increasingly often heard its leader voice the view that the Tory party must look after the interests of the vulnerable, which is a new approach that I laud and welcome, although we have yet to see whether it would be carried out in practice.
  If one believes in the rule of law and in supporting the vulnerable, who are often minorities of some sort, it must logically follow first, that one accepts the ultimate supremacy of the European convention on human rights, to which we have subscribed for 50 years—indeed, we were the first signatory to it as well as, in large part, its author—and secondly, that one accepts that sometimes the courts will have to stand up for the minority, which Parliament has sometimes failed to do.

  621
  I am therefore concerned about the implication of the position stated in the Conservatives' motion, which is worded as follows:
  "this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing powers of the Home Secretary and in other respects".
  The one example given is the Home Secretary's sentencing power. Unless I have misunderstood the English, noting "with concern" the convention's impact on that power suggests that the Conservatives are not happy about it, which in turn suggests a degree of inconsistency with an acceptance that the European convention is right.
  On the substantive issue, it is important that the House—however difficult it sometimes is to do so in the face of public opinion in part, and tabloid newspaper opinion in particular—stands up for the position that it should be judges who decide sentences and Parliament which sets the law within which those sentences are set. For me, that means that the individual sentence has to fit the individual crime, and for me and my party, it means that there should be no mandatory sentences—none, including for murder. It should always be up to the court to decide the sentence, within the upper limit fixed by Parliament. Taking the example of murder, the reason why it is wrong to have a mandatory sentence is that there is all the difference in the world between a person who premeditatedly plans the most gruesome killing of an innocent victim, and a person who after 30 years of taunting and domestic violence reacts, on the spur of the moment, by killing their spouse. It seems to me wrong to treat both in the same way.
  The other principle that the Liberal Democrats have enunciated clearly—we did so when the Venables case, which came to court after the killing of James Bulger, was reviewed—is that it is logical and right that matters of how long a sentence should be, and then, when a case is reviewed, of whether it is safe for someone to be released, should he determined by a judge., either the original judge or a judge who takes their place. It is wrong that someone's sentence should be decided by a politician, who cannot help but be tainted by his political function. That decision should not be influenced by politics
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, covered the point I intended to make. He knows that I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that judges should determine sentences and that there should be determinant sentences for homicide. However, there is a problem to which he alluded, namely, the public safety. There is some merit in a life sentence that enables the Home Secretary to act if he were persuaded that, at determination of the tariff, the person remained a public threat. That is the one advantage of the life sentence.
  Simon Hughes: I absolutely understand that point, about which the public are rightly concerned and would want us to be concerned. My view is that the matter should come back to the court and the court should determine, on the evidence, whether it is safe to release the person in question. I agree that a safeguard is needed. One cannot know when one is sentencing a person whether it will be safe to release him in 10, 15 or 20 years.
  622
  I wish to give the reasons why all sentences, including life sentences, should be set by judges and not by politicians. First, life sentences—established about 100 years ago—were never intended to be life long; they were intended to be very long sentences that were subject to review. Secondly, the royal commission on capital punishment in 1953—soon after the European convention was signed by the United Kingdom—said that judges should determine the length of sentences, so the argument for change goes back to the beginning of the convention. Thirdly, when that proposal was rejected by Parliament—and we first abolished the death penalty on a trial basis—the Home Secretary was given the power to continue to decide on these matters; not to give him additional powers to extend sentences, but to prevent overlong or unnecessary detention, so the Government could allow for rehabilitation.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right, as one can see from reading the debates. Yet he will acknowledge that Sir Frank Soskice, the then Home Secretary, made clear the reverse argument: that there were some circumstances—because of the behaviour in prison, the character, or the assessment of the person who had been sentenced to imprisonment—in which he might find himself constrained to decide that the person should continue to be detained.
  Simon Hughes: Indeed, the then Labour Home Secretary was very careful and was much respected for his balanced view on these subjects.
  Mr. Garnier: Surely the real reason is the unspoken one, which is that a deal was done. As most members of the public wanted the death penalty to continue, the public had to be assuaged—or, at least, Members of this House who supported the retention of the death penalty had to be persuaded that the Home Secretary would, if necessary, keep people in prison for ever. It was just a dirty political deal.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right; this was a matter where Parliament led public opinion, which had not been persuaded of the argument. We had had cases where Lord Chief Justice Goddard sentenced people to death who were later found to be not guilty. I do not regard the matter as a dirty political deal. I understand why it happened, but we have moved on since then.
  When subsequent Home Secretaries introduced the notion of the tariff, they did so without any parliamentary debate or secondary legislation; it was introduced, as it were, by a Government statement. Many reports of the bodies concerned over the years, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, have recommended that there should be judge-made sentences, not politician-made sentences. That included the last Home Affairs Select Committee report under the last Conservative Government, a Committee that had a Conservative majority.
  The logic of the cases that have been debated here, which came from Strasbourg and dealt first with young people, was that we should apply the same principle to adults. There does not seem to be any logical distinction between the two. By signing the sixth protocol to the

  623
  ECHR, Parliament has prevented itself from being able to reinstate the death penalty, so the reason for the old position has gone.
  In addition, other parts of the United Kingdom have judge-set sentences. Scotland has them, and it is not an issue there. In Scotland, the Justice Minister—my friend Jim Wallace, a former Member of this House—does not set the sentences. In Northern Ireland, legislation is going in the same direction. We have heard the arguments and, around the world, all similar jurisdictions have moved away from the system that we are discussing. Whatever the House of Lords decision may be, sooner or later we should, and we will, have judge-made sentences, not Home Secretary-made sentences.
  Mr. Cash: Surely the hon. Gentleman conceded to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that there were questions relating to public safety. One might give as instances serial killers and paedophiles. How does he square that with what he has just said?
  Simon Hughes: I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am on the record as saying that it should be for the courts to make sure whether somebody who has been given a life sentence is safe to be released. When juveniles become adults, it is my view that there should be the same reassessment. Also—this will be topical in the next Session—the same should apply to people with a history of mental illness or mental disorder. I would far rather that courts made that decision in public, on the evidence, than—with great respect—parole boards sitting behind the scenes. The parole boards have done a difficult job well, but for reasons of public safety and reassurance those decisions should be made in the open.
  My party enthusiastically supported the Human Rights Act in both Houses, believing it to be right and proper for Britain to make the convention directly enforceable. Every Council of Europe country that is a signatory to the convention has now done that, with the exception of Ireland, which is considering doing so and in any case has long had a written constitution and Bill of Rights.
  The Act appears to be hugely successful. In the lecture that has already been referred to, Lord Woolf made it absolutely clear that he considered it to be a good thing and working well, and the other senior judges fully support it. The remedy for a human rights breach is now available far more quickly—one used to have to go to all the domestic courts and then to Strasbourg, and that often led to justice denied.
  The Act means that our courts can now influence the jurisprudence of Strasbourg. It has not been abused, and I think that only one case has resulted in compensation. It means that we scrutinise our legislation for human rights implications more thoroughly. Civil servants have to do that and Ministers have to certify compliance, and the Joint Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), has done an extremely good job on behalf of both Houses, ensuring that every piece of legislation is examined. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues for their part in ensuring that Parliament can do its job properly.
  624
  The Act has made us much more human rights conscious. Official secrets legislation dating from the first world war—passed in haste and repented of at leisure—could never have remained on the statute book so long if we had had this process. That is why, uniquely in the House, my party opposed the derogation in last year's anti-terrorism legislation. I understand the arguments, but we thought it unnecessary, as other remedies are available. We believed that other countries would not follow us in seeking derogations, and indeed they have not.
  The implication in the motion that the Act is inimical to democracy is, as the Minister said, completely flawed. Lord Woolf dealt with that head on at the end of his lecture. The reality is that the best remedy against the excesses of the state—often the Executive, sometimes Parliament—is to have someone outside who can say, "You've got it wrong." It is easy for Parliament to be swayed to support the view of the majority, but often we need to ensure that it looks after the interests of the minority just as much. Lord Woolf made it absolutely clear that occasionally judges are needed to do that job. They may be unpopular at the time, but they are needed.
  We should consider our history, taking in Thomas Paine and the tradition that we have exported to the United States, as well as the French revolution. Going back even further, there is the declaration of rights and, more recently, my party's traditions, with Mill and all the others. We believe that liberal democracy is absolutely rooted in human rights, and sometimes we need something other than Parliament to defend it.
  I pay tribute to those who fought the battle. When I was first interested in politics, I met the then Lord Wade, a Liberal peer, who was fighting to get the Bill of Rights incorporated in law. He kept trying, and it seemed almost cloud cuckoo land to imagine that it would ever happen, but he fought doggedly on and eventually he was proved to have been right. More recently, my noble Friend Lord Lester, who has many years experience in human rights and serves on the Joint Committee, fought hard to secure the legislation. Parliament achieved a balance, saying that it need not accept the court's decision, but accepting that eventually it could be overridden by the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Letwin: No one listening could fail to be impressed by the hon. Gentleman's evident sincerity and the logic of his arguments. Does he accept, though, that there is a difference between using such a structure of argument in the United States, where constitutional amendment is available as a democratic device, and using it in our current circumstances, when we are denying Parliament the ability to contradict the judges' interpretation of a document that Parliament cannot change? Is not that a fundamental difference?
  Simon Hughes: It is a difference, and we could have a perfectly proper debate about that. Unlike the United States, we do not have a written constitution. This country has signed up to a European convention, rather as the states in America signed up to the federal constitution.
  I intended to end on this point, and the right hon. Gentleman leads me to it. The process of our democracy and the defence of human rights is an evolving and

  625
  developing process. I welcome the debate about how Parliament—the legislature—the Executive and the courts interrelate. But for us this will continue to be unsatisfactory in its resolution until we have a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. When we have, the parallel with the United States will be much more obvious, and the citizen will understand more clearly the relationship between himself or herself and the state.
  The great benefit of being brought up in the United States or in France is that young people there understand their rights and obligations more clearly than they do in this country. We still have some way to go. The Human Rights Act was a good start, and independence of the judiciary is an important principle—but there is further work to be done, and further constitutional reform is still urgently needed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches now applies.
  8.40 pm
  Jean Corston: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. I agreed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) when she surmised the reasons why the Conservatives chose this subject for debate this week—but I am pleased to say that the Court of Appeal shot their fox last Friday.
  Such time as I have, I intend to devote not to recent cases in the Court of Appeal, nor to the position of politicians with regard to determining sentences, but to a recently produced pamphlet containing what passes nowadays for thinking on human rights in the Conservative party, including an article by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, entitled "Liberty under the Law" and a foreword by Lord Cranborne.
  The pamphlet says that there is little parliamentary check on the expanding power of the state, which increasingly threatens individual freedom, so the role of protecting individuals from the excesses of state power falls to the judiciary. However, the European convention on human rights, which the Human Rights Act incorporates into British law, has at its heart the protection of individual freedom. As we all know, it was drafted in response to the experience of fascism in the 1930s and 1940s, and is based on the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society. The convention protects rights, including rights to liberty, to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and to privacy—an essential check against excessive intrusion into the personal sphere, which is, in essence, the right to be left alone.
  Mr. Grieve: As I hope I acknowledged in my speech, I recognise the work that is done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the hon. Lady chairs. She will recollect that I also mentioned the provisions affecting education, for vetting to prevent paedophiles and other
  626
  sex offenders from working in schools. There are draconian provisions, for no explicable reason, demanding that people provide bank account details, their mothers' maiden names and other information that appears to be an intrusion into privacy. Did the hon. Lady's Committee have the opportunity to consider that provision before it was enacted? If not, does not that, plus the fact that it was not debated on the Floor of the House, show how poor the ability of the House is—although it is not the fault of the hon. Lady's Committee—to provide adequate scrutiny of issues involving human rights when the Executive chooses to intrude?
  Jean Corston: I do not recall whether the Committee has given attention to that matter, although I would not want to say that I was sure. I am sure that the House can imagine the volume of legislation that the Committee has examined since its inception in January 2001, because it has examined every Bill, both public and private, that has been introduced into either House.
  I shall now proceed, but would you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I take interventions, that will not affect the 12 minutes for which I am permitted to speak?
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the time taken by interventions did not count against the 12 minutes, but the response did.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the position.
  Jean Corston: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yes, I think that I could work that out for myself.
  The HRA does not just "arm the judges", as the right hon. Member for West Dorset put it, to defend freedoms; it places responsibilities on each arm of government—the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary—to protect human rights. It therefore requires everyone acting on behalf of the state to consider the rights and freedoms of the people whom their actions affect. Public authorities must ensure that their policies and practices are in accordance with convention rights. The Human Rights Joint Committee's inquiries—a Committee that I have the privilege of chairing—have shown that this process has had an impact on Government, although it is not as yet consistent across all areas of government, and more work remains to be done.
  Parliament has an equally significant role to play under the HRA. As was said, section 19 of the HRA requires a Secretary of State who introduces a Bill to Parliament to state whether it complies with the human rights protected under the Act. My Committee has taken a prime role in this pre-legislative scrutiny process—to the benefit, I hope, of both Houses. This requirement has given Parliament a new tool to scrutinise legislation for HRA compliance. Since its establishment, the Committee has undertaken this work as its first priority, and it is hoped that its 20-odd reports on Bills and draft Bills have helped Parliament to become better informed about the balance to be struck between conflicting rights, and between rights, duties and responsibilities, when it is making law.

  627
  On page 1 of the pamphlet to which I referred, Lord Cranborne states in the foreword that the
  "judges are not elected and have the right to overrule the decisions of our elected representatives."
  That is not so. The courts have no power to strike down legislation; all that they can do is to make a declaration of incompatibility.
  Mr. Garnier: Judges do have a power to strike down secondary legislation.
  Jean Corston: I accept that, but the foreword makes the sweeping statement that they are not allowed to overrule the decisions of our elected representatives. That is not the case. There has been one declaration of incompatibility that fulfils all the tests laid down by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, according to his freedom test. It concerns the mental health legislation that applied a reverse onus decision to anyone held under its provisions, so that, in order to be released, they had to show that they were not a danger to the public. The court said, probably rightly, that the burden should be on the state to prove that the person concerned was not fit to be released, rather than the other way around. That is the only time in nearly two years that Parliament has been asked to look at a declaration of incompatibility.
  The pamphlet suggests that the judicial protection of liberty under the HRA is uncertain, and may be inadequate. However, the rights incorporated by the HRA are not vague and uncertain generalities. They are underpinned by a comprehensive body of jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in its application of the ECHR to member states of the Council of Europe, including the UK. As they are required to do under section 2 of the HRA, UK courts have, since implementation of the Act, drawn on this rich vein of case law in developing their own jurisprudence on human rights.
  It is therefore a false antithesis to suggest that the HRA has created a paradigm shift in the balance between Parliament and the courts. The evidence does not support this view; nor does it suggest that we are on the brink of a revolution. Judges have always had a creative role to play in the making of the law—what else is the common law? One need only think of Lord Denning and his married women's equity. The idea that judges have always confined themselves to the narrow interpretation of black-letter law is a golden age myth that has absolutely no historical foundation, other than a wholly simplistic reading of British judicial philosophy.
  The HRA is an Act of Parliament like any other. Through it, Parliament has chosen to give the domestic courts more direct access to the jurisprudence of the ECHR, to which the UK has been less directly subject for more than 50 years. Of course, the pamphlet criticises the decision in A v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but we all know what happened last week in the Court of Appeal.
  The next criticism made is that the state's "positive obligations" to protect human rights potentially infringe individual freedom by regulating relationships between individuals. However, not every threat to human rights comes directly from the state. Human
  628
  rights guarantees would be deficient were they not to require the state in certain circumstances to protect rights, as well as to refrain from interference with them. The state's duty to protect rights under the ECHR includes the duty to take steps to protect those known to be at immediate risk from known criminal activity and a duty to protect children from abuse and neglect in the home.
  Under the HRA, the courts are obliged to have regard to the human rights of all those affected by their decisions. The balancing of competing rights is at the heart of the convention system for protection of human rights. Though rights to privacy may place limits on freedom of expression, those limits will be acceptable only when they are in pursuit of a legitimate aim and are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. The positive obligation on the state to protect one right does not therefore authorise unfettered interference with another.
  The HRA is about respect. Page 13 of the pamphlet makes a rather unpleasant reference to homosexuality. It reminded me of what happened when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made a statement about his sexuality. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the chairman of the Conservative party—that is what she calls herself—said that the party was tolerant of such things. It is a matter not of tolerance but of respect. Until the Conservative party understands that, it will stay on the margins of politics.
  Post 11 September and Bali, human rights is the only game in town. Mahatma Gandhi once said that he intended to open the windows of his house to every religion in the world but that he did not intend it to be blown down by any of them. We cannot allow any one religion or religious philosophy, whatever it is, to assume that position. We have to have a common language for humankind, with a set of values that unites us all in an increasingly small world with huge population movement. That language can only be the language of human rights. It is to the Government's credit that they have submitted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. and right hon. Friends are to be congratulated on the motion, because it enables us to discuss issues that are not generally discussed on the Floor of the House. They will doubtless therefore be sorry that I disagree with them on their two principal points and will not accompany them into the Lobby tonight.
  I wish to comment on the tariff powers and, if time permits, to say a brief word about the convention itself. On the ministerial power to set tariffs, I have two preliminary points. First, we need to be clear about what the tariff is and what part it plays in the judicial process. The tariff is but a part of a life sentence. It is set in order to punish the defendant for the offence. To that extent it is like any sentence imposed by the courts. At the expiration of a tariff period, the Minister, together with the parole board, has the right to refuse—or agree—to release the defendant on licence, and during the period of licence the defendant may be recalled for an

  629
  infringement. However, the important point is that the tariff is imposed by way of a penalty. It is, for the reasons that I shall discuss in a moment, a judicial process.
  My other preliminary point is that I have considerable personal experience of the matter. Between 1986 and 1989 I was the Minister responsible for determining tariffs. Indeed, with the exception of the then Lord Chief Justice, I do not suppose that anybody imposed more tariffs—I am advised that I imposed something like 600. That was partly because an awful lot of cases came up to me and partly because my predecessor left an enormous backlog, so I did rather a lot of tariffs.
  It might be helpful if I tell the House something about the process involved in setting a tariff. I admit that this was 12 or 14 years ago, but knowing the way in which officials operate, I do not suppose that it has changed very much in the intervening period and, anyway, the principle holds good. What happens is this: a file is presented to the Minister. On the front page is a document that describes the offence in three or four lines. There then appears the trial judge's recommendation as to minimum sentence tariff, which takes up two or three lines. There then appears the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, which is usually rather longer, unless he simply says "I agree." There then appears the recommendation of the Department. Then there is a little box where the Minister marks his own determination. On the basis of that rather scanty information, a tariff is imposed by the Minister.
  The Minister is acting on pretty scanty material and is probably doing it fairly quickly. As I say, I imposed some 600 tariffs. This may be seen as a clear example of Ministers arrogating to the Executive a role that clearly should be performed by the judiciary. The process that I have described is not subject to appeal or to supervision. It is really the seizure by the Executive of powers properly belonging to the judges, and it is highly objectionable.
  It is said by some, often by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that because Ministers are accountable to Parliament, they are quintessentially the right people to do this sort of thing. To that I say "Rubbish" on at least three counts. First and most obvious, the tariff is a penalty, and I happen to believe that a penalty should be imposed by a judge, not least because the judge knows about the facts of the case while the Minister knows only what is on a bit of paper unless he happens to ask for more detail.
  Secondly, the idea that Ministers are accountable to Parliament on this matter is for the birds. I do not recall that either I or the then Home Secretary, now Lord Hurd of Westwell, were ever asked about what we were doing in this respect. That was rather an omission, as we were in the business of driving up the tariffs, as a subsequent report by the House of Lords made plain. Nobody asked me about the policy, although I would have been quite happy to tell them. However, the idea that I was accountable to this House is for the birds.
  Mr. Cash: Did my right hon. and learned Friend not think that perhaps he was accountable to himself and that he might have acted with a little more restraint?
  Mr. Hogg: On the contrary, I acted with great restraint. Not only that, but I dictated the guidelines to
  630
  the Department that would set out the principles that I would apply. However, that was to perform a role that a judge, not a Minister, should perform.
  I have one further point about accountability. A Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, heavily armoured with his brief and understanding the facts, is not accountable to the House. The House does not have the appropriate processes with which to make a Minister accountable, save in Select Committees. The idea that a Minister will be embarrassed or taxed or supervised is simply an illusion.
  There is a further point. Even if Parliament could hold a Minister to account, it should not do so in respect of individual sentences in individual cases. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to set out general policy, but wholly improper for Parliament to scrutinise individual sentences imposed on individual defendants, because, of course, Parliament is driven by the tabloid press. Too often, Members of Parliament respond to the lynch-mob mentality of the public. Members of Parliament will never know the exact facts of a particular case, or indeed the sentences imposed in relatively comparable cases.
  For all those reasons, I strongly believe that the function is not properly ministerial but judicial.
  Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I share his view. When he was dispensing that type of ministerial justice, did he hold his current view?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes.
  Simon Hughes: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman held that view, surely he is now at liberty to reveal, in general terms, whether the Government discussed changes to the law that would have allowed judges to replace him as the dispenser of so much rather summary justice.
  Mr. Hogg: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I do not remember. I was only an Under-Secretary at that stage. However, I have always held the views that I expressed today and I have always expressed them robustly. I never thought that the function was one for Ministers to perform, but I am not a squeamish fellow, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I never hesitated to perform the functions entrusted to me—even if I thought they were wrong, as I then did.
  I realise that time is running out so I turn briefly to the convention itself. I want to make some general points. It is true that the incorporation into domestic law of the convention has given the judges a legislative function. As a member of the legislature, I understand the objections to that. All in all, however, I am very much in favour of the incorporation of the convention into domestic law. It is wholly right to say that justice delayed is justice denied. If it be right to have recourse to the courts, better by far that people can raise convention-based issues at first instance in the UK courts than have to go to Strasbourg.
  Secondly, and rather differently—it is part of the margin of appreciation—it is to the interests of the United Kingdom that the body of jurisprudence that will emerge on the basis of the convention addressing

  631
  UK issues should actually reflect the views formed at first instance by British trial judges. That is to our interests.
  Finally, I believe that the House does not properly defend the interests of the citizen. As the House will remember, my father delivered lectures on and wrote a book about "the elective dictatorship". We have surrendered to the Executive the control that we ought to have over policy and over legislation. Party—I look at my hon. Friend the Whip—exercises far too much authority over Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend does not even know the name of our Whip.
  Mr. Hogg: I certainly do.
  We need many more independent Members of Parliament. If we had them, we should not need the convention. However, because we do not perform properly our functions—to defend the citizen—better the convention and judge-made protection than no protection at all.
  9.3 pm
  Rob Marris: I fear that I may not be as independent as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) would wish.
  I welcome the debate and am glad that it was initiated. It is good that we debate the role of Parliament and the judiciary in decision making, as the Opposition have urged us, and that we recall developments in the common law.
  I am a non-practising solicitor but unlike many Members who have declared that interest, I do not have a law degree. I took the cheaper route, so I did not have the chance to engage in jurisprudential debates and may have a hazier idea than I should about the origins of the common law.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman now has the chance to find out.
  Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman says, I shall now be able to learn.
  Although the debate is welcome, it is somewhat artificial, as has been mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who rightly said that we were signatories to the European convention before its incorporation into United Kingdom law, and that it was therefore a question whether cases went to Strasbourg or were dealt with domestically. In that sense, there has been no change.
  There may have been a change—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seems to decry this, but he will correct me if I am wrong—in that those who feel that their human rights have been trampled on take the matter to court in the United Kingdom because it is easier to do so. However, that does not seem to be a problem—access to justice is easier for people.
  Mr. Grieve: I did not suggest that that was a problem; I said that it had consequences—I hope that the
  632
  Minister will address them in her reply—and that it appeared that the Minister and the Home Secretary were parting company with the operation of the ECHR and its incorporative Act on some specific issues. I hope that a Government Member will address those points this evening because that is what the debate is all about.
  Rob Marris: What the Minister addressed in general terms was the balance that must be struck between, for example, the right of a state to protect itself, which we have done with the anti-terrorism legislation, and the human rights of individuals. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the issue has not been dealt with fully enough, I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will tackle it further.
  The debate highlights the need to discuss mandatory life sentences. They have been mentioned tonight and, no doubt, will be debated again. Some of the drive for the debate comes from that issue. I am uneasy about mandatory life sentences for murderers, because they have led us into problems. The abolition of the death penalty was an historic compromise, but we moved beyond that with the signing of the sixth protocol.
  We experienced the same difficulty with the abolition of the death penalty. One practical reason, in contradistinction to the forceful moral arguments, why the death penalty was abolished was that juries would not convict in many cases because the penalty—death—was so draconian. There is a similar situation now, understandably, with survivors of domestic violence. They can be charged with murder because their actions fulfil the letter of the law on murder, but juries will not convict because it would mean a mandatory life sentence for those women, and so difficulties arise. There is a bending of the law on provocation, diminished responsibility and so on, so we need to look again at mandatory life sentences.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield talks about the limits to be imposed by the House on judges' discretion. One of the things that made me proud to be a solicitor was that, when the iron curtain came down in 1989, the countries in eastern Europe advanced two key demands. One was for parliamentary democracy and the other was for the rule of law, because they did not have an independent judiciary, as we have had for centuries. That is important, but one has to debate the balance between the power of the judiciary and that of the House of Commons as sovereign body.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to rights disappearing down the plughole, but I do not recall him giving the House any example of what those rights were. He focused on mandatory life sentences and the Home Secretary's powers of review.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman gives a straightforward example. The original intention was that a murderer should serve a life sentence. That is how the public perceived the sentence, even though a person might be freed long before spending the whole of his life in prison. That principle has gone down the plughole. There can be no doubt about that, as the hon. Gentleman will probably agree, but the public and the House have not debated that issue.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman replies eloquently, but I think that the record will show that he used the word "rights" in the plural. and he simply mentions one right now.

  633
  The first few lines of the Opposition motion state:
  "That this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing power of the Home Secretary and in other respects".
  I must say that the official Opposition have been singularly quiet about what they mean by "in other respects". We have had references to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Rob Marris: If I may, I shall make some progress and give way in a moment.
  We have had reference to SIAC, section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, teacher vetting, the early release of prisoners and how much power a prison governor has. Does that encompass what the Opposition mean by the words "in other respects", or is there more to it than that?
  Mr. Cash: To accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation, a vast range of matters and a huge number of cases exist in which the discretion of the Secretary of State arises, including matters such as extradition and deportation. The list is endless.
  Rob Marris: The list may be endless, but the House would perhaps benefit from a more expurgated list. Members can take a balanced view of whether the Home Secretary has too much discretion. I hope that, later in the debate, official Opposition Members will fill out the picture, especially in relation to the fine words in the last two flowery lines of the motion. They sound good but do not mean much to me in the context of the debate. They refer to:
  "a lasting settlement that can bring the Human Rights Act 1998 into conformity with the democratic will of the people and the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long."
  I would like some flesh on those bones, and it is fair to ask the official Opposition to provide some.
  This is an Opposition debate—a chance for the Opposition to advance a clear view on an area of their choosing. I must say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues that I do not think that he has done so. He has thrown together a hotch-potch of criticism and questions. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked the Minister whether it was right that one should always have a fixed view.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Rob Marris: I shall make a little progress.
  Of course, one should not necessarily have a fixed view, but I would have hoped, given that the Opposition called for the debate, that their views would be more fixed. I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amount of time left is diminishing, and several hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has had a fair share of the debate.
  Rob Marris: I urge the hon. Member for Beaconsfield or the right hon. Member for West Dorset to put more flesh on the bones, use more intellectual rigour, and put more definitive views to the House on an important topic of the Opposition's choosing.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): May I start by asking whether it is strictly necessary for declarations of interest to be made in a debate on this subject? There are several members of the Bar and solicitors in the Chamber, but we are all taxpayers, too, and we do not declare that we are taxpayers when we discuss the Budget. Although I am prepared to admit that we are members of the Bar, why should we need to declare that when discussing this legislation—[Interruption.] I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) did not declare his Bar membership, but he does not do all sorts of things, which is probably just as well.
  The remaining power of the Home Secretary in relation to those with life sentences relates only to adults. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Thompson and Venables, the murderers of Jamie Bulger, it seems that the Government have accepted that the Home Secretary should have no say in the length of time spent in custody by a young offender following a conviction for murder, and that that matter should now be dealt with entirely by the sentencing judge or judges reviewing the sentence thereafter. On the face of things, it is therefore logical that the Home Secretary should behave as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham suggests, and leave the setting of minimum tariffs to the courts. That is, as one would expect from him, an entirely rational argument. He enjoyed making it and believes it can withstand all counterargument.
  I accept that the British constitution is not a tidy document. It is to be found in a mixture of Acts of Parliament, treaties, common law, unwritten conventions and good old-fashioned political deals. When the death penalty for murder was abolished in the 1960s, an unspoken deal to placate those who were against abolition appears to have been brokered by which the tariff-setting power was retained in the hands of the Home Secretary. Just as neither Parliament nor the courts interfered with the Home Secretary's exercise of the prerogative of mercy, so they have not interfered in his tariff-setting powers in life-sentence cases since then. Listening to my right hon. and learned Friend, it is clear that most of us did not know what the Home Secretary, through his junior Minister, was doing.
  The majority in this country would like the return of the death penalty. I am not part of that majority, and I am glad to say that their demands are held in check, or the ferocity of them diminished, by the powers of the Home Secretary to set the tariff in former capital cases. My right hon. and learned Friend's amendment would upset that and expose to danger the very necessary release valve that holds that aspect of public pressure in

  635
  equilibrium. The passage of the Human Rights Act has upset that, too, as his amendment and the current case before the judicial committee of the other place—the Anderson case—make clear.
  The British constitution is guided more by what is reasonable than by what is strictly rational. The problem with my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is that it is desperately rational but not always reasonable. The constitution works because whereas rationality is rigid, the concept of reasonableness is flexible enough to take account of changing circumstances, social mores and public opinion. It is noticeable that the Government amendment does not tackle either the Opposition motion or my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment head on, but tries to sidestep the issue. The Minister did not seem to know where she was. She came prepared with a speech that had no bearing on what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said and no one is the wiser or better informed for her contribution.
  The Minister and her Government are the very people who introduced the European convention into our law through the Human Rights Act. They can hardly be seen to be agreeing with arguments that criticise them, expressly or by implication, either for not going far enough or for not anticipating the consequences of their own legislation. They have no excuse for not anticipating some of the consequences of the Human Rights Act, however. They were made clear beyond doubt by my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place when it debated the Human Rights Bill, and by Sir Nicholas Lyell and myself as shadow Law Officers when the Bill was before this House in the last Parliament.
  One matter that we drew to the attention of the Government was the likelihood of a constitutional collision between the judiciary on the one hand and the legislature and the Executive on the other. When faced with an Act of Parliament or secondary legislation that makes little sense, judges will, properly, construe it in such a way as to make the most sense of it that they can. Sometimes it will happen that judges looking at some ill-considered or unconsidered legislation—there is plenty of that under this Government—will reach a conclusion that appears to be intended by the legislation but that is contrary to the European convention, and they will have to say so. That is inconvenient for the Government because they want to be seen, especially in criminal justice and asylum law, as tough and effective, and as the friend of the victim and the tireless enemy of the criminal and the illegal immigrant. Had such laws been suggested, let alone passed, by the last Conservative Government, they would have drawn howls of anguish from Labour Members as too draconian, but they are this Home Secretary's daily diet.
  The Government are, of course, the very Government who also want to be remembered for having, as they so charmingly but inaccurately put it, brought human rights home through the enactment of the Human Rights Act. That is why their amendment is framed as it is. It enables them to look in two directions at the same time and explains why Labour Members always look so uncomfortable during such debates.
  636
  If the House of Lords in its judicial capacity decides, as it may well do in the Anderson case, that the convention requires the Home Secretary to surrender his tariff-setting powers, I get the impression that the words in the Government amendment:
  "is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people",
  are there to let us know that the Home Secretary will simply legislate to recover the power that the judges take from him. Having, as they put it, brought human rights home, and, in so saying, forgotten or shown their ignorance of the centuries of judicial work that protected and enhanced the rights of the citizen against the power of the state, the Government now want to ignore what the European convention requires.
  The Government did that last year, following the 11 September outrages, when the Home Secretary declared a state of emergency so that he could take this country outside the convention and pass emergency legislation that was plainly in breach of it. In one sense that was an advance because at least it showed that the Government had thought about the convention, rather than rubber-stamping the ministerial statement of compliance on the face of every Bill that they put before us.
  I know that the Human Rights Act was framed in a way that prevents judges from striking down primary legislation and that the Government can thus safely pass any such legislation. Having, by passing the Human Rights Act, placed themselves in a position of facing applications to the courts that challenge the Home Secretary's sentencing and other powers, and having, as I expect that they will, lost the Anderson case in the House of Lords, they will look inconsistent and somewhat unsure of the philosophy behind the Act.
  Although I candidly admit that I was one of the Conservatives who did not have a fit of the vapours when the Human Rights Bill was enacted, I am one of those who feel that the Government's relationship with the European convention is confused and confusing. They have, through their enthusiasm to look in both directions, caused foreseeable friction between Parliament and the judiciary, and that is not only unwise but unnecessary.
  I turn briefly to another aspect that concerns me: the judiciary's vulnerability to assaults in court—we are, after all, the party that protects the vulnerable. In a written question, I recently asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), how many assaults there had been on various ranks of judge and on court staff in the last five years. She kindly answered on 24 October, and fortunately the figures are fairly low. However, the answer was given the day before a High Court judge was battered in court. If there were one thing that she could do this evening that would enhance her reputation in my eyes, it would be to assure me that the Government will do all that they can to protect judges and those who work in the courts from vicious and foreseeable assaults by disappointed litigants.
  9.22 pm
  Vera Baird: My colleagues who have referred to this as an important debate have been over-generous. I suggest that it is a waste of Parliament's

  637
  time. Either we are being asked to debate, for no particular reason, a theoretical issue that might never arise, or, far more likely, Conservative Members have been caught out by bad timing in a cheap attempt to obtain political advantage.
  The Opposition intended, I suspect, to suggest that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act have limited the Government's ability adequately to protect UK citizens from dangerous criminals and potential terrorists. I think that there are two reasons for the debate. The first is that when its subject was decided the Government had appealed on the point that they had lost at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, namely that the detention provisions in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are discriminatory and therefore breach article 14 of the convention. The Opposition clearly thought that the Government would lose at the Court of Appeal in their argument that the detention powers are not discriminatory. The judgment was made only a week ago—too late for the Opposition—and the Court of Appeal agreed with the Government. The Government's victory has totally undermined the Opposition's argument.
  The Conservatives have in their party difficult people who do not subscribe to the core values of the Human Rights Act. Those people would have wanted to say, "The right thing to do with these people is to deport them, regardless of whether they may be tortured or executed. That is not our problem. If we do not deport them, we will be a safe haven for terrorists." That is one view that the Conservatives hoped could be expressed. The other view that the Opposition intended to express through the debate was, "The Government cannot detain terrorists who are not citizens and they will not deport them, so terrorists will run wild in the UK." The intention was to generate a crime panic.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady will have noted that in my speech, I spent most of the time dealing with the tariff for mandatory life sentences. I recollect appearing with her on a television programme last week to deal with that very point. She was extremely supportive of the Home Secretary's position, but I do not recall her at that time telling the world at large that she considered that an irrelevant topic for discussion. I would have heard it if she had said so.
  Vera Baird: The louder the hon. Gentleman shouts, the more prominent his weak arguments become, and the clearer are the motives of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  I shall deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. The Government are waiting for the judgment on the Anderson case involving a challenge to the ministerial setting of tariffs for life sentence prisoners. The claim that the administrative policy whereby the Home Secretary sets tariffs is incompatible with article 6 has given rise to much media and Opposition speculation that if the Government lose, dangerous offenders will be instantly unleashed on the public. That is not the case. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has never suggested it, but others on the Opposition Benches have. Such offenders can be released only if there is a further process by which they
  638
  are judged to be no longer a risk to the public. I am afraid that the fact that the House of Lords adjourned judgment and did not decide against the Government, as the Opposition intended and as foreseen by those speeches, has caused them a terrible embarrassment. Again, they intended to whip up a crime panic.
  There is no choice to be made between democracy and human rights; they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is the hallmark of democracy and of Parliament, because it shows that society rightly values each and every human being. As the Lord Chief Justice put it,
  "Human rights come with true democracy."
  Court cases that test the balance between the individual's and the community's rights are not a reflection on a particular Government, but an inevitable feature of all modern government. There is a common pattern of individuals seeking to test the boundaries of new law. The more legislation is introduced, the more people seek to challenge it.
  The Government have put their case vigorously and are right to do so. They maintain that the powers given by Parliament to the Home Secretary to fix a tariff are right. So far, the Court of Appeal has agreed. The House of Lords may agree. If the House of Lords does not, as the Home Secretary has declared, he is entitled to legislate to enshrine the power. The Opposition are trying to speculate about what may happen after that, if the matter goes to Strasbourg—a situation that will probably not arise.
  Let me tell the House what I think has been happening in the course of legislation dealing with life sentences. Because both the courts and the Government are acting on the basis of the same core values, there has been a healthy process of refinement. In the case of Stafford, the Lord Chief Justice accepted what had been in doubt for some time: that there ought in certain circumstances to be, in effect, a whole-life tariff, which he called a no-minimum tariff—that is, a judge would say, "I can't set a minimum tariff for this because it is so serious a crime." That is a shift brought about by good arguments presented by the Government in court.
  The Home Secretary has in turn accepted that the second part of the discretion, after he has fixed the tariff, as to whether the person is released because they are no longer a threat, should be taken away from the Executive and entirely judicialised. In truth, the litigation has narrowed the ground as the principles have been debated, analysed and refined, all within the framework of the human rights system. The debate is premature because that healthy process is still continuing. It is continuing on Anderson, on the tariff, and in that case it is right to say that the Government's position has been upheld. On the anti-terrorism measure, it is probably better to describe the process as still continuing.
  When cases have gone to Strasbourg against the Government—I believe that the Government have always accommodated the decision—there is the factor of the margin of appreciation, which cannot be ignored. Fair trial rights are, it is right to say, where the margin of appreciation is at its narrowest. It is the discretion of the Home Secretary, which is simultaneously part and parcel of our political processes, which the Strasbourg court insists is the area in which the Government tend to know best and is the place where the margin of appreciation is at its widest

  639
  On Anderson, we have won in the Court of Appeal. There is no decision in the House of Lords, still less has the case got to Strasbourg. Any argument that these matters should be debated before that occurs, granted the healthy process of refinement that has been going on, is in bald terms not about subtle constitutional terms but an attempt to grab a cheap political advantage.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to what he describes as the mantra which is put on to the front of every Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at every such declaration made by a Minister. A healthy process is set up whereby sometimes, if there are disagreements, we write to the Minister concerned. He comes back with his understanding and we write back. There have been some occasions when Ministers have been adaptable and changed tack. There have been times when we have been persuaded that we are wrong. But, there is no doubt that we represent Parliament when we become involved in these matters. There is no doubt that a healthy tripartite dialogue has been engendered between the courts, Parliament and the Executive by the Human Rights Act. They have all worked together.
  The Government are to be congratulated on introducing the ECHR. They are to be congratulated when they fight their corner when faced with clashes between their political will, democratically elected as they are, and the possible rights of a citizen. The citizen is to be congratulated too on fighting his corner. That is not a weakness in the incorporation process but a strength. It is not evidence that the Government have made a mistake. It is evidence that they are mature in their understanding of democracy. If the pamphlet that has been quoted by some of my hon. Friends is evidence of the views of some Opposition Members, it does not reflect a level of maturity that is likely to be attained by the Opposition. I look forward to the further spread of a human rights culture, ranging far and wide, over the years to come. I emphasise that human rights are an enhancement of democracy and not an enemy of it.
  9.33 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: There are only a few minutes left for Back-Bench Members to speak in the debate, but there is a point that should be made before we come to Front-Bench speeches. Almost everyone who has spoken in the debate has high regard for the European Court of Human Rights. As one of a small minority who voted against the Human Rights Act 1998, as it became, I make the point that if we consider the practical policies of government and those who have to do the business of government, we find that the courts do not help human rights but simply undermine the principles of democratic government. I think that the evidence is there. I regret that the Home Secretary, who has undoubtedly virtually exploded when the European court has been interfering with decision making, is not here to explain to us what happens.
  The convention was passed in 1951 and made into law in Britain in 1998. The argument advanced was that it cost a great deal of money to go to the European court and it would be far better to stay in the United Kingdom. I ask Ministers seriously to consider how the court has helped with the decision-making process and in trying to manage our affairs. If Ministers were put in
  640
  charge of the asylum seekers' problem, what the blazes would they do when Government policies designed to enable cases to be dealt with quickly are undermined by the massive extra appeal process that is available through the European convention?
  I am someone who I hope works, as all Members do, for good race relations, but I know that the numbers and the long decision-making process undermine the situation.
  For example, a constituent of mine from Turkey has been appealing in various ways for a total of nine years. Furthermore, when the European Court of Human Rights made its decision on the person whom the Home Secretary recently tried to send back to the place where they had originally applied for political asylum, how did it help the process?
  I ask those who admire the European Court of Human Rights, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who said that its members were much better than MPs, how on earth it is possible to manage a prison while the court is saying that the system that is used to try to control, restrain and discipline long-term prisoners has to be chucked out of the window. How is that possible if there is no power or right to say that a prisoner's amount of time inside is to be increased because he is badly behaved? If somebody were put in charge of running a prison and had that right taken away on the basis of human rights, how on earth would it help them?
  How does it help our democracy when, because of the convention, this Parliament is not even allowed to consider issues about which the public feel strongly and in respect of which the arguments are far from clear, such as capital and corporal punishment? Far from helping democracy, that has undermined the ability of Ministers to deal with practical problems and is making life infinitely more difficult for them. In addition, we should bear in mind that discussions are under way that will bring the powers of the convention into European law. Frankly, when that happens, even the motion, which implies that there may he a case for further consideration or discussion between the parties, would be completely irrelevant.
  The issue about which we should be most worried is the extent to which people are simply switching off from democracy. They do not bother to consider what happens in the House of Commons, because our Parliament has no power in relation to so many of the things about which they care passionately or does not consider them.
  If, by chance, I am right in what I am saying, the question is this: what can we do? The plain fact is that more and more powers have been going to the European courts—both the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. We can do nothing about what has happened in terms of the European Court of Justice or the European Union, but we can do something about the convention. I genuinely wonder whether the House should ask itself what damage we would do and what benefits would come to us if we were to cancel the 1998 Act and repeal the convention. Surely, our Parliament can look after people's entitlements, rights and obligations with far more care and consideration than by leaving the issues to European courts.

  641
  When all the institutions started, we heard people say that they would safeguard freedom, democracy and liberty. We have then seen the courts step in and take more and more powers by stretching the wording of the convention and, as in some recent decisions, by quoting other conventions such as the international covenant on civil and political rights and the convention on the rights of the child, which have not even been discussed or approved by the House of Commons.
  While the Government have heard many learned arguments about the merits of the European Court of Human Rights, I hope that they will ask themselves whether we could better safeguard our liberty and freedom if Parliament took back the powers. In such circumstances, if people did not like the decisions that were made, they could change them or seek to undermine the Government. Currently, the powers of Parliament are disappearing and our democracy is dying. All the powers seem to be going to courts, institutions and organisations over which the people have no control. I therefore hope that the Government, on the advice of the Home Secretary and others who see how these issues work and what the institutions are trying to do, will think seriously about getting rid of the Act that we foolishly passed and which I voted against in 1998, disengaging from the convention and looking after people's freedom and liberty as a democratic Parliament.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. William Cash: This has been an extremely interesting debate, even if the Government's position has proved rather confusing in some respects.
  I should like to begin by making a general proposition, before dealing with a number of the speeches that have been made. In particular. I want to refer to the four famous essays on liberty written by Isaiah Berlin and to "Two Concepts of Liberty", which was written in 1958 and which I had the pleasure of hearing in his lectures at Oxford university at that time.
  There is much to be learned from the wisdom of philosophers, but we as politicians have to reconcile politically the broad concepts mentioned in the motion and those that were enunciated by those such as Isaiah Berlin. I repeat, however, that we must also reconcile the pronouncements of judges—they are the essence of the debate—particularly in the age of judicial activism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stressed and as has been said so often, Parliament's role is the key and at the bottom line. We must determine where the limits between the courts and Parliament should be drawn.
  I also wish to quote directly from the case of Regina v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms, and the judgment of Lord Hoffman. This may reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), but I do not think that I will be able to give all the assurances that he and I would like. None the less, Lord Hoffman clearly states:
  "Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this
  642
  power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words."
  That point runs right throughthe debate and through my interventions on the Minister. On matters of political judgment on issues such as public safety, paedophiles, serial killers, terrorists, deportation and extradition, the fact remains that the House retains the power to be able to take the necessary legislative measures to remedy all previous enactments, including the European convention on human rights as brought into effect by the Human Rights Act 1998. I shall be interested to hear whether the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is prepared to go down the route adumbrated by Lord Hoffman.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: No, as I have only a few minutes left.
  I also made a point of general principle in an intervention, and we must take it on board. This Parliament is having its powers eroded and, however much we are in favour of human rights, our rights are being eroded by the Government's proposals. The Government have already accepted, in principle, a European constitution, and I shall be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary says about a legally binding fundamental charter of rights as put forward by the European convention currently sitting. The charter would be wrapped up in the enhanced powers of the European Court of Justice under many of the proposals that are being made for such a constitutional arrangement. If that issue is not addressed, the question whether we will, in future, be able to amend enactments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 will effectively be overtaken by the powers granted under such a European constitution.
  The Minister failed to answer my questions about democracy and choice and about the legally binding charter of fundamental rights.
  With respect, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) I will say only this: I appreciate that he will vote against the motion—
  Mr. Hogg: I only said I would not be with you.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted to take that sedentary intervention, which is somewhat encouraging. Having regard to the 600 times that he appears to have admitted that he got it wrong, let me quote from "Murder in the Cathedral", when Thomas a Beckett says it is
  "the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason".
  It is even worse than voting against a three-line Whip, which is something of which I have considerable experience.

  643
  It is incumbent upon us to take account of the words of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who said that the European Court of Human Rights is about respect. I understand what she means; the problem is that the question of respect, which is a moral statement, is not sufficient to deal with the difficult questions to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, namely, the necessity of making certain that we, as politicians, strike the balance vis-à-vis the protestations of those who want us to go down the route of universal rights without regard to their practical implications for those whom we represent in Parliament.
  However much merit there may be in many of the principles included in the European convention on human rights, let us not assume that simply because it has been passed into our law, adjustments and calibration are not possible. When we face difficult practical questions, we in Parliament have to reserve the power to make our own decisions, and to do so after that enactment is put into force—not, as was suggested earlier, the power to do so only in respect of legislation that has been passed previously.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) spoke about the Conservatives' apparent denial of the so-called "other respects" mentioned in our motion. I have already referred to a range of them—in fact, I have here seven pages listing cases arising from matters of deportation, extradition and other issues. I can categorically assure him that we have all those matters very much in mind, because the debate deals as much with the question of principle as with the practical points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that this debate and previous ones on the subject raise issues of constitutional collision. Of course, that is true. He echoed my intervention when he pointed out that the Government will have to legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with the assumption that they apparently made previously, that the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 would be adequate to deal with any problems that arose.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is his view and that of his party that we should continue to respect the European convention and always be obedient to the judgments of the court in Strasbourg; and whether he thinks that judges or Home Secretaries should set the tariff for prisoners?
  Mr. Cash: On his second point, the hon. Gentleman conceded in an intervention that there were issues of public safety that could vary the position. As for the more general point—the question whether human rights are ultimately important—of course they are important; we all accept that. It is just that on examination of every jot and tittle of the European convention on human rights, we may find a number of points with which we disagree and which we will have to deal with at a subsequent date—as the Government will have to admit in a few minutes.
  644
  I conclude by referring to some of the wisdom of our great philosopher Edmund Burke, who was dealing with questions of human rights in opposition to that arch-socialist Tom Paine at the end of the 18th century. He said:
  "In England … we have not been drawn and trussed in order that we may be filled like stuffed birds with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of man."
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): We have had an interesting debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) mentioned her hope that the work of the Joint Committee had contributed to the debate. I strongly believe that it has done and I pay tribute to the work of the Committee in scrutinising legislation.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave us an entertaining and astonishing account of the 600 tariffs that he raised and, even more astonishingly, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) intervened to suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should perhaps have exercised more restraint in his decisions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman set out his views on the mandatory sentence. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) clearly set out the reasons why it is ridiculous to pre-empt the decisions of the court in this area.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) set out his and his party's position on the Human Rights Act, while the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to security for judges. That is a tangential point, but I can assure him that the Department takes the issues seriously and has introduced a series of measures to improve security.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) effectively challenged many of the arguments of Opposition Front Benchers, while the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) seemed to forget that the European convention on human rights has been in place for 50 years.
  I come now to some of the points made by Opposition Front Benchers, to the extent that it was possible to follow them. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was utterly baffling. He seemed to argue that the Human Rights Act did not conform to the democratic will of the people and threatened parliamentary democracy. He seemed to argue that because the Government defend cases under the Act, democracy is being undermined. He argued that it was inconsistent for the Government to support the Human Rights Act while ever defending challenges to the Government under the Act. He seemed to be arguing that the possibility that judges could rule an Executive decision or parliamentary statute incompatible with the Human Rights Act meant that parliamentary democracy was threatened. Clearly, that is not the position.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Mr. Cash: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentlemen. I would like to give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, followed by the hon. Member for Stone to hear their individual points. I noticed that the hon. Member for Stone completely disagreed with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and, by contradicting his hon. Friend, gave a clear account of the importance of parliamentary sovereignty under the Human Rights Act. However, the hon. Member for Stone did of course contradict himself later on; perhaps we should give him two opportunities to intervene so that we can hear all three possible views from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having briefly stopped her peroration. Will she answer a specific question that I asked her? We are not talking about challenging decisions or arguing a case. It is the Home Secretary's stated position that if court decisions go against him, he will legislate to ensure that those decisions are overruled. What is the Lord Chancellor's view of that, given that he is the great craftsman of the Human Rights Act? Is that the Government's position? How do they intend to implement it? These are simple questions, which I should like her to answer.
  Yvette Cooper: The Human Rights Act allows Parliament to respond. Parliament can legislate to respond, it can accept a judgment of the court and, because Parliament is sovereign, it can choose to ignore the decision of the court under the Human Rights Act and refer it to the European Court of Human Rights, as has been the case for the past 50 years.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Parliamentary Secretary get down to the nub of the issue? Is the British Parliament able to amend European Court of Human Rights enactments? Is this Parliament able to amend the Human Rights Act 1998, or not?
  Yvette Cooper: Interestingly, that probably gets to the heart of the disagreement between the two hon. Gentlemen. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stone is quite happy with the Human Rights Act. It is the European convention on human rights to which he is fundamentally opposed, because he freaks out whenever Europe is mentioned. I suggest that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has reconciled himself to aspects of the convention simply because it has been in place for 50 years, but cannot cope with the Human Rights Act because that was introduced by a Labour Government.
  Of course, Governments can strongly support the Human Rights Act and still take a strong view on whether an individual decision or statute is compliant with it. Of course cases may be found against the Government, and then it is for Parliament to decide how to respond.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Yvette Cooper: Of course I will give the hon. Gentleman a second opportunity to disagree with himself.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister really is talking a lot of nonsense. Will she please answer the simple question, are the Government prepared to amend the Human Rights Act in line with some of the statements made by the Home Secretary, to rectify the unfairness to the British people that it can create?
  Yvette Cooper: Rectify what? Conservative Members seem to be calling for a Human Rights Act that is drafted to be whatever Parliament says. They want it to be continually compatible with anything that any member of any Executive does, and with any parliamentary decision. it is not clear what kind of Act that would be. They must recognise that, logically, they are arguing for pulling out of the European convention on human rights..
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) cannot quite bring themselves to say that explicitly. In his recent pamphlet, the latter set out what he means by
  "the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long"
  as the motion says. He said that it was a matter of
  "a freedom attaching to those who were British Citizens",
  not foreign nationals. Not for him, then, any concept of a common humanity regardless of birth or beliefs, or any recognition that people in other countries have rights, too. The logical extension of what he and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield have argued is that we should pull out of the convention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then they should get up and say that they are committed to staying in the convention.
  Luckily, the hon. Member for Stone is not so squeamish. Back in 1995, he wrote in The Independent:
  "We would lose nothing if we withdrew from the court and the convention; we would barely notice it."
  Now he seems suddenly to have decided that Europe is perhaps not such a bad thing after all. This is an amazing conversion to the European cause. We have been signed up to the convention for more than 50 years. British lawyers helped to draft it and it reflects many of the values set out in our common law. The former Conservative Lord Chancellor, David Maxwell Fyfe, was involved in the drafting and debate. Past Tory Governments have accepted it, accepting the court's judgments and the rule of law. Even Margaret Thatcher did not try to pull out of it.
  The really absurd thing about the position of the hon. Member for Stone is that he fails to recognise that the Human Rights Act brings the convention back home, allowing the rights to be decided by British judges in the British courts.
  At least the hon. Member for Stone is honest about it: he just hates Europe.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:Ayes 133,Noes 350.

  Division No. 331]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bacon, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington. David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Pickles, Eric

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Dodds, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Selous, Andrew

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Simmonds, Mark

  Francois, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Spring, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Goodman, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hague, rh William

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  648

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, rh Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Chris Grayling and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barrett, John

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, rh David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Breed, Colin

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doughty, Sue

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cairns, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chidgey, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gardiner, Barry

  649

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hancock, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harvey, Nick

  McDonnell, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDougall, John

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  MacShane, Denis

  Heyes, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hodge, Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Holmes, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Illsley, Eric

  Moffatt, Laura

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mole, Chris

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moran, Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Munn, Ms. Meg

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Organ, Diana

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Owen, Albert

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lamb, Norman

  Plaskitt, James

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  650

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Prescott, rh John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Reed Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

  Tipping, Paddy Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ruane, Chris

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winnick, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

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

  Wright Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Dan Norris and Joan Ryan

  Stevenson, George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people; and further notes that the Human Rights Act enshrines the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6),

  FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Modification of Enactments) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Local Access Forums (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1836) dated 15th July 2002, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall apply to the Social and Environmental Guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th June, as if it were a draft instrument to which that Order applies, and that the draft Guidance be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to Modernisation of the House of Commons, Parliamentary Questions, and Amendments to Standing Orders not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Ordered,
  That, on Thursday 7th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mrs Jacqui Lait be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr Peter Atkinson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Consumers for Health Choice
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: I would like to present a petition on behalf of 500 or so of my constituents about the European food supplements directive.
  The petition
  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 requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And your petitioners duly pray,
  To lie upon the Table.

  Sue Penney
  10.19 pm
  Shona MeIsaac: I am honoured to present the petition of Sue Penney and 2,384 others concerning the dangerous, inappropriate use of mobile phones by motorists while driving, a practice that has led to loss of life in this country.
  The petitioners therefore
  Request that the House of Commons pass legislation which will make it a criminal offence for a driver of any vehicle to use or operate a mobile phone while in control of that vehicle.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Consumers for Health Choice
  Mr. David Rendel: I present a petition similar to that presented by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The petition is signed by more than 1,000 people resident in west Berkshire and the surrounding areas.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its Supporters.
  Declares that consumers in the U.K. 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 Medicine 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 requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  HIV/AIDS (Africa and Asia)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.20 pm
  Norman Lamb: I want to raise one of the biggest and most important development challenges facing the international community: how to tackle the appalling tragedy of HIV/AIDS. On its own, that disease will make it impossible to achieve the millennium target of reducing by two thirds the rate of infant and child mortality by 2015.
  HIV/AIDS has already ravaged Africa and continues to take a terrible toll across the whole continent as it is beset by famine—an issue to which I shall turn later. Asia is set to become the next continent to be devastated by the virus unless action is taken urgently.
  What is the current situation? Worldwide, an estimated 40 million people are HIV-positive, and 14,000 more individuals are added to that total every day. Of that 40 million, horrifyingly, 28.5 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. UNAIDS—the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS—confirms that the figure includes 9 per cent. of all those aged between 15 and 49, and equates to 70 per cent. of the world's HIV-positive population, with more women being infected than men.
  Last year, of 3 million deaths from AIDS worldwide, 2.2 million were in sub-Saharan Africa. Average life expectancy in the region has decreased from 62 to 47 as a result of the epidemic, and 14 million children aged up to 14 have been orphaned worldwide due to the virus.
  In some sub-Saharan countries, the picture is even bleaker: in Zimbabwe, 33.7 per cent. of people aged 15 to 49 are HIV-positive and in Botswana, the figure is 38.8 per cent.
  When I visited South Africa in February, I met some very brave HIV-positive women who told of the awful stigma that they face as a result of the disease. They are unable to tell their friends about it because of the impact in the community. They also spoke of the appalling myth in much of southern Africa that if one has sex with a child it cleanses the body of the illness. Those are some of the dreadful human impacts of the disease.
  In Asia, things are worsening. The Chinese Government recently confirmed the UN's fears by stating that at least 1 million of its citizens will be HIV-positive by the end of the year. That is widely believed to be an underestimate, as we were told when we were in the area earlier this year.
  In the northern province of Henan, infection rates of up to 45 per cent., due to infected blood, have been found in some villages. With almost 4 million HIV sufferers, India has the second highest total number of cases of any country in the world, after South Africa. In Thailand, despite much progress in tackling the disease, the virus affects about 700,000 people. It was spread initially due to the sex trade in that country. The figure is higher than in any other east Asian country and represents the biggest cause of death.
  UNAIDS programme development director, Dr. Werasit Sittitrai, summed up the crisis starkly:
  "The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Asia and Pacific region is at an early stage. This means we have time, but the time is running out. In the next few years, if we cannot contain the epidemic, the size
  654
  of infected and affected populations in this region will dwarf those of other regions combined. The social and economic development gains that countries have invested in will not be achieved."
  That depressing prediction is borne out by the contents of a report published by the US National Intelligence Council on 30 September, in which it is estimated that 10 million to 15 million people in China will be HIV-positive by 2010, with the total in India rising to between 20 million and 25 million. Although those totals might represent small percentages of the populations of those countries, the possible social and economic effects if the epidemic reaches such levels in the next decade certainly cannot be underestimated.
  It is estimated that India's gross domestic product could fall by 1 per cent. a year as a direct result of HIV/ AIDS. Many firms that operate in South Africa have been suffering from the effects. For example, Standard Chartered bank has calculated that some 10 per cent. of its whole African work force is off work at any one time because of AIDS-related illnesses. Another impact in affected areas is that inward investment, which is essential for economic development, is discouraged.
  I want to comment on the impact of HIV/AIDS on the famine that is afflicting much of sub-Saharan Africa. It is clear that HIV/AIDS is exacerbating the famine. Many non-governmental organisations working in the area confirm that, although the drought in recent months has been less serious than that back in 1991–92, the added effect of HIV/AIDS has substantially exacerbated its impact. The most productive age group has been the hardest hit, bringing with it damaging falls in productivity, not least in the all-important agricultural sector.
  In answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled, the Secretary of State for International Development said that
  "in some countries, households and villages are losing from 10–50 per cent. of agricultural productivity due to the disease".
  She continued:
  "At a family level, food production has fallen by as much as 80 per cent. when the main producer is affected."—[Official Report, 22 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 196W.]
  According to Save the Children, the epidemic is one of the trigger factors that has helped to tip the balance in many areas between an already very difficult humanitarian situation and a large-scale crisis of hunger and destitution. The shockwaves will continue to be felt in the future due to the loss of so many experienced farm workers to the virus.
  Philip Mthobwa and Gemma Brugha, co-founders of the Likulezi project in Malawi, report that some of their 300 unpaid volunteer staff are now HIV-positive. They also confirm that, in Malawi, there is minimal income generation due to the vicious circle of illness, food shortages and the effect that those factors have had on an almost exclusively rural economy.
  The African epidemic is not confined to the poor, so professional, managerial people are also being affected.
  I want to deal now with the action being taken to address the epidemic. First, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria must be welcomed as a means of focusing further attention on the need to fight the epidemic. However, the fear remains not only that it has created an unnecessary additional tier of bureaucracy through which funding is channeled, but that it is also

  655
  seriously under-resourced. While supporting the principle of the fund, Christian Aid has described it as a case of "fighting HIV/AIDS with peanuts". Oxfam has said that it is
  "in danger of delivering little more than false hope".
  On examining the facts, that pessimism does not appear to be ill founded.
  The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called on the international community to increase overall spending on HIV/AIDS to $10 billion a year by 2005. However, total pledges to the global fund for the next five years amount to just $2.1 billion, which must of course go towards the fight against not just HIV/AIDS, but TB and malaria—pernicious diseases in themselves. That level of funding is wholly inadequate to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  I welcome the commitment, confirmed by the Secretary of State in a written answer to me earlier this month, to increase the spending of the Department for International Development on HIV/AIDS programmes in Africa by £180 million in this financial year. The Government are also committing $200 million to the global fund.
  However, Oxfam has calculated that if the UK were to provide its full share of the estimated $10 billion annual requirement for combating HIV/AIDS, that would be a slightly more than threefold increase in our contribution to the fund. If we are serious about tackling the epidemic and about the continued value of the global fund, and if that is to amount to more than rhetoric, we should consider increasing our contribution to an appropriate level to meet the challenges that lie ahead, and we should persuade other industrialised countries to pay their fair share.
  However, the global fund suffers from other practical problems. Its director, Dr. Richard Feacham, has said publicly that the fund imposes a significant administrative burden on countries that must already deal with many different donors. Representatives of the Likulezi project in Malawi, which I mentioned earlier, said that some non-governmental organisations were adding HIV/AIDS elements to their projects simply to obtain resources from the global fund, but were then failing to meet the requirements of work to tackle the disease. Those kinds of difficulties should be addressed if the grand idea is ever to prove truly effective.
  Furthermore, there is the danger that the fund seems to circumvent existing health infrastructures by way of grandiose interventions: for instance, the supply of antiretroviral drugs without any means of administering them or without an infrastructure to ensure that they are administered properly. It is essential that the fund addresses the current inability of basic health and social infrastructures in those countries to cope with the epidemic. Funding must be injected into the provision of vastly improved primary health care services, including investment in human resources, if there is to be any chance of halting the tide of infection.
  On debt relief, I want to deal with the unsustainable debt repayments that are such a burden on many HIV/ AIDS-affected nations. Oxfam has reported that Zambia, where 1.2 million people are affected, spends 30 per cent. more on debt repayments than on health. That picture is repeated across much of sub-Saharan Africa. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I hope
  656
  that the Minister and the Secretary of State will be at the forefront of an international effort to reform the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Many countries need properly co-ordinated HIV/AIDS strategies if they are to meet the millennium development goals, but they are unable to implement them due to the burden of debt. Clearly, that is unacceptable.
  On anti-retroviral drugs, major progress must be made in making good-quality ARVs available in developing countries at cheaper prices. Family incomes are too low to allow the purchase of such drugs. In Uganda, for example, only 0.3 to 0.5 per cent. of the country's HIV sufferers are reported by Oxfam as having access to that life-saving treatment. Prices have fallen as a result of the availability of cheaply produced generic forms of ARVs, and competition between generic drugs can reduce the price further, but it is essential that the commitments made at Doha are honoured so that the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights rules do not prevent export of generic drugs from countries such as India. There are indications of some backsliding since the commitments were made in Doha.
  Education and awareness building constitute perhaps the most important of all the targets for individual countries to make a political commitment, from the top down, to tackling the disease, as they are vital in communicating a clear message about prevention. Many examples of good practice can be found in affected countries: notably, partnerships between national ministries of health and education, and the full engagement of local government. Several imaginative ideas are emerging. I recently attended the launch of BBC World Service Trust's partnership with India's National AIDS Control Organisation and national television network, which is aimed at increasing HIV awareness. Likewise, a version of the children's programme "Sesame Street" broadcast in South Africa now includes an HIV-positive character.
  Bearing in mind the low level of knowledge about the virus in many infected areas—South Africa is perhaps one of the worst examples because of the failure of the leadership under President Thabo Mbeki to tackle the problem—such projects can be of enormous value.
  There has been a steady fall in the overall infection rate in Uganda thanks largely to a national programme with support from many different groups and organisations. That has led to the provision of much more widespread sex education and greater awareness of the need to use condoms. That is not to say, however, that Uganda is an example of perfection. HIV/AIDS is still a national tragedy there and it cannot be fully addressed without also tackling the underlying factors of poverty and economic stagnation. However, Uganda has made an important start.
  HIV/AIDS is too great a humanitarian disaster for us to ignore. Working towards a solution is in all our interests. As things stand, the epidemic will not be contained and is bound to spread beyond current boundaries. Its economic and social effects will undoubtedly lead to increased instability in the affected areas and more failed governance. The shockwaves that that could cause across Africa and Asia, and the rest of the world, cannot be underestimated. As always, it is important that the fine rhetoric that we have heard from

  657
  so many quarters is matched by meaningful and effective action. Indeed, on the occasion of the opening ceremony of this year's international AIDS conference in Barcelona, Kofi Annan said:
  "I will join with you and do my utmost to ensure that our reply to this epidemic is urgent, comprehensive and determined."
  Those are forceful words, but very necessary.
  We cannot allow a situation to develop that would end with the effects of an unchecked AIDS epidemic weighing on the conscience of those who failed to act.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on the very important subject of HIV/AIDS. I also congratulate him on the way in which he presented it by touching on the wide range of issues involved in dealing with HIV/AIDS in Africa and Asia. I want to consider in particular the effects that it is having on those regions. It is not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a huge disaster for the development of Africa, as he outlined. I shall set out my Department's approach to tackling the problem, dealing with the work that we are doing on prevention and treatment and, as he rightly pointed out, the important work that needs to be done to build up health systems.
  HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest threats to the achievement of the goals agreed by all United Nations member states in September 2000. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the goals cover a range of key issues including poverty, health and education, and they are at the heart of my Department's practice. At the United Nations General Assembly special session in June last year, the world community agreed that a much more intensive effort is needed to prevent HIV/AIDS and to improve the care and support for those infected by it. That poses a huge challenge for health systems in Africa and Asia which at present cannot cope. It also means that all parts of Government and civil society have to play their part. HIV/AIDS has long since ceased to be an issue for the health sector alone.
  The hon. Gentleman set out clearly the scale of the disaster in terms of the numbers and I will not go over that again. However, he did not touch on the appalling impact of the epidemic on children, especially in Africa where there are more AIDS orphans than there are children in the United Kingdom. That adds an extra dimension to what we will see in the years to come as a result of the epidemic. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not just a matter of human suffering; the epidemic also seriously undermines growth and social and political stability. In addition, it threatens security. The epidemic compromises all the work that has been done to reduce poverty and conflict and to improve education and health. As he said, it strips out the economically active people, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The problem is made worse by the current famine.
  Poverty and inequality are two key drivers of HIV/AIDS. Dealing with gender inequality is crucial in any strategy to prevent the transmission of the disease. In many countries women and girls are more likely than
  658
  men and boys to be infected and to bear the burden of family support and care of those affected. Physiology increases women's vulnerability to infection, but that is made worse also by the lack of power that girls and women in many societies have over their bodies. That is reinforced by social and economic inequality.
  Higher rates of AIDS-related deaths will lead to large-scale loss of skills and institutional knowledge in the public sector. Education, health services and police forces are of particular concern because death rates may be so high in those sectors that lost workers will not be replaced simply by increasing training or recruitment programmes. The disease is therefore having an increased effect on the very services needed to tackle some of the other problems that it causes. We are also concerned about the impact of HIV and AIDS on Government revenue and expenditure, and about reduced access by the poor to markets. We are concerned for the human rights of those excluded because of the stigma of HIV and AIDS, and we are focusing attention on those whose security has been undermined by HIV and AIDS, especially orphans.
  My Department believes strongly that HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue, and that care for the victims of AIDS must include support for communities that have been ravaged by the disease. That includes not only help in caring for the sick and dying but support for the livelihoods and food security of communities that have lost a large part of their working population. It is, of course, one of the particular characteristics of AIDS that it strikes down those who carry the greatest responsibility for feeding and maintaining their communities.
  My Department is working with other agencies not only to prevent new infections but to ease the impact of AIDS on rural livelihoods and rural development as a whole. We are using a twin-track approach of continuing to fund research so that we can better understand the precise impacts of AIDS on rural livelihoods, while recognising the urgency of funding interventions now in the face of a disaster that is having an appalling effect on so many people. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary of State's concern about that. The extra nutritional needs of HIV/AIDS patients are also having some bearing on the way in which we are dealing with the famine.
  It is important to recognise that progress is being made, and we do not simply have to accept the doomsday scenarios that are so often put forward. We are starting to see evidence in Africa and Asia that the tide of HIV can be turned back. Examples include Uganda, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and Cambodia, where strong leadership at all levels and effective community-based prevention programmes have been key to controlling the epidemic. Uganda has reduced the rate of infection from over 20 per cent. in the early 1990s to about 5 per cent. now. In Cambodia, the prevalence of the disease has been reduced from 2.8 per cent. in 2000 to 2.6 per cent. today—a smaller decrease, but it goes against the trend that we assume to be typical of all countries. For some time, Thailand, where condom use has increased significantly, and Senegal have also been models of good practice in HIV/AIDS prevention. Progress can be made, but there is an urgent need for other countries to learn from these successes.

  659
  Despite those encouraging pockets of success, it is clear that the global response to the epidemic has so far been lacking, as the hon. Gentleman said. A much more intensive effort, which goes beyond the health sector, is needed. African and Asian countries need to learn lessons from each other on how best to tackle the epidemic. My Department will continue to do all that it can to help to facilitate that, and I will outline some of the ways in which we are working to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned debt repayment. I think that he would accept that this country and this Government have led the world in developing a programme of debt repayment. However, he is right to express concerns about the continuing problems of unsustainable debts.
  However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that we cannot see that as the cause of the problems in the provision of the health services needed to counter AIDS.
  In response to the epidemic, DFID has committed considerable resources at the international and bilateral levels. We invested more than £200 million in HIV/AIDS programmes last year. We currently support programmes in more than 40 countries, including major new investments to support the implementation of effective national strategies to combat the illness in countries across Africa and Asia. Our overall programme in Africa is set to increase from £640 million to £1 billion by 2006. HIV/AIDS will remain one of our highest priorities for the region. In Asia our focus will continue to be on preventing transmission of HIV from vulnerable groups to the general population. We have committed US$200 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Considerable extra funding is also going to institutions such as the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Population Fund and civil society organisations in a coherent effort to combat the disease and support people who are already living with it.
  Our strategic response is to tackle HIV/AIDS through both prevention and care interventions, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the strengthening of health systems is a critical issue in the delivery of prevention and care interventions. The ability to deliver community-oriented care and other HIV/AIDS and TB care and support services and anti-retroviral therapy are dependent on properly functioning health systems. Since 1997, my Department has committed more than £1 billion to health systems strengthening, and will continue to support that strongly.
  DFID is driving work to promote international commitment on a package of measures that will facilitate widespread, sustainable, predictable differential pricing of essential medicines in order that such medicines are available to the world's poor at affordable prices and become part of a broader international agenda. We are also supporting work on establishing feasible approaches to increase access to highly active anti-retroviral therapy, and help Governments make informed decisions about their use that is specific to local needs and circumstances. In addition, we have committed an additional £40 million for research into HIV vaccines and microbicides. All these initiatives will benefit the poor in Africa and Asia.
  660
  While we move forward on developing new technologies, it is worth reminding ourselves that many of the strategies available now can be successful against HIV/AIDS. The key to reducing vulnerability to the epidemic is to create an environment that enables women and men to avoid risky behaviour and to have access to and use appropriate services. This requires strong and sustained political commitment to help those who are most vulnerable to be actively involved in designing strategies to meet their needs. The hon. Gentleman stressed the need for that, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Government and civil society need to open up the public discussion about HIV/AIDS, sex, and gender relations and promote openness and respect for the human rights of all people. Explicit commitment to tackling stigma and discrimination is essential. I recently saw some of DFID's work on that in China, and I was struck by the way in which stigma had been dealt with. People were living openly with AIDS in the community. Tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic with all its consequences sometimes appears to be daunting. It is important to emphasise that success against the disease can be achieved, but only if we all work together. In my Department we are committed to doing everything we can, in partnership with others, to help poor people across the world who are infected and affected by the disease, and to prevent it becoming a catastrophe not just to people, but to their societies and the future of their communities. Our Department is committed to achieving that goal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 23 October 2002: at top of col. 375 replace Division with the following:
  "Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 65.

  Division No. 329]

  [10:05 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Alexander, Douglas

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker, Vernon

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Burnett, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  661

  Cotter, Brian

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  MacDougall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McFall, John

  Doughty, Sue

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacShane, Denis

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Michael rh Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Miliband, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mountford, Kali

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mudie, George

  Gilroy, Linda

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hain, rh Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Picking, Anne

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Healey, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Heath, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Prescott, rh John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Heppell, John

  Purnell, James

  Hermon, Lady

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Rammell, Bill

  Holmes, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Rendel, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Ruane, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Kidney, David

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

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soley, Clive

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  662

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, Claire

  Mr. Joe Benton and Tony Cunningham

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Lidington, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Barnes, Harry

  McDonnell, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  McWilliam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Burnside, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Cash, William

  Martlew, Eric

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Moran, Margaret

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Picking, Anne

  Dodds. Nigel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fox Dr. Liam

  Selous, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Gerrard Neil,

  Skinner, Dennis

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gibson Dr Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Syms, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Hanson, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Heald, Oliver

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Young, rh Sir George

  Illsley, Eric

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Andrew Miller and Stephen Hesford

  Lansley, Andrew

  Question put and agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pathologists
  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to set up a group to control the actions taken by pathologists in order to prevent errors in their work. [76630]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  In Northern Ireland, a consultation exercise took place between October 2000 and January 2001 on the document "Confidence in the Future", which addressed prevention, recognition and management of poor performance in the HPSS. The recommendations made in this report are currently being taken forward. Discssions are also ongoing with national bodies such as the National Clinical Assessment Authority on how to put in place further guidance to the HPSS on the management of poor performance when it is identified.

  Animal Sanctuaries
  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards funding animal sanctuaries in Northern Ireland; and if money raised by licences will be used to help fund these bodies. [76967]

  Mr. Pearson
  Animal sanctuaries in Northern Ireland are not required to be licensed under the 1972 Welfare of Animals Act. In line with developments in Great Britain, DARD will be reviewing the need to introduce specific welfare controls on animal sanctuaries, which may include licensing. As part of that review, the issue of funding sanctuaries can be considered but there is no financial provision currently available for such funding. If a licensing fee were to be introduced it is unlikely that this could provide a significant source of income for animal sanctuaries.

  Castle Gardens School
  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the South Eastern Education and Library Board made application to the Chancery Court in connection with the status of the former Castle Gardens Primary School building in Newtownards; and when the ruling by the Chancery Court is expected. [77077]

  Jane Kennedy
  As the South-Eastern Education and Library Board wishes to retain these premises for alternative educational purposes, it has obtained advice of senior legal Counsel about this matter. Acting on this advice, the Board has made contact with Charities Branch, DHSSPS, with a view to the Board being 512W
  appointed as new trustee in place of previous trustees. The application to the Chancery Court depends upon the outcome of this process.

  Fire and Ambulance Service Attacks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents and attacks on Fire Service and Ambulance Service personnel and vehicles have been recorded in each month since January; and what measures he has taken to protect staff of the emergency services. [74176]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Fire Brigade report all attacks and associated incidents as 'civil disturbance' calls. It is not possible to identify the number of actual attacks on the brigade, however, they do record the number of firefighters injured and appliances damaged as a result of these 'civil disturbance' calls. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service record the actual number of attacks on personnel and vehicles. These are detailed in the following table.

  The Government condemn attacks on those who are there to provide a vital service to the entire community. Those who engage in this type of behaviour need to be reminded that some day they or their families may need to call on the assistance of these same emergency services.

  NI Fire Brigade

  NI Ambulance Service

  Month

  Personnel injured

  Appliances damaged

  Personnel attacked

  Vehicles attacked

  January

  2

  11

  0

  0

  February

  2

  7

  3

  2

  March

  1

  9

  6

  2

  April

  1

  18

  9

  1

  May

  7

  19

  7

  2

  June

  1

  9

  11

  5

  July

  0

  13

  7

  4

  August

  0

  9

  11

  2

  September

  0

  8

  7

  4

  Totals

  14

  103

  61

  22

  Firefighters' Strike
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place between the Northern Ireland Office and the Fire Brigades Union on strike action by firefighters. [77626]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The Secretary of State met representatives of the Fire Brigades Union on 6 September 2002. The subject of pay, conditions and potential industrial action was raised and the Fire Brigades Union set out their position, which the Secretary of State noted.

  I met with the Fire Brigade's Union on 24 October 2002 about their proposed industrial action. At that meeting I asked the Fire Brigades Union to reconsider their threat to strike and to co-operate with the independent review which is examining the issues of pay and modernisation.
  513W
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures will be in place to give fire cover in the North Down constituency if the Fire Brigades Union takes strike action. [77627]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  In the event of strike action by the Fire Brigades Union, fire cover will be provided throughout Northern Ireland, including the North Down constituency, by the Army, supported by the Police Service for Northern Ireland, with the strategic deployment of 32 Yellow Goddesses and 19 Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams. Deployment locations for these resources include Belfast and Bangor. These alternative arrangements cannot replicate the current firefighting capability, but will try to minimise the danger to human life. There is also likely to be cover provided by members of the Retained Fire fighters Union in rural locations but the extent of support will not be apparent until near the first day industrial action.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77659]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  In the event of a firefighters' strike, emergency cover will be provided in Northern Ireland by the Army, supported by the Police Service for Northern Ireland, using 32 yellow goddesses and 19 breathing apparatus rescue teams. These alternative arrangements cannot replicate the current fire service capability, but will try to minimise the danger to human life to ensure that day to day activities can continue as normal. Government Departments and the Fire Authority have been involved in providing advice to businesses, public bodies, including schools, and the public on reducing the risk of fire and road traffic accidents.

  The additional costs that may be incurred have not yet been finalised.

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of retained organs at the Royal Victoria Hospital were(a) destroyed after a short period of time, (b) used for research, (c) sent to other hospitals and (d) stored at the Royal Victoria Hospital between 1972 and 2001. [76640]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been held accountable for the errors in organ retention at the Royal Victoria Hospital; and what the ratio of organ retention was during the(a) pre-trust and (b) post-trust periods. [76629]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The Board of the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust has fully accepted all the criticisms and recommendations outlined in the report of the Human Organs Inquiry. No individuals have been held 514W
  accountable, since the actions taken previously were in line with what was considered appropriate professional practice at the time.

  Information is not available on the ratio of organ retention before and after the establishment of the trust.

  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many organs were retained at the Royal Victoria Hospital between 1972 and 2001; what the ratio was between heart and other organs; and what definitions of(a) organs and (b) tissues were used. [76636]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The inventory provided by the Royal Victoria Hospital to the Chief Medical Officer in March 2001 showed that a total of 1,131 organs were retained and stored in the period 1970 and 2001 (including 151 paediatric organs that pre-dated 1970). Approximately one-third of the organs were hearts.

  For the purposes of the inventory an organ was defined as an entire organ or something that was recognisably an organ. Tissue referred to the contents of blocks and slides derived from organs or larger samples. The Human Organs Inquiry used the following definitions: "Organ(s)—a part of the body composed of more than one tissue that forms a structural unit responsible for a particular function (or functions)"; and "Tissue—organs contain tissue, ie collections of cells which give organs their special functions".

  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Mr. William McKee was appointed(a) Chief Executive of the Royal Victoria Hospital and (b) Chief Executive of the Royal Group of Hospitals. [76637]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The information is as follows:(a)Mr. McKee did not hold the position of Chief Executive of the Royal Victoria Hospital. He was however employed by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board as Group Administrator for the Royal Hospitals from September 1988, and as Unit General Manager for the Royal Hospitals from March 1989.
  (b)He was appointed Chief Executive of the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital Health and Social Services Trust from November 1992.

  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy on coroners' post-mortems; and if he will permit bereaved relatives to claim organs retained by the coroner. [76638]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply as I have ministerial responsibility for the Northern Ireland Court Service, which includes the administration of the Coroners Service. A coroner in the exercise of his judicial discretion may order a post mortem examination in respect of deaths notified to him under the Coroners (Northern Ireland) Act 1959. Where organs are removed for forensic analysis following such a post mortem they may be retained for such period as
  515W
  the coroner thinks fit. It is now policy to inform the relatives of a deceased person if any organs have been retained following a post mortem. At a later stage after the cause of death has been established the Coroner will usually exercise his judicial discretion to return the retained organs to the family.

  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Dr. Sodhi was employed as resident pathologist at the Royal Victoria Hospital; and how many hearts he retained after post-mortem during that time. [76633]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  No record of the employment of Dr. Sodhi or of any details of organ retention by him/her is available. This may reflect the fact that records of staff employed prior to the 1980s were not retained.

  Killyleagh Traffic Measures
  Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what progress has been made with the construction of traffic calming measures at Frederick Street and Braeside Gardens in Killyleagh; [77079]

  (2) what progress has been made with provision of a pedestrian crossing in Catherine Street in Killyleagh; [77080]

  (3) if he will erect signs in Killyleagh, directing motorists to the car park in Frederick Street. [77074]

  (4) what progress has been made with investigations concerning the transferring of ownership of the car park in Frederick Street, Killyleagh from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to the roads service with a view to improving the facility. [77078]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The subject matters raised are a matter for the Roads Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to reply directly to the hon. Lady. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Selective Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of selective schools in Northern Ireland. [75227]

  Jane Kennedy
  Extensive consultation on the Burns Report has demonstrated almost universal support for abolition of the Transfer Tests and a predominant view that academic selection should be ended although there was also substantial opposition to this proposal. In light of the views expressed the Department of Education will be meeting with key education partners to build on that consensus and develop new post-primary arrangements that are fair, enable all children to reach their full potential and provide a modern education system for the 21st century.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he has taken to address the housing 516W
  shortage for (a) key workers and (b) tenants of registered social landlords in overcrowded accommodation in Battersea. [76229]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are very aware of the need to provide more good quality affordable housing for both workers and social housing tenants in Battersea and other parts of London.

  By 2003–04 £482 million of the £1.2 billion funding from the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme will go directly to London projects. The Challenge Fund of £200 million is also being targeted on the south-east to increase supply. I expect London to get a significant proportion of this.

  £146 million of the £250 million funding dedicated through the starter home initiative has also been allocated to London schemes. We expect about 4,600 nurses, teachers, police and other key workers to benefit as a result.

  The Government Office for London and the Housing Corporation are working with local authorities to increase the delivery of affordable housing across London. They will encourage and support innovative schemes maximising the potential for redevelopment of local authority and other public sector assets for affordable housing; achieve improvements in planning performance; and identify and get action on blockages to the speedy delivery of sites for affordable housing.

  The Government are aware of concerns that the current overcrowding standards need updating as they date from the Housing Act 1935 and have not been revised since then. We are considering the best way to tackle the problem.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what date he expects the publication of the final recommendations of the Boundary Committee in respect of the periodic ward boundary review for the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council; by what date he expects the recommendations to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [76282]

  Mr. Leslie
  These are now matters for the independent Electoral Commission, to which the periodic electoral reviews functions of the former Local Government Commission for England and of the Secretary of State were transferred by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3962).

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation he has made of the introduction of a compulsory leasing scheme for derelict empty properties; and if he will make a statement. [77104]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently evaluating the recommendation to allow local authorities to compulsorily lease empty homes put forward in the report by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee on Empty Homes. A statement will be made in due course.
  517W
  Mr. Andrew Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to strengthen the powers of(a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords compulsorily to purchase empty properties; and if he will make a statement. [77105]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to strengthen existing powers to compulsorily purchase empty properties.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to enhance the power of local authorities to deal with derelict empty properties; and if he will make a statement. [77394]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering a range of measures to assist local authorities in dealing with empty homes. A statement will be made in due course.

  English Partnerships
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when decisions will be made as to which and when non-strategic sites will be transferred from English Partnerships to local authorities; [76774]

  (2) when decisions will be made as to whether claw-back of development value from local authorities will be waived in respect of (a) sites to be transferred from English Partnerships to local authorities, (b) sites already transferred and (c) strategic sites. [76775]

  Mr. McNulty
  These issues will be addressed in the Government's forthcoming response to the House of Commons Transport, Local Government Committee's report "The New Towns: Their Problems and Future". I will write to my hon. Friend again when we publish our response.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the inventory is of green goddess fire engines; and how many are operational. [76376]

  Mr. Leslie
  The green goddess fleet numbers 1,027 in total. Of the 945 currently in issue and under the Ministry of Defence control, around 98 per cent. were operational as at 21 October.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what use he and his Department have made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74995]

  Mr. Leslie
  Focus group research forms an element of a number of projects that come within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister research programmes. This is 518W
  not always costed separately and the conclusions of focus groups are incorporated into the final research reports.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has used focus groups research with members of the general public to help inform and develop the fire safety publicity campaign covering Careless Smoking, Fire Action Plan, Excuses Kill, and Smoke Alarms.

  Research projects were carried out by Andrew Irving, Cragg Ross Dawson and the COI; the sums paid to each contractor for individual pieces of work are regarded as commercial in confidence. The overall spend on focus group research for the fire safety campaign since June 2001 is £69,481.

  Specific focus group data are not published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website as they form part of a wide range of information and research used to inform public safety campaigns.

  Local Elections
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the timing of local elections in England in 2004. [78132]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We want to see a modern, efficient electoral system, so that voting for all electors is as convenient and as straightforward as possible. We are therefore concerned that in 2004 many electors are being asked to vote on two separate occasions within the space of five weeks. Firstly, in local council elections or elections for the London Mayor and Assembly on 6 May, and secondly, for the European Parliament on 10 June.

  As a result, I am, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is responsible for European Parliamentary elections in England and Wales, launching today a consultation document inviting views on our proposal to postpone the English local elections and the Greater London Authority elections from Thursday 6 May 2004 to Thursday 10 June 2004, the same day as the European Parliamentary election.

  In this consultation we are seeking views on the practical issues that would arise from making this change. We are also seeking views on the option of weekend voting. We are seeking views by January 2003. I am placing a copy of this document in the Library of the House.

  We would need primary legislation to make this change. We are therefore considering introducing a clause in the proposed Local Government Bill, which would allow us to change the date of the 2004 local and GLA elections by means of Statutory Instrument. Subject to the outcome of our consultation, and to Parliament's approval of the necessary legislation, our aim would be to put in place any postponement of the 2004 local and GLA elections by autumn 2003.
  519W
  We are considering separately whether the programme of election pilots such as voting by the internet, by phone, or by all-postal voting should go ahead in full in 2004, were we to move the local and GLA elections to coincide with the European Parliamentary elections. We intend to reach a firm conclusion on this in good time, taking into account that any piloting in such combined elections would require separate primary legislation.

  Planning Guidance (Renewable Energy)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to review planning guidance for renewable energy generation; and if he will make a statement. [77385]

  Mr. McNulty
  We will be issuing revised draft planning guidance on renewable energy (PPS 22) at the turn of the year.
  520W

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to review guidance to police forces and local authorities on unauthorised traveller encampments. [75329]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Home Department, will issue joint guidance on managing unauthorised camping by gypsies and other travellers by the end of the year.

  In addition, the Home Office will legislate for stronger enforcement powers for the police to move on unauthorised traveller camps, providing the local authority has adequate site provision in the area.

  To help facilitate local authority site provision, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has extended the 2003–04 round of the current Gypsy Sites Refurbishment grant to include funding for temporary transit and emergency stopping places.
  521W

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Parish Council Auditing
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the average costs to parish councils, broken down into bands according to size, of the internal audit work, in the new lighter touch audit scheme, which will be required to be carried out in addition to the main audit; and if he will make a statement. [77051]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the cost to parish councils of internal audit is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The new 'lighter touch' audit regime does not impose any new internal audit requirements. There has been a legal requirement for councils to maintain a system of internal audit for many years, and guidance on good practice on carrying out internal audit is available from the national associations representing parish councils.

  Accounts and Audit Regulations
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to lay before the House amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/590). [77052]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is currently consulting on amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996. The consultation period on this will come to an end on 9 December, and the responses received will then be considered. The aim will be to lay the revised regulations before the House early next year.

  Children's Residential Homes
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the proportion of the cost of specialist residential placements for vulnerable children contributed by different health authorities is taken into account in financial allocations for social services to local authorities; and if he will take account of this matter in the process of determining the new funding formulae for local authorities. [77084]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion of the cost of specialist residential placements for vulnerable children contributed by the NHS in different health authorities is not taken into account in the standard spending assessments for social services. This is also true of the options for the new formulae which we have consulted on over the Summer. Resources for health and social services to an area are allocated separately, with social services providing the majority of residential care. Joint funding arrangements that are then reached between Primary Care Trusts (which now commission NHS services) and local authorities are a local policy decision.

  Fire Service (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) fire stations and (b) fire appliances there were in East Sussex in the last 12 months. [77794]
  522W
  Mr. Raynsford
  According to the latest annual returns to Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate, at 31 March 2002 there were 24 fire stations, 38 front-line and 9 reserve pumping appliances, 15 front-line special appliances and one reserve special appliance.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he plans to take to deploy additional fire prevention and emergency resources in Twickenham on dates for events to be held at the rugby stadium in the event of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [76927]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Places of work and entertainment are already subject to a range of duties under fire safety and health and safety legislation. The owner or operator of a building or other type of site is responsible for safety on site and emergency evacuation arrangements. Organisers of public sporting events should therefore check their preparedness and review their contingency arrangements accordingly, in consultation with the local Chief Fire Officer as appropriate. The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, and deployment of resources will be kept under continual review.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he plans to take to deploy additional military resources to(a) Greater London and (b) Inner London in the event of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [76928]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Emergency cover in the Greater London region will consist of a number of elements including 90 Green Goddesses, 20 breathing apparatus teams, a rescue team equipped with specialist equipment and the police. These will be deployed in four sectors, so a breakdown across Inner London is not practicable. The provision of MoD emergencyfire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to maximisethe effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to make available the existing stock of Fire Service fire fighting vehicles and appliances to members of the armed forces in the event of a strike by firefighters; and if he will make a statement. [76999]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no immediate plans to seek to use the existing stock of local fire authority owned or leased fire fighting vehicles and appliances in the event of a strike by firefighters as this would pose serious logistical and training problems. The position will be kept under review. The safety of the public in the event of a strike will remain the government's overriding objective.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) restrict the marketing and use of fireworks during strikes by firefighters and (b) introduce special measures for areas with a high proportion of thatched properties; and if he will make a statement. [77000]
  523W
  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to restrict the marketing and use of fireworks during any strike by the firefighters, and no plans to introduce special measures for areas with significant numbers of thatched cottages. I have publicly said that people would be better advised to attend organised public firework displays than use them at home. Guidance has been issued to organisers of public displays. We are pleased that the Fire Brigades Union has now agreed and suspended its proposed strike action in this period leading up to Bonfire night.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the number of fire fighting emergency vehicles which will be available in Somerset in the event of a firefighters strike; how many are available in a non-strike situation; and if he will make a statement. [77002]

  Mr. Leslie
  Emergency cover in Somerset, as for the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddesses, breathing apparatus teams, rescue teams equipped with specialist equipment and the police. The Somerset Fire Brigade has 40 pumps and 15 special appliances. The provision of MoD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to maximise the effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities. The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many green goddess tire engines will be allocated to(a) Staffordshire and (b) the Lichfield Tamworth district during industrial action taken by the FBU. [77135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the event of a firefighters' strike, emergency cover in Staffordshire, as in the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements, including Green Goddesses, breathing apparatus teams, rescue teams equipped with specialist equipment and the police. The provision of MoD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to maximise the effectiveness of call-outs and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities. The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue mobile radio communications equipment to crews operating Green Goddess fire engines to communicate with emergency control centres. [77136]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Mobile telecommunications have been procured for use by the crews of the Green Goddesses in the event of a firefighters' strike, to facilitate communication with control centres.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length is of firefighting training given to members of the armed services covering for the striking firefighters; whether all service personnel carrying out firefighting duties have been issued with protective clothing; under which health and safety guidelines the armed service personnel will be operating; what 524W
  personal liability the members of the armed forces will have whilst attempting to rescue or help people in their firefighting role; and what life insurance he provides to armed service personnel carrying out firefighting duties. [77262]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Personnel have been trained and equipped to provide basic emergency fire and rescue cover. The level of training is dependent on the skills already held by personnel and the role that they would perform in the event of a strike. Drivers and basic crew only require a short training package because of the simple nature of the equipment. Fire Rescue Teams fulfil a more difficult role, which utilises technical equipment in dangerous situations. Some Fire Rescue Teams are already trained and experienced in the use of breathing apparatus and other specialist equipment but additional personnel have also been trained in these techniques. Other support training as well as driver training includes first aid training and specialist equipment maintenance training.

  Basic training for fire rescue team personnel lasts up to five weeks, depending on skill levels and role, plus any other necessary follow on training. All military personnel carrying out firefighting duties are being issued with protective kit. While providing the emergency cover, military personnel would follow standard health and safety guidelines, and members of the Armed Forces would not be subject to personal liability. Normal insurance cover and support would be provided to all members of the Armed Forces, as they would be for any other operational duty.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list by constituency in Wales the number of Green Goddesses that will be available in each in the event of a Fire Brigade strike; [77437]

  (2) if he will list by constituency in Wales the number of (a) specialist breathing apparatus rescue teams and (b) rescue equipment support teams that will be available in each in the event of a Fire Brigade strike. [77436]

  Mr. Leslie
  Emergency cover in Wales, as elsewhere, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddess crews, breathing apparatus rescue teams (BARTs), regional equipment rescue teams (RESTs) equipped with specialist equipment and the police. The provision of MOD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to maximise call-out response times and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities.

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

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77670]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As the Deputy Prime Minister set out in his statement to the House on 22 October, the Government have put a range of measures in place to
  525W
  secure public safety in the event of industrial action by the FBU. Our focus has been on taking what steps we can to safeguard life and, as far as possible, to protect property where the normal fire cover is not available. Detailed planning began in August and training started on 28 August. The plans are based on support from the armed services, and the acceptance by the police of additional responsibilities during an industrial action.

  There are three main elements to the plans. First, on the assumption that the fire control centres will not be operating during the strike, arrangements are being made for fire service 999 calls to be redirected. Every call will be answered. Secondly, emergency cover will be provided by a range of appliances staffed by crews from the Army, RAF and Navy. Nationwide, there will be 827 Green Goddesses, which will be able to provide a basic firefighting capability. There will also be 331 specialist breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 regional equipment support teams that will offer specialist skills.

  Thirdly, the Government has made available basic safety guidance and information to the public and to business. That is being supplemented by a range of other measures such as a public information campaign on radio and television, a mail drop to some 4 million households and a letter to the 15,000 largest businesses giving specific advice on fire safety and general health and safety issues. In the event of a strike by the FBU, the military and police, assisted by those firefighters and fire officers who choose to continue to work, will be in a position to provide a basic emergency service. We have always emphasised that the military cannot seek to replicate the cover provided by the Fire Service. With that in mind, the government has been working with industry and other players to introduce a range of measures to mitigate the effects of a FBU strike.

  Local Government Finance (Service Men)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the guidelines to local authorities are for imposing council tax concerning servicemen with homes in the UK but who spend considerable amounts of time abroad on duty. [77762]

  Mr. Leslie
  When a local authority determines council tax liability, a member of the armed services who spends time abroad is treated in the same way as anyone else who spends time abroad. Section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 sets out the basis of liability to pay council tax. A key factor in determining liability is whether the property is the person's sole or main residence. There is significant case law on this subject for local authorities and their legal advisors to call upon.

  Programme/areas

  Budget 2002–03 (£ million)

  Coalfields

  17.951

  Alnwick, Amber Valley, Ashfield, Barnsley, Bassetlaw, Blyth Valley, Bolsover, Broxtowe, Cannock Chase, Canterbury, Castle Morpeth, Chesterfield, Chester-le-Street, City of Durham, Derwentside, Doncaster, Dover, Easington, Erewash, Gedling, Hinckley & Bosworth, Kirklees, Leeds, Lichfield, Mansfield, Newark and

  526W

  Police Authority Budgets
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on which occasions a police authority budget has been capped since 1984. [76627]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am only able to provide information on which English police authorities have their budgets capped. Since the creation of the National Assembly for Wales, local government finance has been a devolved matter and the responsibility of the Assembly. Prior to the creation of the National Assembly, capping in relation to authorities in Wales was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Since 1984, the following English police authorities have had their budgets (or precepts) capped for the purpose of the limitation of council tax (and its predecessors):
  1986/87

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  Merseyside Police Authority

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  1988/89

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  Northumbria Police Authority

  West Midlands Police Authority

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  1995/96

  Lincolnshire Police Authority

  West Midlands Regional Assembly
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the members of the West Midlands Regional Assembly; where they are from; what their function is; how they were chosen; how they can be dismissed; what they cost; and how they are paid for. [77097]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The West Midlands Regional Assembly is a voluntary regional chamber designated under the Regional Development Act 1998. Its membership is a matter for the Assembly. The Government has awarded the Assembly £600,000 in 2002/03 to enhance its scrutiny role and strengthen regional accountability.

  Schemes and Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75677]

  Mr. Leslie
  The schemes and initiatives sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out are shown in the table, together with the budget for 2002–03 and the areas covered.
  527W

  Programme/areas

  Budget 2002–03 (£ million)

  Sherwood, Newcastle under Lyme, North East Derbyshire, North Warwick, North West Leicestershire, Nottingham, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rotherham, Rushcliffe, St Helens, Sedgefield, Selby, South Derbyshire, South Staffordshire, South Tyneside, Sheffield, Staffordshire Moorlands, Sunderland, Stoke-on-Trent, Tamworth, Wakefield, Wansbeck, Wigan

  European Regional Development Fund

  175.431

  For Objective 1 and 2 areas see map at page 7 of the DTLR Introductory Guide to the European Regional Development Fund at http://www.urban.odpm.gov.uk/proqrammes/erdf/pdf/intro.pdf

  Urban Regeneration Companies2

  —

  Bradford, Camborne, Corby, Hull, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Swindon, Tees Valley, Sunderland

  Community Chest3

  19

  Community Empowerment Fund3

  12

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund3

  300

  Allerdale, Ashfield, Barking and Dagenham, Barnsley, Barrow-in-Furness, Birmingham, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolsover, Bolton, Bradford, Brent, Brighton & Hove, Bristol, Burnley, Camden, Coventry, Croydon, Derby, Derwentside, Doncaster, Dudley, Baling, Easington, Enfield, Gateshead, Great Yarmouth, Greenwich, Hackney, Halton, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Hartlepool, Hastings, Hyndburn, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kerrier, Kingston upon Hull, Kirklees, Knowsley, Lambeth, Leeds, Leicester, Lewisham, Lincoln, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Mansfield, Middlesbrough. Newcastle upon Tyne, Newham, North Tyneside, Nottingham, Oldham, Pendle, Penwith, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Preston, Redcar and Cleveland, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sedgefield, Sefton, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Southampton, Southwark, St Helens, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tameside, Tower Hamlets, Wakefield, Walsall. Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Wansbeck, Wear Valley, Westminster, Wigan, Wirral, Wolverhampton

  Neighbourhood Management

  11

  Ashfield, Barnsley, Basildon, Bolton, Bournemouth, Camden, Chester, Chesterfield, Derwentside, Easington, East Staffordshire, Gloucester, Greenwich, Hastings, Kirklees, Lancaster, Newcastle under Lyme, Rotherham, Stockton-on-Tees, Tameside

  New Deal for Communities

  170.95

  Birmingham2, Bradford, Brent, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Coventry, Derby, Doncaster, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Hartlepool, Islington, Kingston upon Hull, Knowsley, Lambeth, Leicester, Lewisham, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newham, Norwich, Nottingham, Oldham, Plymouth, Rochdale, Salford, Sandwell, Sheffield, Southampton, Southwark, Sunderland. Tower Hamlets, Walsall, Wolverhampton

  Neighbourhood

  4.5

  Allerdale, Barnsley, Birmingham, Bolton

  Wardens

  Burnley, Coventry, Derby, Doncaster, Gateshead, Hackney, Hastings, Islington, Kerrier, Kingston upon Hull, Kirklees, Knowsley, Leeds, Lewisham, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesborough, North Tyneside, Nottingham, Oldham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Rotherham, Salford, Sedgefield, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Southwark, Stevenage, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tower Hamlets, Wakefield, Walsall, Wansbeck, Wigan, Wirral, Wolverhampton

  Street Wardens

  10

  Allerdale, Barking and Dagenham, Barnsley, Birmingham, Bolsover, Bradford, Bristol, Burnley, Camden, Coventry, Doncaster, Easington, Gateshead, Great Yarmouth, Greenwich, Hackney, Halton, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Hastings, Hyndburn, Islington, Kerrier, Kingston upon Hull, Kirklees, Leeds, Lewisham, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Mansfield, Middlesborough, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Preston, Redcar & Cleveland, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sheffield, South Tyneside, Southwark, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on- Trent, Sunderland, Tameside, Tower Hamlets, Walsall, Wandsworth, Wansbeck, Wear Valley, Westminster

  Business Brokers

  3.3

  Burnley, Easington, Hastings, London (Brent and Newham), Luton, Nottingham, Sheffield, Stoke on Trent, West Cornwall

  12001–02 figure. £52 million has been made available under the scheme to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust for the period 2001–04.

  2 URCs do not receive any central government funding. Running costs are met by the main partners(the local authority, the Regional Development Agency, English Partnerships (in some cases), the private sector and other key partners.

  3 Community Chest, Community Empowerment Fund and Neighbourhood Renewal Fund are available to each of the 88 listed Neighbourhood Renewal areas.

  528W 529W

  Travellers
  Michael Jack
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on local authority reactions to his recently published proposals to deal with travellers. [75344]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office joint news release outlining the Government's proposals to tackle unauthorised Traveller camps was issued, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received an overall positive response from local authorities to the new approaches.

  Local authorities will continue to be kept informed on the progress of the forthcoming joint guidance, and will also be consulted on the findings of the recently published research on the provision and condition of local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites in England.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arthur Andersen
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Andersen Accountants were chosen as prospective advisers on the restructuring of BNFL prior to the company's role in the collapse of Enron becoming known. [75456]

  Ms Hewitt
  Arthur Andersen were chosen in November 1999 as jointly appointed Reporting Accountant to the Department and BNFL in relation to the potential introduction of a public-private partnership for BNFL. This appointment ended in December 2001. Deloitte and Touche acted as accountancy adviser to the Department on BNFL from March 2000. Following a competitive tender the Department decided in July 2002 to reappoint Deloitte and Touche as its accountancy adviser on BNFL and the proposed Liabilities Management Authority. In August 2002 Deloitte and Touche completed its transaction with Andersen UK under which partners and staff of Andersen UK joined Deloitte and Touche.

  Beryllium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment was made of the likely end-use of Beryllium prior to export licences being granted for its export to Iran. [75884]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that UK exports are not misused, diverted or re-exported to undesirable end-uses, and this risk is among those identified in the consolidated EU and national aims export licensing criteria. The consolidated criteria set out factors to be considered by Member States in assessing the risk of diversion. The Government believes the best way of minimising the risk of diversion is a thorough risk assessment at the licensing stage and this process includes careful examination of information about the proposed end-use and end-user of the goods. After a detailed assessment of the individual circumstance-less than ½ ounce of the application it was judged that the proposed export of 10 grams of beryllium, to the 530W
  University of Science and Technology in Tehran, did not give rise to concern about use in connection with weapons of mass destruction. In addition, after thorough scrutiny of the application, the Department and its advisors assessed the stated end use as legitimate.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which protocols have been signed by the United Kingdom banning the sale of beryllium to named countries. [76393]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 678W.

  British Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the meetings Ministers and departmental officials have had with British Energy since 1 August; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the financial agreement concluded with British Energy in September. [75689]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department holds regular meetings with British Energy. Full details of the credit facility agreement are commercially confidential unless and until it is made public by British Energy.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed by British Energy in the UK. [76133]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long Project Blue related to British Energy has been under consideration in her Department. [76692]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 667W to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).

  "Blue" is a word that my Department used in referring to British Energy. It is standard practice to use a code when dealing with sensitive matters to protect them from casual observers.

  Business Link U
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost has been of establishing the Business Link U; and whether all Small Business Service and Business Link staff will be required to undertake training through this arrangement. [76834]

  Mr. Timms
  The cost of establishing the Business Link U (BLU) has been £1.42 million.

  BLU, the virtual 'corporate university' for business development professionals, aims to meet the key learning priorities of the network of Small Business Service (SBS), Business Link Operator (BLO) and delivery partners. It will identify, capture and share what works well across the network and bring in excellence from outside. All SBS and BLO staff are not required to undertake training through the BLU. However, as BLU becomes synonymous with high quality learning, we expect it to become the preferred choice across the network.
  531W

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for rrade and Industry how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and(g) positions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (i) the South East between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment Civil Service grade. [76555]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not maintain detailed data on numbers of vacancies. The position fluctuates over the year with the majority of vacancies being filled by internal transfers. The following table for the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March shows the number of vacancies filled through external recruitment and the total employment in DTI for each Civil Service equivalent grade as at 31 March 2002. It is not possible to distinguish between posts located in London and the South East:

  Vacancies filled

  Staff in Post 3 1.03. 02

  Administrative Assistant

  41

  202

  Administrative Officer

  73

  873

  Executive Officer

  40

  788

  Higher Executive Officer

  25

  860

  Senior Executive Officer

  6

  316

  Grades 7 and 6

  15

  685

  Senior Civil Service

  7

  165

  Developing Countries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 145W, on export credits, if she will list the 63 poorest developing countries referred to; and if she will make a statement. [75217]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD support for the poorest developing countries is restricted to those projects that contribute to the social and economic development and do not harm the debt position of the destination country. The "productive expenditure" criteria apply to those countries only eligible for concessional loans from the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA-only countries). There are currently 65 such countries which are listed:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Angola

  Armenia

  Bangladesh

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Burkina Faso

  Burundi

  C.A.R.

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Cape Verde

  Chad

  532W

  Comoros

  Congo, Democratic Republic of

  Congo,Republic of

  Cote D'Ivoire

  Djibouti

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Honduras

  Kenya

  Kiribati

  Kyrgyz Republic

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Maldives

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Mozambique

  Myanmar

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Rwanda

  Samoa

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Tajikistan

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Tonga

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Vietnam

  Yemen, Republic of

  Zambia.

  Ferry Workers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if British seamen on British-registered ferries employed through(a) Singapore and (b) Bermuda retain employment rights under British employment law; [76592]

  (2) what measures are in place to ensure that British ferry companies enforce equal pay and conditions for all workers on their ships; [76595]
  533W
  (3) what measures are in place to ensure that ferry workers on British-registered ferries are legally entitled to employment rights; [76594]

  (4) what measures are in place to ensure that British ferry companies implement the European Working Time Directive. [76596]

  Alan Johnson
  Broadly speaking, the great majority of employment legislation applies to employees working on board ship, provided their ship is registered as belonging in a port in Great Britain, they do not work wholly outside Great Britain under their contract of employment and they are ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Where statutory minimum standards apply to terms and conditions of employment, employees can complain to the employment tribunals if they believe that those standards have not been met. There are some exceptions to the application of employment legislation to UK seafarers and I understand that the Department for Transport's Shipping Task Force is examining their position under the legislation.

  Turning to the Working Time Directive, sea transport is one of the sectors that were excluded from the original Directive as it is covered by other legislation. Non-mobile workers are covered by the Horizontal Amending Directive (2000/32/EC), which is due to be implemented by 1 August 2003. Seafarers are covered by Council Directive 1999/63/EC, implemented by the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 2002 and Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations 2002 and Council Directive 1999/95/EC, implemented by the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 2002. These regulations came into force in September 2002 and are enforced by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency as part of its normal inspection and enforcement regime.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to ensure that British ferry companies pay their national insurance contributions for the workers on their ships. [76593]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Public Body

  Number and Type of Appointments

  ACAS

  3 Members

  Airports Advisory Council

  1 Chair

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  1 Chief Executive, 5 Members

  British Coal Corporation

  1 Member

  British Shipbuilders

  1 Chair, 2 Members

  Business Incubation Fund Investment Panel

  1 Chair, 7 Members

  Central Arbitration Committee

  2 Deputy Chairs, 16 Members

  Coal Authority

  1 Chief Executive, 1 Member

  Competition Commission

  23 Members

  Consignia

  1 Chair

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  1 Chair, 3 Members

  Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group

  14 Members

  East of England Regional Industrial Development Board

  3 Members

  Economic and Social Research Council

  5 Members

  Education and Training Export Group

  1 Member

  Employment Appeals Tribunals

  17 Members

  Employment Tribunals

  1 Member

  Energy Advisory Panel

  1 Chair, 4 Members

  Engineering and Physical Science Research Council

  1 Chief Executive, 3 Members

  Ethnic Minority Business Forum

  25 Members

  Fuel Poverty Advisory Group

  1 Chair

  Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

  1 Member

  Hearing Aid Council

  3 Members

  534W
  The Inland Revenue carry out a programme of inspections of employers' records to ensure that they are correctly operating both National Insurance Contributions and PAYE tax. UK shipping companies are included in that programme of visits. Particular attention is paid to the issue of liability to pay UK National Insurance Contributions. In addition checks are made on individual employees' details, when these are supplied at the year end, to ensure that National Insurance Contributions have been correctly calculated.

  Insurance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the cost to business of employers' and public liability insurance. [75241]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]My Department is aware of recent increases to the cost to business of employers' and public liability insurance, which are the consequence of a number of factors, most notably the tightening of global insurance markets since September 11 last year. Although this is a cause for concern, Government generally do not interfere in what is essentially a competitive market on the basis that the terms and conditions of insurance policies are best set by insurers themselves in the light of their customers' needs, taking a commercial assessment of the risk to determine premiums. Companies experiencing difficulties in obtaining insurance cover are advised to contact Peter Staddon at the British Insurance Brokers' Association on 020 7397 0204 for general advice and assistance in finding a suitable insurance broker.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the appointments she has made since 8 June 2001. [75234]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]Ministerial appointments made to the public bodies for which my Department is responsible in the period since 8 June 2001 are listed in the table.
  535W

  Public Body

  Number and Type of Appointments

  Industrial Development Advisory Board

  2 Members

  Intellectual Property Advisory Committee

  1 Chair, 12 Members

  International Oil and Gas Business Advisory Board

  4 Members

  London/South East Regional Industrial Development Board

  5 Members

  Low Pay Commission

  1 Chair, 1 Member

  Measurement Advisory Committee

  1 Chair, 10 Members

  Medical Research Council

  4 Members

  National Consumer Council

  7 Members

  Natural Environment Research Council

  8 Members

  North East Regional Industrial Development Board

  2 Members

  OFCOM

  1 Chair, 4 Members

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  1 Chair, 3 Members

  Ports and Logistics Advisory Group

  1 Chair

  Postwatch

  2 Members

  Power Sector Working Group

  1 Chair

  Regional Advisory Group

  1 Chair, 15 Members

  Regional Development Agencies

  4 Chairs, 39 Members

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  5 Members

  Small Business Council

  8 Members

  South West Regional Industrial Development Board

  4 Members

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  4 Members

  Trade Partners America Advisers

  3 Members

  Trade Partners UK Europe Advisers

  1 Member

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  1 Chair, 3 Members

  Water Sector Group

  2 Members

  Womens National Commission

  1 Chair

  Yorkshire/Humber/East Midlands Regional Industrial Development Board

  2 Members

  Non-devolved Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many non-devolved posts were advertised in the press in each year from June 1999; and what percentage were advertised in the Scottish press. [76858]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Posts

  1999–2000

  7

  2000–01

  8

  2001–02

  9

  All these vacancies were advertised in the Scottish press.

  NPower
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about improper transfer of energy accounts by npower; and if she will make a statement. [75898]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have received a number of representations about the erroneous transfer of gas and electricity supply by energy companies. Such transfers may arise from administrative or data problems or from sales malpractice. In January 2001, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM), which regulates the sales activities of energy suppliers, imposed undertakings on npower following a rise in marketing complaints. These undertakings were lifted in April 2002 after npower met objectives agreed with OFGEM. OFGEM continues to monitor npower and other suppliers, and can investigate any company that appears to have breached the terms of its supply licence.
  536W

  Passport to Export Scheme
  Mr Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how the Passport to Export scheme is promoted; [75861]

  (2) how many businesses took up the Passport to Export scheme in (a) financial year 2000–01 and (b) financial year 2001–02; [75863]

  (3) what was (a) the budget and (b) the expenditure for the Passport to Export scheme in (i) financial year 2000–01 and (ii) financial year 2001–02. [75864]

  Ms Hewitt
  Your passport to export success' is a national Trade Partners UK programme, delivered regionally, to develop small businesses in international trade. Promotion is done regionally. There has been no national campaign, but the press has picked up success stories.

  The programme is delivered through Business Links. Passport customers receive:
  an assessment of their company's readiness for export;
  the help of a locally based expert in international trade, who works with them on a one-to-one basis to develop their export plan;
  subsidised training on specific skills gaps identified by the plan;
  a visit to an overseas market identified in the plan; and
  aftercare services to help them continue to grow their business using international trade.

  To date 1,137 companies are taking part in the programme, 734 of which have been recruited in this financial year. Of these, 37 are located in Surrey. There is a mix of promotional activity tailored to the needs of each region's business community. In Surrey, for example, this has included a promotional event reinforced by articles in local media and publicity from partner organisations such as Chambers of Commerce.
  537W
  Passport did not operate in financial year 2000–01, and there was no programme budget. In financial year 2001–02, 403 businesses joined the programme from its inception in autumn 2001.

  In financial year 2001–02, expenditure was £2,099 million against a budget of £3,104.million.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of each regional development agency, stating for each member the(a) date of,(b) length of, their appointment and (c) their qualifications for the job. [75237]

  Ms Hewitt
  [pursuant to her reply, 21 October 2002, Official Report, c. 71–72W]: It has come to my attention that there were errors in the expiry dates of the appointments of some of the board members of the south west of England Regional Development Agency (SW RDA) and Yorkshire Forward (YF).

  The amended appointment dates for current SW RDA and YF board members are detailed in the following table:

  Date of first appointment

  Date of re-appointment

  Expiry date of appointment

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  Lickiss

  Michael

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Ansari

  Doris

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Buckland

  Nicholas

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Chalke

  Peter

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Costley

  Nigel

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Holland

  Helen

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/1.2/03

  Kemp

  Brian

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Leece

  Michael

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Morris

  Alfred

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Nicholl

  Robin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Pope

  Jeremy

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Porritt

  Jonathon

  14/12/99

  14/12/02

  13/12/05

  Skellett

  Colin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Yorkshire Forward

  Hall

  Graham

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Ashcroft

  John

  15/12/99

  14/12/05

  Barker

  Muriel

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Bosomworth

  Eileen

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Coburn

  Jeanne

  17/10/00

  16/10/03

  Cummins

  Julian

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Greenwood

  Brian

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Gregory

  Richard

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Haskins

  Christopher

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Hougton

  Stephen

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Jagger

  Paul

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  King

  Christopher

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Malik

  Adeeba

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Pinnock

  Kathryn

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Warhurst

  Pamela

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the timetable is to be announced for the programme of financial support for rural post offices. [76978]

  Mr. Timms
  We have received advice from the Postal Services Commission on proposals for supporting the rural network from 2003 and details of substantial financial support will be announced shortly.
  538W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to provide assistance to the Post Office Rural Network; and if she will make a statement. [77756]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and placed a formal requirement on the Post Office in November 2000 to maintain the network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.

  The Government have already invested in modernisation comprising some £480 million to computerise the whole post office network. We have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close. Figures for end September 2002, showed that 168 applications—to a value of £825,000—had been assessed and approved and to that date payments of £529,000 have also been made.

  We have received advice from the Postal Services Commission on proposals for supporting the rural network from 2003 and details of substantial financial support will be announced shortly.

  Small Business Council
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new powers, responsibilities and resources the Small Business Council has been given in their recently extended remit to lessen the impact of regulations on small businesses. [76838]

  Nigel Griffiths
  William Sargent's role, as Chairman of the Small Business Council, has been enhanced to provide an "independent voice for small firms". He attends the Ministerial Panel on regulatory accountability and has access to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to discuss small firms matters. The resources available to the Small Business Council have increased allowing for 12 officials to support the council in its work to provide advice about the needs of small businesses.

  Smart South West
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the annual budget of Smart South West is publicly funded; how many officials are employed; and if she will make a statement as to the nature and purpose of their work. [74937]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]The public funding known by the RDA is:£60k from SWRDA to fund for a year the IT Sector Adviser within Smart South West, which finished this summer but is currently continuing on a three monthly basis until the post holder leaves.
  £56k from the DTI to manage the SWRDA led "Outreach" project under the Broadband Fund.

  Sub Post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Consignia on a definition for different types of sub post office. [76979]
  539W
  Mr. Timms
  It is the responsibility of Post Office Ltd. to classify post office outlets. According to Post Office Ltd.'s classification a rural post office is one defined as serving a community which has up to 10,000 inhabitants.

  Trade Partners UK
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual budget is for Trade Partners UK for the financial year(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [75862]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade Partners UK is the trade development arm of British Trade International, which is a joint operation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Trade Partners UK programme budget for the three years is as follows:

  £million

  2001–02 outturn

  59.0

  2002–03 estimated outturn

  71.9

  2003–04 plans

  76.4

  The administration costs relating to this expenditure are borne by the DTI and FCO.

WALES

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south-east between 1 Apri12001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76558]

  Peter Hain
  I will reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77660]

  Peter Hain
  The Government have arranged for armed service personnel to provide basic emergency fire cover during any strikes by firefighters.

  The additional cost of this cover in England and Wales will be met by ODPM.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the 540W
  operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75574]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office has one live bilingual website (www.walesoffice.gov.uk/www.swyddfa.cymru.gov.uk).

  The total operating cost, including the start up cost which cannot be separately identified, of the Wales Office website between 1 April 1998 and 1 July 1999 was £7,867.

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

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

  The Wales Office has not been invoiced to date for the operating cost between 1 September 2001 and 31 August 200, but it is understood the sum will be around £1,600.

  The Wales Office website is hosted by Eduserv. Edusery provide a rolling statistical assessment on the site which may be viewed at http:// www.ossw.wales.gov.uk/statistics/ for the English site and http://www.swvddfa.cvmru.gov.uk/statistics/ for Wales.

CABINET OFFICE UK

  Online Interactive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to expand UK Online Interactive; and if he will make a statement. [76322]

  Mr. Alexander
  My officials are working closely with other Government Departments and local authorities to significantly increase the content available through UK online interactive.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of Phase One of the UK Online interactive project has been; and how this relates to planned costs. [76319]

  Mr. Alexander
  The cost for the UK online interactive project for the period up to the end of September 2002 has been approximately £300,000. This is in line with the projected costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the law and order situation in Bangladesh. [76989]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have some concerns about the poor state of law and order in Bangladesh. We had hoped therefore that the countermeasures the Government are taking would have a lasting remedial effect. But we are concerned by reports of mistreatment of detainees, including deaths in custody. We are following closely the arrests of senior opposition
  541W
  politicians on 17 October. Our high commission are raising our concerns with the Bangladesh Government. We look for the due process of law to be followed in all cases, and for the action of security forces and the treatment of detainees to be in accordance with internationally agreed standards.

  Camp X-Ray
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements made by UK citizens in Camp X-ray have been communicated to him; and if he will make a statement. [53080]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given to the House on 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 623 –24, and the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bradshaw). And to the written answer given by me on 13 June 2002, Official Report, columns 1397–98W, to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell).

  I am unable to give further details of the detainees' statements. They contain personal and confidential information the disclosure of which is exempt under the code of Practice on Access to Government Information Parts 4 and 12. I understand the information is also subject to the Data Protection Act.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the South-East between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76549]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of job vacancies and the total employment for each civil service grade in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is as follows:

  Responsibility level

  Vacancies

  Total staff

  Grades 6 and above

  2

  587

  Grade 7

  23

  596

  Senior executive officer

  3

  485

  Higher executive officer

  52

  1,159

  Executive officer

  77

  1,266

  Administrative officer

  93

  1,037

  Administrative assistant

  216

  360

  Other

  65

  —

  Total non-industrial staff

  531

  5,490

  The figure given for total staff is as at April 2001. We are unable to separate the data into regions for this time period without incurring disproportionate costs. The vacancy figures are for the time period of 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  The above figures include FCO Services.
  542W

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75591]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO has recently implemented a major web infrastructure project to enhance our global web presence. This has been achieved using funds from the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund for e-Government initiatives. The objectives of the project are: to promote the UK more effectively to an overseas audience; to save running costs for UK missions' websites; to avoid duplication of effort; to provide a more customer-focused approach and improve service delivery of visas, passports and consular services; to join up on-line information offered by our public diplomacy partners (British Council, Trade Partners UK, Invest UK, British Tourist Authority and BBC World Service).

  In January 2001 Logica plc won a competitive tender to provide a new web platform for hosting and running UK missions' websites world-wide and allowing future electronic submission of passports and visa applications. The following are on the platform already:

  www.fco.gov.uk Main FCO site

  www.ukvisas.gov.uk Joint FCO-Home Office site for visas

  www.i-uk.com 'Britain Abroad' portal site (to launch 28 October 2002)

  In addition over 100 UK missions world-wide currently run their own websites. These are linked from the FCO main site.

  The total cost of developing and implementing the infrastructure and the first year of support has cost 6.6 million. We estimate substantial future staff and business efficiency savings from this new infrastructure. The web platform is hosted in-house and uses our global telephony network. Operating costs for e-Media Unit in the FCO are 269,000 pa, excluding staff.

  The above sites were built following extensive market research and consumer surveys. A 'balanced scorecard' approach is taken to site assessment and benefits measurement. A company called 'Flow Interactive' has recently undertaken usability testing of the FCO main site with members of the public.

  EU-SADC Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether representatives of his Department will attend the meeting on 7 and 8 November between Foreign Ministers of the European Union and the Southern African Development Community in Maputo, Mozambique; and if he will make a statement; [77302]
  543W
  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the Government of Denmark concerning the decision to move the meeting on 7 to 8 November between Foreign Ministers of the European Union and the Southern African Development Community from Copenhagen to Maputo, Mozambique; and if he will make a statement; [77358]

  (3) when his Department was informed of the decision to move the meeting on 7 and 8 November between Foreign Ministers of the European Union and the Southern African Development Community from Copenhagen to Maputo, Mozambique; whether his Department was consulted; what his assessment of the situation was; what advice he gave to other European Union countries concerning the decision; whether he agreed to the relocation; and if he will make a statement; [77301]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the countries of the Southern African Development Community concerning the attendance of Zimbabwean officials at the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the European Union and the Southern African Development Community (a) when it was scheduled to take place in Copenhagen and (b) since it was moved to Maputo, Mozambique; and if he will make a statement; [77312]

  (5) what his Department's policy is on the attendance of representatives of the Zimbabwean Government, targeted under the European Union's travel ban, at the meeting on 7 to 8 November between Foreign Ministers of the European Union and the Southern African Development Community in Maputo, Mozambique; what his policy was on their attendance at the meeting when scheduled for Copenhagen; whether other international meetings have been relocated during 2002 to enable members of the Zimbabwean Government to attend; and if he will make a statement. [77357]

  Mr. Straw
  The biennial EU-SADC ministerial meeting was originally scheduled to take place in Copenhagen on 7 to 8 November. In recent months, EU partners have regularly discussed the timing and location of this meeting in order to ensure there it remains coherent with wider EU policy, including targeted sanctions against named individuals in the ZANU (PF) regime.

  The EU presidency—on behalf of the EU—expressed EU concerns in a series of meetings with Governments in the SADC region in August. In September, recognising that a meeting could no longer go ahead in Copenhagen as originally planned, Mozambique offered to host the meeting in Maputo on behalf of SADC. The EU decided on 17 October to accept the offer. The UK fully supported this decision.

  The EU's relationship with SADC is important and wide-ranging. The Government have always made clear that a meeting should take place, but that the integrity of the EU's targeted sanctions on named Zimbabweans should be maintained. The Government will use the meeting to engage SADC countries on a range of issues. As a member of SADC, Zimbabwe is likely to attend the meeting. There are no plans for British Ministers to meet
  544W
  their Zimbabwean counterparts at Maputo. We are not aware of other international meetings having been relocated in 2002.

  Palestine
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Palestinian authorities, with specific reference to Jenin. [76988]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss the situation in Palestinian towns, including Jenin, with the Palestinian authority. We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Israeli Government about the need to lift curfews and closures and to allow access to humanitarian organisations. At the time of Israel's Shield we made clear at highest levels our concerns over Israeli action in Jenin and across the West Bank and Gaza.

  Job Advertisements
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many posts were advertised in the press in each year since June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76857]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]Since March 2000, all Diplomatic Service Generalist jobs, at all grades are advertised in The Scotsman and The Herald. Prior to this, we did not advertise in the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish press.

  Malagasy Republic
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Malagasy Republic. [76986]

  Mr. Straw
  On 24 September, Marc Ravalomanana, the President of Madagascar, announced that he would be dissolving the National Assembly and holding legislative elections before the end of the year. He sought international assistance to ensure that the elections would be held in a free and transparent manner.

  UK election observers will form part of a 62 strong EU Election Observer team that will monitor the legislative elections. A contingent of 14 observers will arrive four weeks in advance of the elections to monitor the campaign, the investitures and official registration of candidates. The remainder of the team will arrive a week before the election date.

  Our embassy, along with EU colleagues, the US and major donors in Madagascar, will continue to work constructively with the Government of Madagascar to promote democratic governance and transparency.

  Travel Warnings
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the numbers of hits on the section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website dealing with travel warnings in relation to the numbers of British citizens visiting countries about which travel warnings have been issued. [76690]
  545W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The travel area of the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk/travel) receives an average of 675,000 page impressions per month. We are not able to ascertain separate figures for page impressions for individual country advice notices. Nor are we able to determine how many of these inquiries are from British nationals. So we are unable to make such an assessment.

  Vietnam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Vietnam regarding the persecution of Christians in that country. [76612]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We condemn all instances of persecution of individuals for their faith or belief. The UK Government take every opportunity to press the Vietnamese government to adhere to its international human rights obligations: I raised human rights, including the position of ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands, with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister Mr. Nien in June. Our Embassy in Hanoi is a leading player in the EU Human Rights Working Group which has a regular human rights dialogue with the Vietnamese Government. Religious freedom is raised in this forum, for example at its most recent meeting on 16 October.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the(a) political manipulation of food aid and (b) selective starvation being carried out in Zimbabwe by its Government. [76887]

  Clare Short
  It is a fundamental principle of the international and bilateral agencies working in Zimbabwe and elsewhere that food aid is targeted on the basis of need alone, and is not politically determined. The World Food Programme is working through non-governmental organisations under an agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe that enshrines this principle. Our bilateral feeding Programmes also work through NGOs on the same criteria, and within NGOs' established operational agreements with the Government of Zimbabwe. DFID and other donors are closely monitoring events on the ground to ensure that principles and agreements are honoured, and where problems are found or reported, that these are resolved through transparent complaints procedures.

  Food assistance through the Government of Zimbabwe does not operate to similar levels of openness and transparency. I share the concern that there appears to be selective distribution. Whilst I am very concerned about malnutrition and hunger, it is premature to suggest there is starvation. But I have joined the UN in urging donor countries to help reduce the food gap in Zimbabwe to avoid crisis which remains all too possible.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) the obstruction of food aid and (b) human rights abuses committed by the
  546W
  Zimbabwe Government against the Zimbabwean people; and what her Department's strategy is for dealing with the obstruction of food aid by President Mugabe. [76904]

  Clare Short
  There has been no systematic obstruction of food aid provided by the UN agencies and international donors in Zimbabwe. There have been particular problems in one or two areas and for particular organisations apparently attributable solely to bias on the part of the authorities or local activists. There is on-going negotiation in country on problems for two UK NGOs. Where problems have arisen, aid has been suspended until the organisations concerned have been satisfied that unfettered distribution can resume. At present the major constraints to food aid are the need to scale up the capacity of all the implementation organisations, and to get full funding of the UN appeal.

  This House is well aware of Government's concern about the on-going abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. We deplore the continuing record of oppression and human rights abuse to suppress legitimate opposition and criticism of its disastrous policies.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has given to the UN World Food Programme in Zimbabwe. [76903]

  Clare Short
  DFID has provided a total of £10.5 million for WFP feeding programmes in Zimbabwe, and £45,000 to strengthen food logistics management in country.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the banning of Oxfam and Save the Children from distributing the World Food Programme food by the Zimbabwean Government; and what discussions her Department has had with(a) Oxfam and (b) Save the Children following the ban. [76906]

  Clare Short
  Applications by Save the Children and Oxfam to act as implementing partners for the WFP feeding programme have not yet been approved by the Ministry of Social Welfare in Zimbabwe. The UN takes the view, as do I, that these highly respected and experienced organisations could make an important contribution to the feeding effort. Discussion continues between the UN, the NGOs and the Zimbabwe authorities. DFID has been fully consulted, and maintains an on-going dialogue on operational concerns for these and other UK based NGOs in Zimbabwe.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. [76891]

  Clare Short
  The report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights "Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" was published on 12 September this year. I attended a launch event in Geneva on 16 September, along with Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Director General of the
  547W
  World Trade Organisation, and Dr. Kamil Idris, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The report has been widely commended as an important contribution to the debate on how intellectual property rules and practices can work better for developing countries, and contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

  The Government established the commission as part of its wider effort to ensure global rules and institutions serve all countries equitably and take full account of the needs of developing countries. The commissioners, two of whom were from developing countries, brought a wide range of expertise to bear in science, law and economics. They included representatives from Government, the legal profession, academia and industry. The report is available in the Libraries of the House and on the commission's website www.iprcommission.org.

  The Government are grateful to the commission for its report. We welcome it as a very useful and constructive contribution to the debate on these important issues. We will encourage the widest possible debate on its proposals and will make it available in all relevant fora. Although commissioned by the British Government, the recommendations of the commission are directed at policymakers in all Governments, at the national and international institutions involved in intellectual property policy, and other important stakeholders such as industry and NGOs. The Government hope serious consideration will be given by these bodies to the recommendations of the report.

  There is much detail in the report which requires careful consideration. The Government are currently considering its own response to the detailed recommendations of the commission and hopes to publish this early next year.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are planning to implement the recommendations in the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. [76968]

  Clare Short
  The Government are currently considering the detailed recommendations of the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. We have welcomed the report as an important contribution to the debate on how intellectual property rules and practices can work better for developing countries, and contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

  It is planned that the Government's response to the report will be published early next year. That response will set out how they plan to address the Commission's recommendations and to pursue their implementation. It should be noted that most of the report's recommendations are directed to all governments and institutions involved with intellectual property. The Government hope these other bodies will also consider carefully the report's recommendations.
  548W

  Malawi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) her Department's support for clinical services and (b) levels of maternal mortality in Malawi. [76893]

  Clare Short
  My Department's support to the National Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme (SRHP) and Communicable Diseases control programme contribute to improved clinical services in Malawi.

  Under the SRHP DFID provides for:
  increased access to, and utilisation of, cost effective STI treatment and prevention down to the health centre level;
  essential laboratory services including laboratory test reagents, kits and associated training for HIV/AIDS and STI support work;
  upgrading of clinical facilities, including laboratories, maternity wards, delivery rooms and operating theatres;
  provision of drugs and equipment that support emergency obstetric care;
  life saving skills training, advanced midwifery training, and overall administrative, clinical and technical skills strengthening.

  The communicable disease component of DFID' s work supports the National Tuberculosis Control Programme, by providing:
  ambulatory treatment (Directly Observed Treatment)
  new standardised, and more effective regimes of treatment
  decentralised laboratory diagnosis.

  In the longer term, joint donor support to the Ministry of Health, through a sector-wide approach, will address all levels of clinical service provision.

  Maternal mortality in Malawi is increasing. The 2000 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey indicates a doubling in the figure to 1,120 deaths per 100,000 live births. The reasons are complex, and the cause of death is not always clear. However the increase can in part be attributed to the declining health system, the methodological means of measuring mortality where HIV/AIDS is increasing rapidly, and the current food crisis (where health is compromised by other factors such as increasing poverty, suppressed immune systems and poor nutritional status).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's approach to healthcare in Malawi. [76896]

  Clare Short
  DFID supports the Government of Malawi's efforts to provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health, communicable disease control, and health systems development. Sexual and reproductive health assistance is increasing access to reproductive, maternal and sexual health services, and fostering adoption of safer sex practices especially among the poor, young people and marginalised groups. It will also have a positive effect in countering the rate of increase of HIV/AIDS. The communicable disease control elements support strategies to combat the spread of tuberculosis, to improve immunisation coverage of childhood diseases, and to increase treatment and prevention of malaria. Systems development activities will strengthen the government's Central Medical Stores and drug supply chain, develop a cost effective essential medical laboratory service, and develop an Essential Health Package.
  549W
  In the longer term, DFID and other donor partners are supporting the Malawian Government's objective of working towards a sector-wide approach for delivery of health assistance. The SWAp is currently under design will support nationally defined health policies and strategies to improve the health status of all Malawians.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department's budget for improving health care in Malawi is spent. [76894]

  Clare Short
  My Department's health programme in Malawi is focused in three main areas: sexual and reproductive health, communicable disease control, and health systems development. This represents a total commitment of £100 million between 1997–2008.

  Health Care Systems
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of sector-wide approaches in improving the health care systems of poor countries. [76898]

  Clare Short
  Health sector-wide approaches (SWAPs) enable better priority setting in the context of locally-owned strategies for improving health outcomes for the poorest. They facilitate joined up working between development partners, Governments and other stakeholders, and eliminate duplication and ineffective donor activity. Assessments of health SWAPs have been undertaken by inter alia the Overseas Development Institute. These show that SWAPs are more than a change in the form which development assistance takes. They are responsible for increased Government ownership and commitment to delivering accessible health care to the poorest through strengthened health systems.

  In most cases it is still too early to assess the long term impact of SWAPs on health outcomes for the poor. However, there are many early positive outcomes. In Uganda and Tanzania the SWAP has helped better identify the health needs of the poorest. In Uganda, Mozambique and Ghana, more people are using health services. But SWAPs are a partnership: they will only deliver real pro-poor benefits with the continued political will and investment of both donors and developing country partners.

  Angola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the Government of Angola about the humanitarian situation. [76885]

  Clare Short
  I discussed the humanitarian situation with the Government of Angola during my visit to Angola in April 2002. We discussed the need to follow up the peace agreement with urgent measures to assist all displaced people within the country, and to help them return to their homes as rapidly as possible.

  Our embassy in Luanda is pressing the Angolan Government on a regular basis to do more to address the dire humanitarian situation and commit more of their own resources to meet humanitarian needs in an open and transparent fashion.
  550W
  We are deepening our relationships on this issue with the Government of Angola through increased ministerial contact, and through dialogue at all levels.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact she estimates landmines within farmland have had on food production in Angola. [76761]

  Clare Short
  The presence of land mines in Angola has understandably led Angolans to believe that they cannot move around their country in safety. This affects all aspects of rural life, and has meant that much farmland remains unused. Given that the season for planting seeds is now coming to an end, this is likely to have a significant impact on food production in Angola. As a result, demining of residential areas targeted for returnee communities, and their agricultural land, is the main priority for the clearance agencies after roads and bridges.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress being made towards the rebuilding of Angola's transport infrastructure. [76755]

  Clare Short
  Along with almost all other elements of the national infrastructure, the network of roads, bridges and railways has been severely damaged by the civil war. The Angolan Government has made rehabilitating the transport infrastructure a top priority, and some progress is now being made with vehicles able to reach the interior of the country, bringing goods and people. Arguably, however, rebuilding the physical infrastructure is only one of the key tasks which confronts the Government of Angola. They also urgently need to re-focus government spending on the social sector, in particular health and education, and to improve the macro-economic management of the country.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what correspondence she has had with civil society in Angola to ensure the adherence to human rights within the country. [76756]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government maintain a constant dialogue with Angolan civil society through our embassy in Luanda. I also met with a number of civil society organisations during my visit to Angola in April this year. The Government have supported a number of projects with civil society—both directly, through the bilateral aid programme and through the UN and the EU—designed to empower Angolans to engage with their government for themselves. We are also working closely with the Human Rights Division of the UN.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the levels of spending by the Government of Angola on basic social services since the end of the civil war; and if she will make a statement. [76757]

  Clare Short
  It is too early to assess the levels of spending on basic social services since the end of the civil war. What we do know at this stage is that a revised budget for the second half of 2002 (approved by the National Assembly) has increased commitments tospending on social services. In addition, the United Nations. in partnership with the Angolan Government,
  551W
  have recently completed an assessment of public financing of social sectors in Angola. The objective of the study was to make practical recommendations regarding the distribution of resources and budget management mechanisms. We will encourage the Angolan Government to take these forward and ensure effective social service delivery.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards the reintegration of Angolan refugees returning to their country of origin from neighbouring countries. [76758]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR estimates that there are around 440,000 Angolan refugees in Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Namibia. UNHCR are co-ordinating the return and resettlement of these refugees. However plans are at an early stage, and although some refugees have chosen to return to Angola under their own steam, UNHCR do not expect to begin their return programme until 2003. The reintegration of refugees will take place against the backdrop of the widescale return of internally displaced people (IDPs) and former fighters anticipated by the Government. In reintegrating all three groups, it will be vital to ensure that adequate services reach the resettlement areas. We expect the Government of Angola to take the lead in this, and are pressing them to ensure that all resettlement is carried out in line with the Norms for Return and Re-settlement which are now part of Angolan law, and are based on the guiding principles drawn up by Francis Deng, the UN Special Rapporteur.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been collated by the Government relating to whether the Norms for the Resettlement of Displaced Populations in Angola are being effectively followed; and if she will make a statement. [76759]

  Clare Short
  We very much welcome the incorporation into Angolan law of the Norms for the Resettlement of Displaced Populations. However we remain concerned by allegations that a significant proportion of recent resettlements have not been carried out in line with these Norms. We will continue to press both the Government and the international community to help ensure these Norms are applied in future resettlement programmes.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many unexploded landmines are estimated to remain in Angola. [76760]

  Clare Short
  My Department's Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) carried out an assessment mission to Angola in July to determine the extent of the humanitarian crisis there. They found that according to mine-clearance agencies, the number of mines in Angola is now considerably lower than the previously estimated 3 million. Earlier this month, the national co-ordinator of Angola's Inter-sectoral Commission for Demining and Humanitarian Assistance (CNIDAH) estimated that Angola has about 4–5 million unexploded landmines.
  552W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided to(a) the Government of Angola and (b) NGOs for the clearance of landmines in Angola. [76762]

  Clare Short
  My Department has allocated US$ 459,000 to UNDP for a project aimed at improving the effectiveness of mine action through strengthened coordination and planning at the provincial level. This project is included in the revised 2002 UN Consolidated Appeal (CAP) for Angola. We will also be contributing 9.7 per cent. of the 6 million euro which the EC has recently made available for mine action in Angola. This includes 5 million euro for a variety of mine-clearance agencies. We have provided no direct assistance to the Government of Angola for the clearance of land mines

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she had made of the success of efforts to provide agricultural assistance in Angola before September. [76763]

  Clare Short
  Angola is a very fertile country, and its agricultural potential is significant. Many of the internally displaced people (IDPs) and ex-combatants around the country have begun to plant, using seeds and tools provided by the international community. If this agricultural development is to be a success, Angolans will need timely provision of seeds and tools, and access to food and shelter (as well as a civil administration, schools and medical services and a functioning local judicial system) during the growing period. They will then need access to markets to exchange their surplus agricultural products for goods and services which they cannot themselves provide. A holistic approach is therefore essential

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with colleagues in(a) the UNHCR and (b) other parts of the United Nations about the humanitarian situation in Angola [76873]

  Clare Short
  The British embassy in Luanda and officials in DFID maintain regular contact with the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator, who in turn co-ordinates the work of the UN agencies and NGO humanitarian agencies. UNHCR are preparing to implement a programme of return for Angolan refugees in 2003. Meanwhile, the focus of the humanitarian community is on the immediate needs of the internally displaced people (IDPs) and the former UNITA fighters in quartering areas.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's strategy is for providing humanitarian relief to the people of Angola. [76874]

  Clare Short
  My Department's strategy for humanitarian relief is to fund a small number of significant interventions by well-established international agencies as part of multi-donor efforts to help address the greatest needs. For example, this year we have contributed £1.7 million to the United Nations and some £2 million to the International Committee for the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres.
  553W
  In addition to providing a UK response, we remind the Angolan Government at every opportunity that it must take responsibility for the humanitarian needs of its own population.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the land mine problem in Angola. [76875]

  Clare Short
  My Department's Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) carried out an assessment mission to Angola in July to determine the extent of the humanitarian crisis there. They found that according to mine-clearing agencies, the number of mines in Angola is now considerably lower than the previously estimated 13 million. Nevertheless the presence of mines remains one of the biggest restrictions to humanitarian aid delivery and is a serious security threat. The mines are widely dispersed and the exact location of the minefields is not properly mapped or recorded. Roads and bridges are heavily mined and are a major priority for the clearance agencies, followed by residential areas targeted for returnee communities, and their agricultural land.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's strategy is for a demining programme in Angola. [76876]

  Clare Short
  My Department is fully aware of the threat posed by landmines to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and to personal security. In July my Department's Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) carried out an assessment mission to Angola to determine the extent of the humanitarian crisis there. With respect to demining, they concluded that we should focus our attention on strengthening the role of the UN in co-ordinating mine clearance activities and in mapping unexploded mines. To this end, we have recently allocated US$ 459,000 to UNDP for a project aimed at improving the effectiveness of mine action through strengthened coordination and planning at the provincial level.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on the money that the IMF has found missing from Angolan Government finances; [76877]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the investigation by the IMF into money missing from Angolan Government finances. [76878]

  Clare Short
  Unaccounted funds are related to the lack of transparency in oil sector flows and weak public finance management. During the past five years, extra-budgetary expenditures have averaged 11 per cent. of GDP per year, and residual unexplained discrepancies in the fiscal accounts have averaged 12 per cent. of GDP per year (approximately $ billion). Budget execution data have yielded a large share of expenditures as unclassified; substantial funds received as signature bonuses for oil contracts and oil royalties have been outside the control of the Treasury; oil companies have given money to funds and foundations with little independent oversight; and non-transparent external debt transactions have been made. My Department is working with others to address these issues in a number of ways.
  554W
  On oil sector flows:
  We are encouraging the Angolan Government to make public the findings of an oil diagnostic study undertaken by independent consultants. Initial drafts of the study have already helped to shed light on oil receipts.
  The Angolan Government have agreed with the IMF on the need for an independent financial audit of the state oil company (Sonangol). Details, however, have not yet been discussed.
  We are participating in an international effort to encourage oil companies to publish their payments to the Angolan Government.
  We are participating in the promotion of corporate social responsibility in ways that increase accountability for expenditure of oil revenues.

  On public finance management:
  The World bank and other donors are providing technical assistance to improve transparency of public finance flows and build stronger accounting systems.
  We are working on ensuring a consistent message from the international community that good governance and transparency are preconditions to international assistance, foreign investment, growth and poverty reduction.
  We are encouraging the Angolan Government to resume their dialogue with the IMF and establish a strong and transparent macroeconomic framework.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what structures are in place to audit UK aid money provided to Angola. [76879]

  Clare Short
  UK development funds for Angola are paid through international agencies such as the UN and the World bank. They are therefore open to the audit processes of those agencies, of DFID's Internal Audit Department and of the UK National Audit Office (NAO).

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what anti-corruption measures her Department supports in Angola. [76880]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not support any specific anti-corruption measures in Angola. However we are working closely with the international community to make clear to the Government of Angola that good governance and transparency are preconditions to international assistance, foreign investment, growth and poverty reduction. We are also encouraging the Angolan Government to resume its dialogue with the IMF and establish a strong and transparent macroeconomic framework.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's strategy is for supporting agriculture in Angola. [76881]

  Clare Short
  As a relatively small donor in Angola, my Department's strategy is based around a series of focused interventions in sectors where we feel we can best add value. These interventions include support to the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) process, provision of basic services in peri-urban shanty towns, and support to the interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP). We do not at present plan to support activities in the agricultural sector. However a number of other donors, including the USA and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), have been carrying out seeds and tools programmes designed to help displaced people resettle on agricultural land.
  555W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian relief programme in Angola since April. [76882]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Angola is very serious. Prior to April 2002, more than 80 per cent. of the country was inaccessible. Since the cease-fire, already over-stretched aid agencies have been able to reach many thousands more severely malnourished people. The UN Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordination, Kenzo Oshima, estimated that a quarter of the populationߞ3 million peopleߞwould require assistance in the next few months. WFP has raised its caseload figure of people requiring assistance to 1.9 million and this is expected to rise further following a DFID funded comprehensive needs assessment.

  The UK has been working hard to ensure that donors and implementing partners develop a consensus view on future needs. The Government remain in close contact with international partners, and will remain at the forefront of diplomatic and political efforts to ensure that humanitarian assistance can be delivered more effectively.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the World Food Programme on their recommendations for the establishment of a reception and transit centre for refugees returning to Angola. [76883]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR are co-ordinating the return and resettlement of refugees to Angola, and WFP will form part of the international community's response. However plans are at an early stage, and although some refugees have chosen to return to Angola under their own steam, UNHCR do not expect to begin their return programme until 2003. UNHCR have been keeping donors up to speed with their plans. but my Department had no specific discussions with them at this stage. Our focus to date has been on the urgent needs of internally displaced people (IDPs) and the former UNITA fighters, many of whom have begun to be resettled by the Government. We are in very close touch with WFP, and other agencies, on this and have recently given £250,000 to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for a project to assist the return and reintegration of IDPs in the Kuanza Sul and Huambo Provinces.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has given to aid the humanitarian situation in Angola in the last 12 months. [76884]

  Clare Short
  Over the last 2 months, my Department has contributed £1.7 million to the United Nations appeal for Angola to ensure that critical humanitarian needs are met and to assist in the reception areas for ex UNITA fighters. We have also committed some £2 million to the International Committee for the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres, who are at the forefront of the humanitarian response.

  My Department has approved a further £3 million for the humanitarian relief effort in Angola for this financial year. Approved contributions include
  556W
  £750,000 to assist with World Food Programme logistic,£300,000 for the United Nations Development Programme for demining and £250,000 to assist the International Organisation for Migration with the resettlement of internally displaced people.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what UN agencies which her Department supports are working in Angola; and what financial commitment her Department has made to these programmes. [76886]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working closely with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Angola, which in turn co-ordinates the work of the UN agencies and NGO humanitarian agencies.

  So far this year, my Department has contributed £7 million to the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Angola, to ensure that critical humanitarian needs are met and to assist with the reception areas for ex-UNITA fighters.

  My department's response to the latest UN appeal will be significant. Approved contributions so far include £750,000 to assist with World Food Programme logistics,£300,000 for the United Nations Development Programmes for demining and £250,000 to assist the International Organisation with the resettlement of displaced people.

  Anti-corruption Commissions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which anti-corruption commissions are in receipt of financial assistance from the Government. [76770]

  Clare Short
  Anti-corruption commissions in Honduras, Malawi, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia are in receipt of financial assistance from my Department.

  We are also currently developing support to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission in Nigeria.

  Support for anti-corruption commissions is normally only one part of wider programme of activity to bear down on corruption.

  Belize
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the Government of Belize's application for relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative. [77622]

  Clare Short
  Following an assessment by my officials in August 2002, I wrote to Prime Minister Musa on 24 September 2002 advising him that I was able to agree debt relief amounting to £1.4 million under CDI for the period 30June 200 to July 2002.

  Corruption
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to tackle low public sector wages in developing countries. [76749]
  557W
  Clare Short
  Low public sector wages are one of the major constraints to the improved provision of services in many of our partner countries. However, all countries, not only developing ones, have limits regarding the affordability of pay increases. My Department is working with developing country governments in reforming all aspects of public sector management, which includes, where relevant, strategies to increase revenue as well as improving terms and conditions of service. Other reforms are also important—such as better recruitment practice and performance management for all staff. But these reforms can be implemented only where Governments are committed to their implementation; we cannot demand that action be taken.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the estimated impact of the level of public sector wages on the potential for corruption in developing countries. [76750]

  Clare Short
  There is conflicting evidence on the impact of low public sector wages alone on the potential for corruption. It is widely assumed that extremely low public sector wages create a motivation for corrupt practices. However, there is increasing evidence that public sector wages will only have an impact on the levels of corruption when it is part of a comprehensive package of civil sector reform, including among others, merit-based recruitment and promotion, replacement of corrupt personnel (particularly managers) and appropriate training.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which developing countries are in receipt of support from her Department in the development of parliamentary commissioners for the investigation of corruption. [76751]

  Clare Short
  DFID's collaboration with the World Bank Institute on anti-corruption programmes in 14 countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe includes assistance specifically directed towards parliamentarians and parliamentary oversight committees. This can cover both the role of Parliament in the budget making process and the subsequent scrutiny function through oversight institutions such as Public Accounts Committees, Offices of Auditor-General and Offices of Ombudsmen. Countries covered by this programme are Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and the Ukraine.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department provides to developing countries for the strengthening of criminal justice systems. [76752]

  Clare Short
  In September 2000 my Department published a policy document called "Justice and Poverty Reduction". Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and on our website.

  The document recognises that fair and effective criminal justice systems are critically important to the elimination of poverty. In many countries we are supporting partner governments to improve the effectiveness of policing, to support penal reform, and to
  558W
  promote speedy and fair trials. Civil society groups are supported in their efforts to provide community safety and protect human rights.

  Innovative sector-wide programmes in Uganda, Nigeria, and Malawi support efforts to improve co-ordination among different actors in the justice system, and to address common problems. More sector-wide programmes of this kind are in the planning stages, and should commence in the next 12 months.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to make the(a) reporting and (b) recording of corrupt practice in development programmes easier. [76769]

  Clare Short
  DFID procedures are designed to uncover corrupt practices in programmes that we finance. We encourage and investigate any reports or allegations of corrupt practices, respecting the confidence of the informant in line with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role of local media in combating corruption in developing countries; and what steps she is taking to support local media in developing countries. [76771]

  Clare Short
  Well targeted investigative journalism can expose corrupt practices in government and promote accountability in public life. DFID supports media development in a number of developing and transition countries, and published guidance on developing free and effective media to serve the interests of the poor in July 2001. Copies of "The Media in Governance" are available in the House of Commons Library and on our website.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to improve the local banking systems in developing countries. [76773]

  Clare Short
  We have committed £20 million to a new multilateral initiative that will provide technical assistance to strengthen banking and financial supervision in developing countries. In addition, we are engaged in various activities to improve the delivery of banking services to poor people, and to small and medium-sized enterprises. This includes an £18.5 million challenge fund to promote innovative financial services for the poor, and support to microfinance institutions in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what precautionary steps are taken to reduce the potential for petty corruption in development projects funded by her Department. [76753]

  Clare Short
  All proposals for development projects funded by DFID are required to set out acceptable accounting, procurement and audit arrangements in order to minimise the risk of petty corruption. Projects are also subject to periodic monitoring to ensure that resources are used as agreed. Where weaknesses are identified in systems used by partner governments or organisations, we seek assurances that such weaknesses are being tackled and provide support where needed to help to ensure that this is effective.
  559W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been collected over the last 12 months on instances of petty corruption in development projects funded by her Department. [76754]

  Clare Short
  Cases of petty corruption directly affecting DFID project funds are reported to our accounts department. Ten such cases were reported in the 2001–02 financial year, involving a total sum of nearly £60,000.

  Donor Funding
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what systems are used to audit the effectiveness of sector-wide approaches to donor funding; and if she will publish reports she has commissioned into the effectiveness of sector-wide approaches. [76897]

  Clare Short
  DFID assesses the effectiveness of its support for sector-wide approaches (SWAps) in the same way as it does for all forms of assistance, namely through a combination of regular monitoring by the relevant programme team and by independent evaluation and research. Reports, such as the forthcoming Basic Education Evaluation that considers the effectiveness of Education SWA.ps, will be published on completion. A growing body of literature is already available publicly—for example on the Overseas Development Institute's site www.odi.org.uk/pppg/ cape/advisory/swaps.html.

  Ivory Coast
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the effect the conflict in the Ivory Coast is having on UN famine relief efforts in Africa. [76225]

  Clare Short
  We have not done an independent assessment on the effect the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire is having on UN famine relief efforts in Africa. Currently most UN famine relief efforts in Africa are directed towards Southern and East Africa. So far we have received no indications that UN resources committed to these relief efforts are being stretched or redirected in response to the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid will be provided to the Government of the Ivory Coast in this financial year. [76892]

  Clare Short
  The UK is not providing any direct assistance to the Government of the Ivory Coast. Our assistance to Cote d'Ivoire is primarily channelled through contributions to the EC and other multilateral organisations. The table shows the latest available figures and the imputed UK shares:

  Total net oda 2,000 US$ millions

  UK imputed share 2,000 US$ millions

  EC

  3.0

  0.5

  World bank

  75.4

  5.3

  UN agencies

  13.1

  0.7

  560W

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations she has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike; and what the cost is to the Department of these actions. [77664]

  Clare Short
  The nature of my Department's work is such that there would be little direct impact on our service to the public as a result of a fire-fighter's strike. We are of course looking at our contingency arrangements in the event of a fire, and have taken action to raise the awareness of all our staff. No additional expenditure has been incurred.

  Food Aid
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated amount of food aid required by the World Food Programme is; and how much has been distributed to(a) Zambia,(b) Zimbabwe,(c) Malawi, (d) Mozambique, (e) Lesotho, (f) Swaziland and (g) Angola. [74880]

  Clare Short

  World Food Programme emergency operation for southern Africa

  Country

  Planned food aid needs July 2002-March 2003

  Quantities delivered

  Quantities in transit

  Zimbabwe

  452,955 MT

  15,490 MT

  51,400 MT

  Malawi

  264,501 MT

  39,009 MT

  80,636 MT

  Zambia

  130,603 MT

  7,218 MT

  46,467 MT

  Mozambique

  54,145 MT

  0 MT

  11,982 MT

  Lesotho

  64,089 MT

  29,931 MT

  33,577 MT

  Swaziland

  26,166 MT

  818 MT

  16,860 MT

  Angola (to Dec 2003)

  305,598 MT

  77,366 MT

  83,531 MT

  The World Food Programme (WFP) is currently revising its requirements for the southern Africa humanitarian crisis in the light of a recent assessment of needs to March 2003 by the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Vulnerability Assessment Committee of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). Planning since April has assumed that needs will peak in the period December 2002 to March 2003.

  Figures do not include food aid from WFP's previous country-specific programmes which have been transferred to the regional emergency operation, and which met needs early in the marketing year from May. Neither do they include food aid deliveries through other (non-WFP) parallel pipelines.

  Libya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she and her Department have to meet representatives of the Libyan Government. [76920]

  Clare Short
  None, at present.

  Secondments
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Departmental
  561W
  staff have been seconded to multilateral aid organisations for the purpose of improving aid effectiveness in the last five years. [76766]

  Clare Short
  There are currently 69 DFID staff seconded to multilateral aid organisations. There is no central record of staff seconded in previous years.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of overseas aid is spent on(a) basic health care and (b) education. [76680]

  Clare Short
  The information required on the proportion of the UK's bilateral aid programme allocable by sector in 2001–02 is:

  Education: 13 per cent.

  Basic health care: 12 per cent.

  These figures represent expenditure on projects and programmes specific to these sectors but do not capture the full extent of our efforts in each policy area because they exclude multisector projects and programmes, strategic funding to civil society organisations and budget support and balance of payments. Also excluded are activities funded through multilateral channels.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being made to improve the quality of data collection in the measurement of aid effectiveness. [76764]

  Clare Short
  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provide an internationally agreed framework for assessing the overall effectiveness of the development effort. A working set of 48 indicators has been agreed against which to measure progress. These provide a baseline for the international community to help ensure an adequate set of internationally available indicators that the UN will use to report global progress annually.

  Within individual countries DFID and other donors are committed to using Government performance indicators and data whenever possible to monitor progress. This minimises additional demands for information on developing countries, and allows us to strengthen country statistical systems at the same time as improving data for measuring our own effectiveness.

  Most of the world's poorest countries are developing Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) which set out how their Governments will address poverty. These PRSs must set out a monitoring framework which specifies the indicators which the Government and donors will use to assess progress. These frameworks have focussed attention on the poor quality and availability of existing data, and have encouraged increased and better co-ordinated Government and donor support to build capacity to collect the information required. DFID is currently supporting the PRS monitoring process in several countries, including Uganda, Malawi, Pakistan and Ghana, both directly and by helping to build general statistical capacity to underpin the PRS framework. Other bilateral donors are supporting efforts here and elsewhere. Strengthening country data systems also improves the availability and quality of the
  562W
  data required for global MDG monitoring. DFID is currently working with the UN and the World bank to improve the systems for collecting the required data from countries and disseminating these internationally.

  In addition, there are several multilateral initiatives which aim to improve the quality of data available within partner countries. The IMF's General Data Dissemination System Project—partly funded by DFID—supports African countries in drawing up and implementing plans for improving their statistical systems. The World bank is currently considering ways of improving its capacity for results-based management, including new ways of increasing the funding available for statistical capacity building. The EC is in the process of drawing up guidelines for good practice in donor reporting and monitoring and working to encourage greater harmonisation among donors.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects in which her Department has undertaken joint evaluations of aid effectiveness with other major donors over the last 12 months. [76765]

  Clare Short
  During the last 2 months DFID's Evaluation Department has participated in the following joint studies:

  Evaluating Comprehensive Development Framework (of pilot country performance)

  Evaluation of Basic Education

  European Union "Triple C"—coherence, complementarity, co-ordination

  Evaluation of United Nations Family Planning Agency

  Decentralisation and local government

  Peace building and conflict reduction

  Social sector impact (focused upon Education in Ghana)

  All of the above studies are ongoing.

  Poverty Reduction
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consideration is given to anti-corruption strategies in the formulation of poverty reduction strategy papers. [76772]

  Clare Short
  While no rigid guidelines have been set for Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS), it is expected that countries will address major impediments to poverty reduction such as corruption. My Department continues to work closely with IMF, the World Bank, and the World Bank Institute on a wide range of initiatives to support anti corruption measures in partner countries, and in the development of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS). Commitments and plans for anti-corruption programmes can also be assessed when the PRS is presented to the IMF and World Bank Boards.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the peace process in Sudan and the assistance provided by the British Government to that process. [76900]
  563W
  Clare Short
  The Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army parties resumed the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) talks on 4 October. The parties have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding on a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the talks. This was implemented on 7 October. We warmly welcome these developments. The cessation of hostilities will improve the atmosphere for the negotiations and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We urge the parties to seize this opportunity and shall continue to provide our full support as they work for a just and lasting peace. We have provided, and continue to provide, political and financial support to the Sudanese peace negotiations being mediated by the regional IGAD envoys in Kenya. We will continue to attend the talks as an observer and offer support and advice as necessary. To date we have provided personnel and £0,9 and US$25,000 in financial support to the IGAD secretariat.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of levels of political violence against ethnic minorities in Sudan; and what steps her Department has taken in response. [76901]

  Clare Short
  Repression of ethnic minorities is one of the deplorable human rights abuses resulting from the long-running conflict in Sudan. We are concerned about the human rights of all in the Sudan regardless of their ethnic or religious background and we regularly urge all sides in the civil war to respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. But the only long-term answer to the suffering in the Sudan is a peace settlement which will allow the people to rebuild their lives. We actively support the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as offering the best chance to bring an end to the civil war through a negotiated settlement.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian aid flights to Sudan. [76902]

  Clare Short
  We continue to urge all parties to give all possible help to the UN and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to ensure speedy delivery of humanitarian assistance. Our ambassador in Khartoum raised the general issue of humanitarian access with the Sudanese Minister of International Cooperation on 24 October.

  The UN and the Humanitarian Affairs Commission and the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Authority are meeting in Nairobi on 25 October to discuss the implementation of unrestricted humanitarian access
  564W
  agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding on the Cessation of Hostilities on 17 October. We warmly welcome these developments.

  Trade in Services
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the text of the final list of requests for market access tabled by the European Commission under the general agreement on trade in services; and what she estimates their impact would be on(a) poverty and (b) sustainable development in each of the developing countries affected. [76267]

  Clare Short
  Requests for market access as part of the general agreement on trade in services (GATS) are made on a bilateral basis with WTO members making requests directly to other members. The commitments then offered by countries receiving requests will be made public by the WTO and will apply to all WTO members according to the "most favoured nation" principle. Countries are therefore not under any obligation to make their requests public and any information regarding these requests would ordinarily be treated as confidential by the WTO secretariat. The European Commission has, however, published a summary of its requests on its website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/services/gats—sum.htm).

  It should be stressed that regardless of the requests being made or the Member making them, no country receiving requests is under any obligation to make commitments in any sector. The GATS is a "bottom-up" agreement whereby countries individually choose in which sectors they want to make binding commitments and in which they do not.

  For developing countries to make informed decisions regarding the liberalisation of service sectors (or any other area of trade liberalisation) they must have a clear understanding of the likely impact any such actions will have on their domestic economies and the livelihoods of their citizens, especially the poor. This is why DFID is engaging with a variety of donor organisations (primarily the World bank and UNCTAD) to help ensure that developing countries are given adequate support in this area.

  However, the number of developing countries involved in the GATS negotiations is very large (the majority of WTO members are developing countries) and it would not be possible for DFID to collect and present impact assessments for all these countries.

  Instead, each country will be responsible for carrying out its own assessments which it may or may not choose to make public. DFID's role is to help ensure that developing countries have the necessary capacity to carry out informative and useful impact assessments which take proper account of the interests of the poor and of sustainable development issues.
  565W

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Finningley Airfield
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has received the Inspector's report on the planning application to redevelop Finningley Airfield. [77653]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received the Inspector's report on this application on 19 September. In order to ensure that the advice set out in the "Guidance on Property Issues in the Handling of Planning Casework" is followed, I have decided, since the application site is in the Yorkshire and Humber Region, where my constituency is located, that this case should be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-level Regrading
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities have had to make provision for extra students following the results of the regrading of A-levels [76780]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not held by the Department. As of 22 October 2002, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service has been informed of 15 students whose move to another institution had been agreed as a result of re-grading.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost will be of ensuring that no student is financially disadvantaged by the A-level regrading [76782]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that students will not suffer financial disadvantage as a result of changing their institution due to regrading of A-level results. The A-level claims fund has been established to meet the legitimate costs of students who are able to transfer and students have until 31 January 2003 to apply. The fund can meet accommodation, books, travel and, where necessary, tuition fees, as well as other costs at the discretion of the institution.

  The costs falling to the fund are not likely to be high, given the relatively small number of students affected. Institutions will pay claims from students in the first instance and they will be fully reimbursed.

  AS-Levels
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on 5 October 2002,Official Report, column 28, (a) whether there is an upper limit on the number of AS Levels which may be accrued by an individual, (b) how much marginally easier an AS Level may be than the old A Level standard, (c) whether it is his policy that the current
  566W
  A Level is of equivalent standard to the old A Level standard, (d) whether UCAS points may be aggregated such that two AS Levels are equivalent to one A Level and (e) whether a pupil will, by obtaining six AS Levels at grade C, achieve the equivalent of three A Levels at grade C. [76538]

  Mr. Miliband
  :[holding answer 22 October 2002]In reply:

  (a)No.

  (b)That is a matter for the QCA.

  (c)Yes.

  (d)Yes.

  (e) No. AS and A Levels are different qualifications. A greater depth of understanding of the subject is required for the full A level.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75589]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Core programme costs for the Department for Education and Skills central website www.dfes.gov.uk (real terms figures in 2001–02 prices) were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1998–1999

  43,200

  1998–2000

  84,200

  1999–2000

  140,300

  2002–01

  266,600

  2001–02

  654,800

  Separate start up costs are not available. These costs include central hosting via EduSery (including, for the majority of the associated sites (listed below), maintenance and research.

  The planned research programme for the core departmental site comprises an annual exit poll on site performance and user satisfaction, regular usage statistics, and other user research on specific issues as needed.

  The initial exit poll research conducted by Research International will be placed in the HOC Library.

  Archived parts of the site are available to the public at www.dfes.gov.uk/dfee.

  The Department has a small number of separate websites aimed at specific campaigns and users. The majority of these sites are hosted by the Department's central hosting agreement and do not have separate hosting costs. Sites are typically subject to user research and usage statistics. Information on programme costs for each site, where it is separately available, is given below. (Real terms figures are in 2001–02 prices).
  567W
  Children and young people unit: www.cypu.goy.uk

  Hosted through our central contract with EduServ, separate programme costs not available.

  Connexions: www.connexions.gov.uk

  2001–02 —£30,600

  www.connexionscard.com.

  2001–02—£800,000

  www.connexions-direct.com

  Hosted through our central contract with EduServ, separate programme costs not available.

  Foundation degree: www.foundationdegree.org.uk

  Hosted through our central contract with EduServ, separate programme costs not available.

  Lifelong Learning: www.lifelonglearning.dfes.gov.uk

  £

  1997–98

  38,000

  1998–99

  42,000

  1999–2000

  38,900

  2000–01

  42,800

  2001–02

  43,600

  The site was hosted by Transcend Technology Ltd. between 1995–97 and 1997 onwards by Demon Internet.

  The company who manages and maintains the site (Lifelong Learning Internet Services) completes a report for the Department annually. The report will be placed in the HOC Library.

  Millennium Volunteers: www.mvonline.gov.uk

  Hosted through our central contract with EduServ, separate programme costs not available.

  Planet Science: www.scienceyear.com

  Annual budget:—£192,000

  The site is hosted by Cyberstride on behalf of Planet Science, the company set up by NESTA to run the whole project.

  The site currently features an online survey, the results of which will placed in the HOC Library when they are available in the new year.

  Sure start: www.surestart.gov.uk

  2001–02—£26,200

  Standards: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk

  Annual budget:—£,250,000

  The site is currently hosted via the Central Office of Information. Qualitative assessment on usage and customer satisfaction is under way. The National Literacy and Numeracy areas have recently been assessed by Central Office of Information Communications.
  568W
  Teacher net: www.teachernet.gov.uk

  Annual budget:—£140,000

  Research on image and customer satisfaction has been carried out by Netpoll and Prospero. Technical quality assurance is carried out by PJ Net Solutions Ltd. Research will be placed in the HOC Library.

  Disabled Students (Access)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent progress has been made by further and higher education providers to ensure that course materials are accessible to disabled students; and if he will make a statement [76001]

  Margaret Hodge
  Through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 200, the Government have amended the Disability Discrimination Act to place new duties on providers of post-16 education. These duties started to be effective from September 2002. It is now unlawful to discriminate against disabled students by treating them less favourably than others, and responsible bodies have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where disabled students might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged. This duty includes ensuring that any course materials provided to disabled students are available in an accessible format.

  Engineering Training
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to propose amendments to legislation regarding levies to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. [76617]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis:
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]The Industrial Training Act 1982 gives industrial training boards the power to raise a levy from employers in the industry they cover. The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) makes annual proposals to me for its levy arrangements, including the rates of levy that it feels are needed to encourage adequate training. The proposals must have the agreement of organisations representing the majority of those employers who pay most of the levy. Parliamentary approval is also required before I can make an order to put them into effect. I have no plans at present to change the legislation.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether students with(a) the University for Industry and (b) the National Health Service University will be treated as participating in higher education. [76818]

  Margaret Hodge
  Those students who are registered on a programme of study leading to a higher education qualification are treated as participating in higher education. This applies to Ufi learners and will also apply to learners within the NHSU, once it is established.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to widen participation in higher education. [74820]
  569W
  Margaret Hodge
  This Government are committed to widening participation in higher education. Our reform of secondary education will improve attainment levels and encourage greater numbers to enter higher education. Through our 14–19 proposals we will ensure that young people have access to both academic and vocational study which is attractive and relevant to them, further raising the post-16 staying on rate, levels of attainment and aspirations.

  We have introduced the Excellence Challenge, worth over £190 million over three years, which will raise aspirations and attainment in some of the country's most deprived areas, and our AimHigher campaign promotes the benefits of higher education to young people. We have also increased student support for those who need it, including Opportunity Bursaries for young people from low income backgrounds, increased Access and Hardship Funds and a new child care grant and travel, books and equipment grant for student parents.

  The forthcoming higher education strategy document will set out a 10-year vision for developing higher education, and widening participation will naturally be a key element of that vision. The Government strongly believe that fair access to all our universities and colleges must be an integral part of our higher education system and our strategy document will reflect that.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the funding available to those over 19 completing a modern apprenticeship in(a) England and (b) Wales. [76832]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding and planning of Modern Apprenticeship provision is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and place a copy of his reply in the Library. The funding of Modern Apprenticeships in Wales is a devolved issue.

  Reoffending
  Mr Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he has taken to implement the recommendations relevant to his Department in the Social Exclusion Unit report Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners. [76808]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Women on 24 October. Responsibility for co-ordinating action to implement the recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners" rests with the Home Office, where a new unit, the Adult Offenders Rehabilitation Unit has been set up. This unit will, in due course, produce an action plan detailing how the recommendations will be taken forward. Interdepartmental groups of ministers and officials will be convened to oversee the work of this unit. The Social Exclusion Unit remains fully involved in monitoring and facilitating progress through its implementation team.
  570W

  Student Funding Review
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Government will publish its review of student funding. [77908]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to publish the review of student funding. [77754]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Government will publish its review of student funding. [77777]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to announce the results of the review into higher education spending. [77536]

  Margaret Hodge
  The outcome of the student finance review will form part of the strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education. We will be publishing the strategy document shortly.

  Student Loans
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason eligibility for student loans is restricted to those under the age of 55. [17628]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]In England and Wales student loans for maintenance are not available to over 54 year olds only because the loan is written off at retirement age, which may leave many older graduates with inadequate time for repayment.

  There is no age limit on eligibility for grants for tuition fees, supplementary grants for living costs or hardship funds, which do not have to be repaid.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason people aged 50 to 54 wishing to access loans have to state their intention to seek employment in writing. [76129]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]Student loans are intended to be repaid. For this reason, in England and Wales, they are only available to 50 to 54 year-olds who intend to enter employment upon graduating, and thus, will have the means to repay.

  There is no age limit on eligibility for grants for tuition fees, supplementary grants for living costs or hardship funds which do not have to be repaid.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to raise the repayment threshold for student loans. [77748]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Government will raise the repayment threshold for student loans [77781]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are two types of student loan. Borrowers who started their courses before the 1998–99 academic year are liable to repay fixed-term (mortgage-style) loans. Income contingent loans apply to the vast majority of borrowers who entered higher education from the 1998–99 academic year.
  571W
  Under the mortgage-style loans scheme, a student can defer their loan repayments for a year at a time if their income is not more than 85 per cent. of national average earnings. This deferment threshold is recalculated annually in line with figures published by National Statistics, and is currently £21,022 for the year starting 1 September 2002. Any change to the 85 per cent. threshold would require primary legislation and we have no plans to make such a change

  The threshold for repaying income contingent loans is an annual income of £10,000. Borrowers over this threshold are liable to repay 9 per cent. Of their income over £10,000. The repayment scheme came into effect in April 2000 and the level of the threshold is being kept under review.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to raise the repayment threshold of student loans. [77910]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. The document will be out shortly; it would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or is not planned.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the earnings threshold at which student loans become repayable; and if she will make a statement. [77056]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are two types of student loan. Borrowers who started their courses before the 1998–99 Academic Year are liable to repay fixed-term (mortgage-style) loans. Income contingent loans apply to the vast majority of borrowers who entered higher education from the 1998–99 Academic Year.

  Under the mortgage-style loans scheme, a student can defer their loan repayments for a year at a time if their income is not more than 85 per cent. of national average earnings. This deferment threshold is recalculated annually in line with figures published by National Statistics, and is currently 21,022 for the year starting 1 September 2002. We have no plans to change the 85 per cent. threshold.

  The threshold for repaying income contingent loans is an annual income of 10,000. Borrowers over this threshold are liable to repay 9 per cent. of their income over 10,000. The repayment scheme came into effect in April 2000 and the level of the threshold is being kept under review.

  Student Support
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on student support for 2003–04. [76491]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have no plans to make widespread changes to the financial support arrangements for students entering or continuing in higher education in 2003.
  572W

  Targeted Maintenance
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce targeted maintenance support for less wealthy students. [77749]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will reintroduce targeted maintenance support for those students from the poorest backgrounds. [77780]

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to introduce targeted maintenance support for students from low-income families. [77907]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. The document will be out shortly; it would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or is not planned.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to allow universities to charge students top-up fees; [77909]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is his policy to permit universities to charge top-up fees to students; [77752]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Government plan to allow universities to charge students top-up fees; [77779]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the introduction of top-up fees for tuition at English universities; and if he will make a statement. [77493]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. The document will be out shortly; it would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or is not planned.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what underspend his Department has identified in the current year's capital programme. [75910]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills does not publish outturn expenditure forecasts at this stage of the year. Estimated outturn figures for 2002–03 will be published in the Budget Report 2003.

  Universities
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings(a) he and (b) his ministers have had with UK universities between 1 September 2001 and 17 October 2002. [76785]
  573W
  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet representatives of UK universities in the course of normal business.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Welfare
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle pregnancies and lactations were generated by(a) artificial insemination and (b) hire bulls in the last 12 months. [76513]

  Mr Morley
  At present there is no information collected or held on a central basis of how many cattle pregnancies and lactations were generated by artificial inseminations and hire bulls. This could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost that would be an unjustifiable use of public resource.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many successful prosecutions have been brought under the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988. [74055]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Offences connected with cruel tethering cannot be distinguished from other offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in the statistics collected centrally.

  Biofuel Crops
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to promote the planting of biofuel crops on set aside land; and if she will make a statement. [75948]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has allocated£29 million under the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme, for the establishment of short rotation coppice and miscanthus for energy purposes. These crops can be planted on set-aside land and receive payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme. The Government are providing £70 million of funding through a package of measures which will develop markets for biomass, including energy crops grown on set-aside land, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation.

  The European Commission has published initial proposals for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to take effect from 2004. Under these proposals, no crops would be grown on set-aside land. A new carbon credit of ¬45 per hectare is proposed for energy crops, to be paid to producers entering into a contract with a processor. The proposal includes a maximum guaranteed area of 1.5 million hectares eligible for this additional payment.

  Biotechnology
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which body is responsible for the regulation of genetic biotechnology on farm animals. [75175]
  574W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]There are a number of bodies that have responsibility for regulating the use of genetic biotechnology on farm animals.

  Defra are responsible for the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 which governs the release and marketing of all genetically modified organisms in the European Union. This would cover any proposal to release a genetically modified farm animal into the environment either for experimental or commercial use.

  The Health and Safety Executive are responsible for the Genetically Modified (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 which governs the risks to human health from GMOs (including any farm animals) in contained use.

  The Home Office are responsible for the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This legislation regulates the use of live animals, including farm animal species, for experimental or other scientific purposes where the use of the animals may cause pain, distress or lasting harm.

  Defra are also responsible for the general animal welfare legislation which equally applies to animals produced by biotechnology, once they have been released.

  Canoeists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the access to waterways for canoeists; and if she will make a statement. [76964]

  Alun Michael
  Copies of our research report, "Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts" were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in December 2001.

  While none of the access issues identified in the report are new or straight forward to resolve I can assure the hon. Member of my commitment to finding solutions wherever possible.

  As a first step I have asked the Countryside Agency (in partnership with other Government agencies) to pilot some access demonstration projects to develop best practice for access agreements on key stretches of water.

  Climate Change
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to his answer of 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 283W, on climate change, what costs are associated with the UK climate change scenarios; when the results will be published; if she will list the other projects that the UK Government is working on in other countries and the associated costs incurred; and if she will make a statement. [75215]

  Mr. Meacher
  In April 2002, the Department published the 2002 UK Climate Change Scenarios. The total direct cost of producing these scenarios was £153,500, covering climate modelling, interpretation of model outputs, and publication and dissemination of research findings.
  575W
  The Department is also funding bilateral programmes in India and China. These projects use the outputs of the Hadley Centre's regional climate model, to investigate the possible impacts of climate change. The India programme is investigating the possible impact of climate change on water resources, forestry, infrastructure, health, agriculture and the coastal zone, at a total cost of £650,000 over three years. The China programme is investigating the possible impact of climate change on agriculture, at a total cost of approximately£400,000 over 2 years.

  Correspondence
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will answer the letters of 15 March and 21 August from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, on Mr. D Armstrong of Mill Hill Road, Wigton, Cumbria and Mr. W K Graham of Sillan, Cumbria. [77550]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded on 15 October.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 nbprincipal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76566]

  DEFRA finding of Horticulture Research International over the period 1997–2002

  Year

  R&D payments1

  CMF2

  Restructing and pensions

  Capital and other payments

  Total (£million)

  1997–98

  12.3

  —

  —

  1.7

  14.0

  1998–99

  12.3

  —

  5.9

  0.4

  18.6

  1999–2000

  11.4

  —

  —

  0.4

  11.8

  2000–01

  10.4

  0.3

  4.2

  1.0

  15.9

  2001–02

  10.4

  1.5

  1.6

  0.2

  13.7

  1 Figures given on an accruals basis are shown in HRI's accounts.

  2 Capital Modernisation Fund

  Ivory
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to stop the illegal trade in ivory. [76094]

  Mr. Morley
  Commercial trade in ivory is currently prohibited under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In order to prevent illegal trade, the UK has strict controls which are actively enforced by HM Customs and Excise. Between 1 April and 30 September 2002, Customs made 55 seizures of ivory, including two weighing 26.6kg and 445kg. Under the Customs and Excise Management Act (1979) the illegal import or export of ivory can result in an unlimited fine and/or up to seven years imprisonment. Similarly, under the Control of
  576W
  Alun Michael
  Defra came into existence in June 2001 as a result of machinery of Government changes. It took several months to incorporate all staff of the new organisation into the Department's HR system. Therefore, the information requested is not available for the period in question.

  Fissile Materials
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what notification she has received from(a) Nirex, (b) the Environment Agency and (c) the Health and Safety Executive/Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in respect of concerns over fissile materials limits in intermediate level wastes being conditioned for packaging. [75458]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has not received any notifications of representations from UK Nirex, the Environment Agency or the Health and Safety Executive on this issue.

  Horticulture Research International
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what the level of her Department's funding for Horticulture Research International was in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [74661]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra funding at Horticulture Research International (HRI) relates to specifically commissioned R&D projects and work won by HRI through our R&D competitions. We have also given HRI grants for capital and other purposes. A summary of the total funding provided by Defra (and, prior to 2001–02, MAFF) in each of the last five years is given in the table. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given in relation to question 192.

  Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations (1997) the illegal, commercial use of ivory within the UK can lead to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment.

  The UK has also provided £60,000 towards the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) which provides information on the worldwide illegal trade in ivory. ETIS has just produced a detailed report which will be considered at the twelfth Conference of CITES Parties (CoP12), in Chile, next month, when the issue of whether to allow the resumption of trade in ivory from five southern African states will be discussed. The UK will not support any proposal which seems likely to undermine the conservation of the elephant, or lead to an increase in the illegal killing of elephants.
  577W

  Land Drainage
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what mechanisms she is using to monitor the conservation duty on internal drainage boards in the Land Drainage Act 1994; and what action she is taking to enforce this duty. [76387]

  Mr. Morley
  In November 1999, following Ministerial agreement with the Environment Agency, the Local Government Association and the Association of Drainage Authorities, the Government published a number of High Level Targets (HLT) for flood and coastal defence operating authorities. These targets were adopted by Defra on its creation in June 2001.

  High Level Target 1 requires all flood and coastal defence operating authorities to produce a publicly available policy statement setting out plans for delivering the Government's policy aims and objectives. Section 2.3 of Defra's guidance on preparing these policy statements requires internal drainage boards to state in their policy how they will comply with statutory environmental obligations and contribute to relevant biodiversity targets.

  HLT9 and 10 are designed to ensure that all operating authorities meet their obligation to 'further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest' as required under Section 61A of the Land Drainage Act 1994.

  HLT9 requires all operating authorities, in addition to their statutory obligations when carrying out flood and coastal defence works, to aim:
  to avoid damage to environmental interest;
  to ensure no net loss to habitats covered by Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP habitats); and
  to seek opportunities for environmental enhancement.

  They are further required to report all losses and gains of BAP habitats resulting from their flood and coastal defence operations to the Environment Agency. The agency report on the collated information annually to Defra.

  Under HLT10, all operating authorities are required to complete and implement Water Level Management Plans, in partnership with English Nature, for sites designated under the European birds and habitats directives and for sites of special scientific interest. The Environment Agency is required to report annually to Defra on operating authorities' progress in implementing and reviewing WLMPs against their published programme.

  Recycling Scheme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities that operate a door-step recycling scheme; and what plans she has to encourage more local authorities to take up this initiative. [75558]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]We are clear that there needs to be a significant increase in kerbside recycling. We have provided significant extra funds to local authorities through the standard spending 578W
  assessment and a separate ring-fenced fund for recycling and waste minimisation. We are currently assessing the second tranche of bids for funding from that budget. The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit is currently reviewing waste strategy and its funding and is due to report shortly

  The following authorities reported that they undertook some form of kerbside recycling scheme in the 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey:

  Adur District Council

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Arun District Council

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Babergh District Council

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  Barnet LB

  Barnsley MBC

  Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council

  Basildon District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Bedford Borough Council

  Bexley LB

  Birmingham City Council

  Blaby District Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Bolton MBC

  Boston Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Bradford City MDC (MBC)

  Braintree District Council

  Breckland Borough Council

  Brent LB

  Brentwood Borough Council

  Bridgnorth District Council

  Bristol City Council

  Broadland District Council

  Bromley LB

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Bury MBC

  Cambridge City Council

  Camden LB

  Canterbury City Council

  Caradon District Council

  Carlisle City Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Morpeth Borough Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Charnwood Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Cheltenham Borough Council

  Cherwell District Council

  Chester City Council

  Chesterfield Borough Council

  Chester-Le-Street District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  579W

  Colchester Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Corby Borough Council

  Cotswold District Council

  Crawley Boroug Council

  Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

  Croydon LB

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Daventry District Council

  Derby City Council

  Derbyshire Dales District Council

  Derwentside DistrictCouncil

  Doncaster MBC

  Dudley MBC

  Durham City Council

  Ealing LB

  Easington District Council

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  East Lindsey District Council

  East Northamptonshire Council

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

  Enfield LB

  Epping Forest Borough Council

  Erewash Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Fenland District Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Greenwich LB

  Guildford Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  Harborough District Counci

  Haringey LB

  Harlow District Council

  Harrow LB

  Hart District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  Havering LB

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  High Peak Borough Council

  Hillingdon LB

  Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Hounslow LB

  580W

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Islington LB

  Kennet District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Kingston-upon-Hull City Council

  Kingston-upon-Thames LB

  Kirklees MBC

  Knowsley MBC

  Lambeth LB

  Lancaster City Council

  Leeds City Council MBC

  Leicester City Council

  Lewisham LB

  Lichfield District Council

  Lincoln City Council

  Liverpool City Council

  London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Luton Borough Council

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Manchester City Council MBC

  Mansfield District Council Medway Borough Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mendip District Council Merton LB

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Milton Keynes Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC

  Newham LB

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Hertfordshire District Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Northampton Borough Council

  Norwich City Council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

  Oldham MBC

  Oxford City Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Penwith District Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Plymouth City Council

  581W

  Poole Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Redbridge LB

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  Restormel Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Richmond upon Thames LB

  Rochford District Council

  Rotherham MBC

  Rugby Borough Council

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Rutland County Council

  Salford City Council MBC

  Salisbury District Council

  Sandwell MBC

  Sedgefield Borough Council

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Sefton MBC

  Selby District Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shepway District Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Solihull MBC

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  South Bucks District Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Derbyshire District Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South Hams District Council

  South Holland District Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  South Shropshire District Council

  South Somerset District Council

  South Staffordshire Council

  South Tyneside MBC

  Southampton City Council

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  Southwark LB

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  St. Albans City and District Council

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  St. Helens MBC

  Stafford Borough Council

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stockport MBC

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  Stroud District Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Sutton LB

  Swale Borough Council

  Tameside MBC

  Tamworth Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  582W

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Tendring District Council

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Three Rivers District Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Torbay Council

  Torridge District Council

  Tower Hamlets LB

  Trafford MBC

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Uttlesford District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council Walsall MBC

  Waltham Forest LB

  Wandsworth LB

  Warwick District Council

  Watford Borough Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council

  Welwyn Hatfield Council

  West Berkshire District Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  West Somerset District Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Westminster City Council

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  Wigan MBC

  Winchester City Council

  Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council

  Wirral MBC

  Woking Borough Council

  Wokingham Council

  Wolverhampton MBC

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  York City Council

  Royal Botanic Gardens
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Quinquennial Review of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been completed. [77859]

  Mr. Morley
  The review team completed Stage II of their Quinquennial Review of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew earlier this year.

  I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the review team's Stage II report together with the Government's response to both Stages of the Review. The response has been agreed jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
  583W

  Rural Expenditure
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 21 October, reference 75837, on the Rural White Paper, if she will list the funding schemes administered by the(a) regional development agencies and (b) Countryside Agency on behalf of her Department; and if she will list the amount spent through each scheme. [77066]

  Alun Michael
  Following the commencement of the Regional Development Agencies single budget arrangements in April of this year they no longer run specific funding schemes on behalf of Departments.

  The Countryside Agency's main economic and community funding schemes, available for application by individuals or organisations, are as follows (with estimated programme spend this year):

  Funding scheme

  £ million

  Market Towns

  2.49

  Vital Villages

  Parish Plans

  1.35

  Community Service Grants

  4.82

  Parish Transport Grants

  4.24

  Rural Transport Fund

  10.11

  Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund

  4.8

  Local Heritage Initiative

  1.68

  Support for Rights of Way

  1.35

  Doorstep Greens

  1.24

  Millennium Greens

  0.44

  Walking the Way to Health

  1.42

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development with particular regard to(a) the multinational targets agreed during the Summit and (b) the targets the European Union sought to negotiate at Johannesburg and to which the EU remains committed. [76249]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 October,Official Report, column 898W. In addition, the UK and EU pushed unsuccessfully for a numerical target in relation to natural resource loss.

TRANSPORT

  10-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much private investment has been(a) spent and (b) allocated for road building (i) under the 10 year plan to date, (ii) projected by 2004–05 and (iii) projected for the period of the 10 year plan (A) at today's prices and (B) at outturn cost. [76479]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Tables a) and b) show the levels of private sector investment in strategic and local roads that were assumed in the "Ten Year Plan". The local roads figures include investment in maintenance and street lighting, as well as road construction.584W

  a) Real 2001/02 Prices (£ million)

  To end 2002–03

  To end 2004–05

  To end 2010–11

  Trunk roads

  391

  760

  2,349

  Local roads

  160

  492

  2,133

  Total

  551

  1,252

  4,482

  b) Outturn Prices (£ million)

  To end 2002–03

  To end 2004–05

  To end 2010–11

  Trunk roads

  396

  788

  2,638

  Local roads

  162

  515

  2,449

  Total

  558

  1,03

  5,087

  To date, we estimate that the private sector has invested £320 million in the construction of trunk roads. This figure excludes the A13 DBFO contract, which was included in the "Ten Year Plan" trunk road forecasts. The A13 was formerly a trunk road but was later transferred to Transport for London. There will be an estimated £150 million of private investment on the A13 to the end of December 2004. Since local highways authorities are responsible for procuring local roads, my Department does not hold information on private sector spending on these roads.

  Air Transport (Consultation Document)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the location of meetings he has organised during the consultation on The Future Development of Air Transport in the UK and (b) his criteria in choosing locations for the consultation. [76642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]During the consultation, the Department is conducting a programme of public exhibitions to provide information to people who would be affected by the major airport development options. The table lists the dates and locations of the public exhibitions.

  Airport

  Date

  Location

  Stansted

  30–31 August

  Stansted

  Cliffe (1)

  5 and 7 September

  Chatham and Basildon

  Gatwick

  14 September

  Gatwick

  Heathrow

  20–21 September

  Heathrow

  Luton

  27–28 September

  Harpenden

  Alconbury

  3 October

  Huntingdon

  Cliffe (2)

  4/5 October

  Cliffe and Hoo St Werburgh

  Glasgow

  8 October

  Glasgow

  Edinburgh

  9 October

  Edinburgh

  Manchester (1)

  14 October

  Knutsford

  East Midlands

  21 October

  East Midlands

  New Midlands Airport

  30 October

  Church Lawford

  Birmingham

  4 November

  Birmingham

  Newcastle

  8 November

  Gosforth Park

  Manchester (2)

  15 November

  Cheadle

  The main criteria applied in identifying suitable venues are proximity to the airport option and affected areas, venue capacity, accessibility, and availability.
  585W

  Bus and Coach Casualties
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the change in the number of injuries and fatalities in bus and coach transport between 1997 and 2001. [76950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the numbers of casualties by severity for bus or coach drivers and passengers between 1997 and 2001.

  Although total bus and coach occupant casualties in 2001 were 5 per cent. higher than in 1997, the number killed and seriously injured fell by 6 per cent. There has been little change in fatalities within the total.

  Bus and coach user casualties: 1997–2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Drivers

  Killed

  2

  1

  0

  1

  4

  KSI1

  75

  69

  67

  51

  64

  All severities

  833

  907

  908

  1,024

  992

  Passengers2

  Killed

  12

  17

  11

  14

  10

  KSI

  526

  562

  544

  527

  498

  All severities

  8,606

  8,932

  9,344

  9,064

  8,892

  All occupants2

  Killed

  14

  18

  11

  15

  14

  KSI

  601

  631

  611

  578

  562

  All severities

  9,439

  9,839

  10,252

  10,088

  9,884

  1 Killed or seriously injured

  2 Includes boarding and alighting

  Competition Act
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the nature and investigation of each complaint that has been made against a railway business under the terms of the Competition Act 1998. [76400]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Complaints concerning services relating to railways are a matter for the Rail Regulator exercising concurrent jurisdiction with the Director General of Fair Trading. Section 55 and schedule 11 of the Competition Act 1998 imposes a general restriction on disclosure of information. No information relating to the affairs of an individual, or any particular business or undertaking, can be disclosed during the individual's lifetime or while the business is carried on unless consent is obtained.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce concessionary travel fares for people in rural areas attending training courses; and if he will make a statement. [77047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Concessionary travel, as it currently stands, contributes to social inclusion by making transport more affordable to older and disabled people, who are often on lower incomes. However, others who may be socially excluded might also benefit from cheaper bus fares, but cannot do so under the current arrangements. We are therefore considering, in the context of our review on bus subsidies, whether local authorities should have greater discretion to extend lower fares to other groups such as those who are 586W
  seeking employment, or for people in full-time adult education. The review will report to Transport and Treasury Ministers in February 2003.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74681]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002 and the information requested since that date is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on external consultants by the former DTLR is given in an answer by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Dr. Whitehead) on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 736W.

  Expenditure on external consultants who dealt with press or public relations by the former DTLR is provided in an answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Leslie) on 19 June 2002, Official Report, column 412W.

  Cycleways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the number of cycleways, especially in rural areas. [77072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for providing cycling facilities rests with local traffic authorities.

  They have powers to provide cycle lanes on the carriageway and cycle tracks away from the road. It is for individual authorities to decide local priorities and allocate funding for schemes in rural areas.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the South East between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each Civil Service grade. [76556]

  Mr Jamieson
  We do not have central records readily available for vacancy figures as at 1 April 2001. Vacancy figures detailed in the table are at 1 October 2001. Figures for the Department's agencies are not held centrally and therefore are not available.
  587W

  Table showing vacancy position in Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as at 1 October 20011

  Responsibility level

  Vacancies (all London)

  Total staff

  Grade 6 and above

  1

  293

  Grade 7

  24

  631

  Senior Executive Officer

  37

  464

  Higher Executive Officer

  56

  880

  Executive Officer

  73

  950

  Administrative Officer

  96

  959

  Administrative Assistant

  9

  201

  Total non-industrial staff

  296

  4,380

  1 All vacancies are in the London region.

  Drivers (Mobile Phones)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's(a) policy and (b) advice on the use of hand-held mobiles while driving. [77070]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The advice in Rule 127 of The Highway Code is never to use a hand-held mobile phone when driving. The Department's leaflet 'Mobile Phones and Driving' provides more detailed advice—the text is

  (i) The Northern Lighthouse Board

  (a) Number of people employed

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Average number of employees(inc.part-time)

  395

  359

  365

  369

  358

  1 343

  Part-time

  151

  142

  146

  160

  157

  1 135

  1 Average for the Year to 30 September 2002

  (b) The role of the Northern Lighthouse Board is to provide and maintain aids to navigation around the coastline of Scotland and the Isle of Man and to deliver a reliable and economical service that enables all classes of mariner to navigate safely within its area of responsibility.

  (c) Annual budget

  £million

  1997–98

  23,461

  1998–99

  22,057

  1999–2000

  28,185

  2000–01

  22,930

  2001–02

  24,210

  2002–03

  22,140

  (ii) The commission for integrated Transport

  The Commission for integrated Transport was established in july 1999.

  (a) Number of people employed

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Board members

  17

  17

  17

  Secretariat

  6

  7

  10

  588W
  available on-line at "www.think.dft.gov.uk/mobile/ index.htm". This advice has been supported by publicity campaigns.

  The Government is currently inviting comments on the possible introduction of a specific offence to prohibit the use of any hand-held mobile phone or similar device by drivers. The Department's consultation document is available on-line at Views are requested by 25 November.

  East London Underground Line
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce plans to extend the East London Underground Line to stations in south London. [77292]

  Mr. Spellar
  As soon as we have taken a decision on the project.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of people employed, (b) the role and terms of reference and (c) the annual budget of (i) the Northern Lighthouse Board and (ii) the Commission for Integrated Transport for each year since 1997–98. [76524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (b) The role of the Commission for Integrated Transport is to provide independent advice to Government on the implementation of integrated transport policy, to monitor developments across transport, environment, health and other sectors and to review progress towards meeting the Government's objectives. Its remit includes:

  reviewing and monitoring progress towards objectives and targets set out in the Integrated Transport White Paper;

  continuing and refreshing the transport policy debate;

  fostering consensus among practical providers;

  identifying and disseminating examples of best practice from home and abroad;

  advising on developments in Europe, including relevant EU initiatives;

  advising on the role of existing and emerging technologies;

  reporting regularly on progress against the objectives and outcomes in the 10 Year Plan.

  (c) Annual budget

  £000

  1999–2000

  387

  2000–01

  695

  2001–02

  2,239

  589W

  London-Ipswich Links
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish his response to the consultation process on the London to Ipswich Multi-Modal Study. [77680]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to Ipswich Multi-Modal Study, as with all Multi-Modal Studies, has undertaken consultation exercises at various stages to ensure that the views of local public, businesses, environmental interests, transport users, operators and other regional interests are taken into account. The final report is due by the end of November 2002 and will include a section relating to communication and consultation undertaken as part of this study. We will announce our response to the Study after receiving views on it from the East of England Local Government Conference (RPB).

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about upgrading the A12 between London and Ipswich. [77681]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have received no recent representations about upgrading the A12 between London and Ipswich. However, transport issues in this corridor are being studied in the London to Ipswich (LOIS) multi-modal study. The study final report will be published by the end of November 2002 and will set out proposals for improvements for all modes of transport in the A12 corridor.

  Motorway Central Reservations
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for planting foliage in central reservations of 10 metres or more on motorways. [76569]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for new planting on existing wide central reservations on the existing motorway network.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been commissioned on the effect of foliage in central reservations of motorways on driver psychology. [76570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No research has been commissioned by my Department into the effect of foliage in central reservations of motorways on driver psychology.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has commissioned research into the effect of planting foliage on the central reservations of motorways in other countries on(a) safety, (b) the environment and (c) tourism. [76571]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. A working group was set up in 1988–89 that examined the design options for central reservation policy. It took account of European practice at that time. It did not find any evidence of significant benefits for safety, the environment or tourism in the use of such planting.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many non-devolved posts were 590W
  advertised in the press in each year from June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76849]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [Holding answer 24 October 2002]My Department does not hold centrally, information on the coverage of the posts it has advertised. None of our advertisements have used Scottish press, except where the post is to be based in Scotland. All of our advertising media is chosen to achieve as broad a reach as possible, and includes UK wide newspapers and the web.

  Regional Eurostar Rail Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the Government's assessment of the viability of regional Eurostar rail services following the responses received to his consultation on future aviation policy. [77255]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has a duty under S206(4) of the Transport Act 2000 to consider the introduction of regional Eurostar services. The SRA have said that they will soon publish a strategy relating to services in various parts of Great Britain for facilitating the carriage of passengers or goods by rail by way of the channel tunnel.

  Road Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve road safety in buses and coaches before 2004. [76951]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Buses and coaches have consistently been one of the safest forms of passenger transport. Since 2001 we have introduced requirements to improve their very good safety record such as the fitment of anti lock braking systems, seat belts in coaches and improved designs of buses to cater for disabled passengers. In the longer term we are working with others to improve the European standard for the protection of coach passengers in the event of a roll over accident. The revised standard is not expected to be applied to new coaches until after 2004.

  Road Schemes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the new road schemes under consideration by his Department; [75664]

  (2) if he will list the new road schemes which the Highways Agency has (a) agreed and (b) under consideration. [75665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is progressing the 61 schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) which are either under construction or proceeding through their remaining statutory procedures. A full list of schemes in the TPI has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Following decisions taken by Secretary of State on multi-modal or road-based studies, the Highways Agency has been tasked with taking forward further

  591W
  work on the following schemes, with a view to adding them to the TPI once a more detailed design has been agreed:

  A21 Tonbridge to Pembury online dualling;

  A21 Pembury—Hastings (selected improvements);

  Widening and partial realignment of the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge;

  M60/M67/A57 Denton Interchange Improvement;

  Dualling of the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith;

  A419 Commonhead Roundabout.

  I will place in the Libraries of the House a list of improvements currently under consideration that have been either formally recommended to us by multi modal studies or for which local authorities have made formal bids under the Local Transport Plan process.

  South Coast Corridor Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the Isle of Wight was excluded from the terms of reference of the south coast corridor multi-modal study. [76745]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While not included in the study corridor identified in the 1998 White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" the Isle of Wight was included in the area of influence agreed by the study Steering Group for the south coast multi-modal study. Throughout the study steps were taken to ensure consultation with the wider reference group, this included representatives from the Isle of Wight.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to issue guidance on the forms of traffic calming. [77073]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has issued and will continue to issue guidance in the form of Traffic Advisory Leaflets. These provide information on the design of traffic calming measures and their impact, including public attitudes to calming schemes.

  The Department intends to publish a Local Transport Note on traffic calming in 2003. This will draw together existing information and assist local authorities in the comparison of available measures.

  Transport and Traffic Studies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) national and (b) regional transport and traffic studies have been undertaken since 1997 which include the Isle of Wight. [76746]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been a number of national and regional surveys and studies since 1997 which have included consideration of transport and traffic on or to the Isle of Wight. These include:

  South Coast Multi Modal Study

  M27 Corridor Integrated Transport Study

  Survey of bus passenger satisfaction

  International Road Haulage Survey

  PSV Annual Inquiry (bus and coach operators)

  Continuing Survey of Road Goods Vehicles

  National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS)

  National Travel Survey

  592W

  The National Census

  Survey of taxis and private hire vehicles

  Ports Survey

  Traffic Census

  Review of UK Trust Ports

  Trinity House and Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent assessment he has made of the performance of(a) Trinity House Lighthouse Service and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority, including details of performance targets; what reports are published on their performance and if he will place copies of such reports in the Library; [76473]

  (2) how many people are employed by (a) the Trinity House Lighthouse Service and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority; what their role and terms of reference are; what their annual budget was for each year since 1997–98; and what their projected budget is for 2002–03. [76196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  Average number of employees (inc. part-time)

  part-time

  1997–98

  545

  55

  1998–99

  527

  63

  1999–2000

  466

  13

  2000–01

  450

  15

  2001–02

  439

  16

  2002–03

  1 436

  1 16

  1 Average for the year to 30 September 2002

  The role of Trinity House Lighthouse Service is to provide and maintain aids to navigation around the coastline of England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar and to deliver a reliable and economical service that enable all classes of mariner to navigate safely within its area of responsibility.

  The annual budget figures are given in the table:

  £ million

  1997–98

  29,187

  1998–99

  29,362

  1999–2000

  28,587

  2000–01

  30,364

  2001–02

  30,203

  2002–03

  31,998

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) measures the availability of the aids to navigation against the service standards set by the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA). These performance indicators are set out in the Report and Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund 2000–2001, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. They indicate that most aids to navigation provided by THLS exceed the IALA standards for availability for use.
  593W
  (b) Strategic Rail Authority

  On 31 March 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority employed 463 staff (including BRB (Residuary) Limited and Rail Passengers' Council staff, but excluding the British Transport Police). The Authority's purposes and strategies are set out in sections 205–209 of the Transport Act 2000, together with the manner in which the Authority is to exercise its functions. Directions and guidance under sections 206(3) and 207(5) of the 2000 Act were issued to the Authority on 26 September 2002.

  The Authority was established on 1 February 2001 with a budget of £329,555,000 for the last two months of 2000–01. Its budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were, respectively, £1,796,749,000 and £2,149,998,000. The Authority's main predecessor body was the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF). The table shows OPRAFs annual budgets from 1997–98 onwards.

  Cash prices (£)

  1997–98

  1,516,385,000

  1998–99

  1,254,889,000

  1999–2000

  1,110,889,000

  2000–01

  1 1,032,889,000

  1 Of the £1,032,889,000 total, £321,555,000 was used to help fund the SRA in February(March 2001.

  Details of the expenditure funded from those budgets are set out in OPRAF's and the Authority's annual reports and accounts.

  The Authority reports on progress against its objectives in its annual reports. Its most recent report, for 2001–02, was published and placed in the House Library in July 2002.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Access Radio
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assistance the Government will give to Access Radio stations to set up; and whether they will be eligible for lottery funding; [76943]

  (2) what controls will be placed on Access Radio stations to prevent competition with small local radio stations; [76942]

  (3) what level of profit Access Radio stations will be permitted to make; [76945]

  (4) what rules will govern the running of Access Radio stations. [76946]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government announced in the Communications White Paper in December 2000 that they were considering establishing a new tier of access radio to allow the provision of very local and very niche services.

  It was agreed with the Radio Authority that it should pilot this idea and in August 2001 the Radio Authority invited 15 groups to participate in the pilot scheme during 2002. The purpose of the pilot scheme is to establish whether access radio is viable and how it might be licensed, regulated, funded, promoted and organised.
  594W
  The completed evaluation is expected to be published next spring. The Communications Bill, when enacted, will allow the Secretary of State to introduce access radio, and any decisions will be informed by the outcome of the current pilot study.

  If the Government decide to introduce access radio, it is anticipated that future access radio stations would:

  demonstrate evidence of social gain and/or public service aims;

  be small-scale neighbourhood schemes, or be designed to serve a community of interest;

  be funded either through non-commercial funding or by a mixture of commercial and non-commercial funding (for which limits may be specified);

  be not-for-profit or non-profit distributing;

  be ring-fenced in terms of ownership and operation from Independent Local Radio, and distinct from Independent Local Radio (ILR) (eg ILR licensees will be proscribed from equity participation to any extent in an Access Radio licensee); and

  provide opportunities to allow access among those within the target group to the operation of the service.

  In drawing up arrangement for licensing and regulating access radio stations, the Government and OFCOM will take full account of the possible impact of access radio on the local broadcasting ecology in each potential locality.

  The Government are considering the creating of an access radio fund which could support access radio stations. No decisions have yet been taken on such a fund. It will be for the lottery distributing bodies to decide whether access radio stations will be eligible for grants.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with those organisations that certify the standards of bed and breakfast accommodation with the aim of trying to get agreed standards. [76980]

  Dr. Howells
  I have had no such discussions. The standards are already agreed and widely publicised but I am considering commissioning a review of the way they are working in the near future.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) positions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76563]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of vacancies in the Department, and total number of staff by grade are set out in the table:

  Position as at 1 April 2001

  London region

  South-east region

  Grade

  Vacancies

  Total staff

  Vacancies

  Total stuff

  Grade 6 and above

  0

  32

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  7

  63

  0

  1

  595W

  Position as at 1 April 2001

  London region

  South-east region

  Grade

  Vacancies

  Total staff

  Vacancies

  Total stuff

  HEO/SEO

  12

  125

  0

  0

  EO

  11

  88

  0

  0

  AO

  4

  78

  0

  0

  AA

  0

  16

  0

  0

  Football Transfers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Football League and National Conference League on the subject of transfers. [76981]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has remained in close touch with the football authorities since the announcement of agreement on the principles of the new international transfer system, made between the sport and the European Commission in March 2001. Officials have recently discussed the Football League's proposals for exemption from the transfer window framework.

  Gatekeeper's Room, Marble Arch
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what use is made of the former Gatekeeper's Room in Marble Arch. [77293]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage currently open the large room in Marble Arch to the public for guided tours during the annual London Open House weekend, when interpretive material is provided by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association. Access difficulties limit the possibilities for greater use of the rooms in the arch.

  Licensing
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the cost associated with her proposal to transfer licensing responsibilities from magistrates to local authorities. [77397]

  Dr. Howells
  The transfer of licensing responsibilities from magistrates to local authorities would be cost neutral. The licensing justices currently recover the costs of licensing by means of fees. Following transfer, licensing fees would be set centrally at a level that fully recovers the costs to local authorities of administering and enforcing the new licensing system.

  Playing Fields
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets for numbers of schemes and finance to be allocated have been agreed between the New Opportunity Fund and Sport England for the Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces Programme, with the purpose of(a)preserving playing fields and open spaces, (b) purchasing new playing fields,(c)bringing disused playing fields back into use and (b) improving the condition of playing fields. [76660]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces Programme run by Sport England under the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and 596W
  Sustainable Communities programme, is split into two main strands: playing fields and playing pitch strategies, and playgrounds and community play areas.

  The playing fields and playing pitch strategies element of the programme has a target spend of £20,404,890. This consists of £19,636,768 for development of new, under threat or disused playing fields, and pitch improvements; and £768,122 for playing pitch strategies.

  The target agreed with Sport England for development of new, under threat or disused playing fields is 85 fields. The target agreed with Sport England for pitch improvements is 106 pitches.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes have been made to the agreements made at the beginning of the programme between New Opportunity Fund and Sport England for the Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces Programme. [76663]

  Mr. Caborn
  No changes have been made since the start of the programme.

  Racism in Sport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with football authorities and the Department for Education and Skills about raising awareness in schools of racism in sport, with particular reference to football; and if she will make a statement. [76926]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department supports the work of Kick it Out and Show Racism the Red Card, which co-ordinate anti-racism work in football. Both bodies are co-sponsored by the Football Foundation, through which public funding for the sport is channelled. The Department for Education and Skills has worked closely with the two organisations on anti-racist educational resources, including a CD-Rom developed by Show Racism the Red Card which is designed to be compatible with the citizenship module of the national curriculum.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to use his statutory powers to open the records relating to the 1911 Census in England and Wales. [77806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to release the 1911 Census at this time. Decennial Census returns held by the PRO care closed for 100 years under Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act through Lord Chancellor's Instrument 1958 (No. 12 dated 1966). This is the general closure period which applies to census returns.

  Census Website
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people have visited the 1901 Census website since its relaunch; and if he will make a statement. [77281]
  597W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 1901 Census website went back online as a test site on 27 August 2002. up to 21 October over 1.4 million people have visited the site. They have conducted 14 million searches and downloaded 600,000 images of the census pages.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and

  Companies/consultancies used between June 2001 and August 2002

  Net expenditure with companies/consultancies listed and services performed

  (a) Public relations/communications companies Analogue Gyrographic Communications Ltd.

  Public Relations/Communications Services:£0.007 million Design of a website and design of an annual report

  (b) Advertising and marketing companies None

  Advertising and marketing services: Nil expenditure

  (c) Management consultancies and specialist consultancies 1

  Management and specialist consultancy services:£7.36 million2

  PA Consulting Group

  Provision of expert professional advice and support on specific, time-limited tasks, usually in connection with projects, but sometimes in support of the on-going operation of the Department. Services performed include customer and market surveys, risk assessments, provision of technical advice (eg on IT security, health and safety), undertaking specific studies and reviews and supporting the implementation of major projects and programmes.

  CMG UK Ltd.

  ASE Consulting

  AMTEC

  Banner McBride

  C. International Ltd.

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Stanton Marris Ltd.

  The current level of expenditure reflects the wide-ranging and fast-paced programme to modernise the courts and the tribunal system to increase efficiency, provide better customer service, and value for money for the tax payer.

  PKF

  Metropolitan Investigations

  Acrobat

  Butcher Doulton Communications

  Delivering such a programme has necessitated the use of external expertise and skills to supplement the Department's own resources.

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Arthur D. Little

  Parity Penna

  Inform Consulting

  Insight Consulting Ltd.

  Suffolk CCWS

  TSO Consulting

  BMI Health Services

  Yale Consulting

  Deloitte Consulting

  Paver Downes

  WS Atkins Planning and Management Consultants Ltd.

  Wheelers

  CESG

  VP Treen

  Mc Bains Cooper

  R. Verney

  Team Management Systems

  Lombard Street

  Cornwall Associates

  ORC International

  DBi Consulting Ltd.

  Gartner

  Solving AEM Ltd.

  Improcom Ltd.

  Ward Dutton

  BMRB

  Ionnan

  Kelly Services

  SchlumbergerSema

  CMC

  Hays Consultancy and Solutions

  (d) Accountancy companies

  Accountancy services£0.29 million

  Kidsons

  General accountancy advice and advice on pension arrangements

  Deloitte Consulting

  PKF

  SD Partners Ltd.

  598W
  marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d)accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74687]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's use of external companies/consultancies, in the categories requested and between 1 June 2001 to 31 August 2002, was as follows:
  599W

  Companies/consultancies used between June 2001 and August 2002

  Net expenditure with companies/consultancies listed and services performed

  (e) Banking firms None

  Banking services: Nil expenditure

  (h) Individual consultants 3

  4—

  (i) Other specialist consultancies4

  4—

  1 Management and specialist consultancies are listed together as many consultancies provide both types of service.

  2 £0.34 million of the £7.36 million was with individual consultants.

  3 In addition to the management and specialist consultancy companies listed, 33 individual consultants were used.

  4 See (c).

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 8 August, in respect of Mr. and Mrs. Jones. [77310]

  Yvette Cooper
  The letter of 8 August on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jones was passed to the Chief Executive of the Court Service for reply as he had already been dealing with the issues involved. He replied to the letter on 24 October.

  Further to this matter I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will instruct the chief Executive of the Court Service to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 8 August. [77311]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Executive of the Court Service replied to the letter of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham of 8 August on 24 October.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76552]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following table provides the information requested.

  Grade

  SIP London

  SIPSE

  Vacancies London

  vacancies SE

  AA

  720

  339

  131

  132

  AO

  1,389

  632

  327

  61

  EO

  1,376

  268

  272

  38

  HEO

  643

  88

  173

  14

  SEO

  339

  23

  88

  3

  Grade 7

  306

  3

  64

  0

  Grade 6 and above

  173

  6

  29

  0

  Total

  4,946

  1,359

  1,084

  248

  Election Dates
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor 600W
  will estimate the saving to public funds of holding the next European elections and local elections on the same day; and if she will make a statement. [76248]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have made some broad estimates of the likely costs of holding the European parliamentary and local elections on the same weekday in 2004. These suggest that savings may be in the region of £20 million which would represent a saving approaching 25 per cent. compared with the cost of holding these elections on separate days.

  Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on regional appeals tribunals. [77069]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pensions Appeals Tribunals currently have four permanent regional hearing centres and access to an additional four. Hearings are listed according to the hearing centre identified as most local to an appellant. Appellants are given the opportunity to request for hearings to be held at an alternative centre.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Policy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to respond to the recommendation in the PIU Energy Review that departmental responsibility for energy efficiency and CHP policy be located with other aspects of energy policy. [77434]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU recommended that the Government should consider whether responsibility for energy efficiency and CHP policy be located with other aspects of energy policy by the end of 2003. The Government will consider the options in the context of its current review of energy policy, which will lead to a White Paper in the new year.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Prime Minister what his role is in relation to authorisation of the use of the armed forces in the event of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [76296]
  601W
  The Prime Minister
  Decisions in relation to the deployment of the armed forces would be taken in the normal way. Lead responsibility for dealing with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease remains with DEFRA, and the procedures for involving the armed forces are clearly stated in the Interim Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan.

  Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat also have a key role in securing a Government-wide co-ordinated response should a disease emergency occur. This is also outlined in the Interim FMD Contingency Plan.

  Hawk Jets
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his Indian counterpart in respect of the sale of Hawk jets to India. [77223]

  The Prime Minister
  I last met the Indian Prime Minister on 12 October 2002. We discussed a wide range of issues of mutual interest. These covered a number of defence and security matters, including defence export opportunities. The Government continue to support the proposals that BAE Systems has made for the supply of Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer aircraft to India.

  Title

  Author

  Date commissioned

  Estimated publication date

  Falklands Campaign

  Professor Lawrence Freedman

  1997

  2003

  The Official Biography of Desmond Morton

  Mrs Gill Bennett

  2002

  2004

  The Development of North Sea Oil and Gas

  Professor Alexander Kemp

  1999

  2005

  Channel Tunnel

  Dr. Terence Gourvish

  2001

  2005

  UK Accession to the EEC vol 2

  Professor Alan Milward

  1997

  2006

  The Civil Service since Fulton

  Professor Rodney Lowe

  2002

  2008

  SOE in France (revised edition)

  Professor M R D Foot

  2000

  2003

  Secret Flotillas (revised edition)

  Sir Brooks Richards

  2000

  2003

  From Defence by Committee to Defence by Ministry

  Professor Donald Cameron Watt

  1974

  2004

  External Economic Policy since the War vol 2

  Professor Leslie Pressnell

  1974

  2004

  SOE in Italy

  Christopher Woods

  1989

  2004

  SOE in Greece

  Professor Richard Clogg

  1984

  2004

  In the financial year 2000–01 the cost of running the official history programme was £147,000. This includes fees and expenses of historians and research assistants, costs associated with publication and staff costs of Cabinet Office administrative support. However, it excludes accommodation related overheads. In the case of the SOE histories, no fee is paid for the authors' work. Instead they seek recompense through royalties from their publishers.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer,
  602W

  Iraq
  Andrew George
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with President Bush about the desirability of obtaining explicit UN approval for military action against Iraq. [76932]

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with President Bush. My position on the UN is as I set out in the answer I gave the hon. Member for St. Ives in the House on 23 October 2002.

  Men's Issues
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish the post of a Minister for men's issues. [76308]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government sponsored official histories are in preparation; when each was commissioned; who the authors are; what the estimated dates of completion are; and what the estimated cost in each case is. [74921]

  The Prime Minister
  The original programme of official histories commissioned by the War Cabinet, and covering military and civil histories of the second world war, was extended in 1966 by the then Prime Minister to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history. The following are currently in preparation:

  (d) higher executive officer,(e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all postions above grade 7 level in her Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the South East between 1 April 2001 and 31 March: and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76554]

  Mrs.Liddell
  My Department has a number of staff located in London. The following table provides a breakdown of staff numbers and vacancies between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002.

  London region

  Responsibility level

  Vacancies

  Total staff

  G6 and above

  —

  5

  G7

  —

  3

  SEO

  —

  —

  HEO

  —

  3

  EO

  —

  9

  603W

  London region

  Responsibility level

  Vacancies

  Total staff

  AO

  5

  12

  AA

  —

  4

  Other

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  36

TREASURY

  UK Property Prices
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of recent changes in UK property prices on his fiscal policy. [77018]

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

  Biofuels
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the value of biofuels for road transport in contributing to achieving his environmental and rural development goals; [75025]

  (2)what representations he has received about further reductions in the rates of duty on biodiesel and biomethanol; and if he will make a statement; [75026]

  (3)what discussions he has had with the EU over reduced rates of duty for road gas fuels and hydrogen as a road fuel; and what plans he has for similar discussions to reduce the rates for biomethanol. [75027]

  John Healey
  [holding answers 21 October 2002]Ministers and officials have had a number of discussions with the European Commission and other member states about road fuel duties.

  The former Department for Environment, Transport and Local Government published an environmental appraisal of the green fuels originally submitted in response to the Chancellor's Green Fuel Challenge in March 2001. This set out the Government's views on different alternative fuels. In addition, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned an assessment from Sheffield Hallam University on biodiesel. This is an independent evaluation of comparative energy, environmental and social costs and benefits of biodiesel. The results of this study are expected to be published later this year.

  We have received a number of representations about fuel duty rates. Decisions on duty rates are taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Budget time.

  Child Tax Credit
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) families with children and (b) lone parents who will have relevant incomes as defined under section 7 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 of less than £13,230 a year for the purpose of calculating entitlement to child tax credit. [77267]
  604W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families with children expected to benefit from the child tax credit with relevant incomes as defined under section 7 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 of less than £13,230 a year is estimated as 2.4 million.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) families with children and (b) one-parent families will be eligible for the maximum rate of child tax credit. [77269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families with children expected to benefit from the maximum rate of child tax credit is estimated as 2.55 million.

  Confederacion Espanola de Caja Ahorros
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England have received about the Confederacion Espanola de Caja Ahorros in each of the last 10 years. [77227]

  Ruth Kelly
  Complaints resolution between financial firms and their customers is not a function carried out by the Financial Services Authority. In any case, disclosure of the information sought is prevented by section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act (2000).

  Customs and Excise
  Matthew Taylor:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a progress report on the Customs and Excise electronic self-service facilities for current internal based administrative processes in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [74781]

  John Healey
  As part of their e-Business programme to modernise the way the Department delivers its business, Customs are in the process of procuring a commercial off-the-shelf HR package to deliver electronic self-service facilities for their current HR administrative processes.

  The Proof of Concept (PoC) phase of the procurement exercise started on 2 September 2002 and will last for three months. This will ensure that the proposed system will meet their HR requirements.

  If the outcome is successful, Customs expect to award contracts in early 2003 when an Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review to confirm the investment decision is also planned. Subject to this, the first phase of development can then commence. Implementation is likely to take a minimum of two years.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the South east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76557]
  605W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information on the number of vacancies as at 1 April 2001 is unavailable. The information on total employment as at 1 April 2001 in HM Treasury is shown in the table:

  Position as at 1 April 2001 in HM Treasury (London region

  Total

  Non-industrial staff at grade 6 and above

  67.7

  Range E (equivalent to grade 7)

  230.7

  Range D (equivalent to HEO/SEO level)

  277.1

  Range C (equivalent to EO level)

  111.0

  Range B (equivalent to AO level)

  150.6

  Range A (equivalent to AA level)

  37.9

  Total staff as at 1 April 2001

  875.0

  Digicerts
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the use of Digicerts supplied by Equifax to UK firms must comply with USA export law and regulations, with particular reference to those imposing trade sanctions on other countries. [77126]

  (2)what assessment he has made of the legal liability of those using Digicerts; [77130]

  (3)whether the Government have carried out an audit of Equifax data systems; [77124]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the award of the contract to Equifax as a supplier of Digital certificates; [77128]

  (5) what representations he has received concerning the New Export System for non-European Community exports; [77132]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the application of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 to information supplied under the New Export System; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of the Equifax digital application procedure with the Act; [77123]

  (7) what agreements must be entered into by those applying for Digicerts from Equifax and whether (a) UK and (b) US law governs the use of Digicerts supplied to UK companies by Equifax; [77127]

  (8) whether (a) individuals and (b) organisations may apply for Digicerts; [77131]

  (9) whether Digicerts supplied to UK companies by Equifax can be used in the course of exports to (a) Cuba and (b) Iran; [77125]

  (10) what information must be supplied by applicants for Digicerts; and what protection is given concerning the use of such information; [77129]

  (11) what assessment he has made of the role of Digital Certificates in the new export system; and if he will list Government approved Digicert-issuing bodies. [77133]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise's New Export System (NES) went live at all Maritime and Inland locations (including Inland Clearance Depots) throughout the UK on 27 October 2002. NES is 606W
  electronic-based system which enables exporters and agents to send their export declarations to Customs electronically.

  It replaces the current paper-based system, facilitates legitimate trade and helps combat VAT and Excise fraud. NES provides a number of tailored models and procedures to meet the needs of different trade sectors. It will allow Customs to target their controls more effectively and therefore minimise disruption to legitimate trade; and there will be a reduction in the time it takes to process an export declaration.

  The legal basis for the information supplied by exporters and their agents under NES is the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92) and the Implementing Regulation (Commission Regulation (EEC) 2454/93). Article 15 of the Community Customs Code imposes an obligation of privacy on customs authorities. NES complies with the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998.

  The Paymaster General received one representation on NES from the British International Freight Association (BIFA) on 20 December last year, to which the Financial Secretary replied on 24 January 2002.

  To operate the New Export System electronically a digital certificate may be required. Either an individual or an organisation may apply for a digital certificate. Customs require Level 2 Security to meet authentication and non-repudiation requirements for all non-European Community declarations made via the world wide web to their export declaration processing system.

  The policy of the e-Envoy's Office is that Level 2 security requirements should be met by use of digital certificates. Customs have adopted the e-Envoy's Office's policy for Level 2. Agreements concerning digital certificates are a contractual matter between the issuer and applicant; the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and the EU Electronic Signatures Directive determine the general legal admissibility of digital certificates.

  The Government do not approve or carry out audits of digital certificate providers, but it encourages them to seek approval from tScheme, a voluntary, not-for-profit, industry-led body or an equivalent approval scheme. Equifax is one of several digital certificate suppliers undergoing tScheme accreditation. tScheme is the organisation set up to create strict service criteria and to approve electronic trust services, including qualified certificate services. Any digital certificate provider that meets the tScheme requirements and is technically compatible is able to supply digital certificates that can be used with the Government Gateway. Other providers are ChamberSign and BT Trust Services (available from mid-November 2002).

  The only contract between these digital certificate providers and the UK Government are a standard "relying party agreement". This contract ensures that each provider supplies up-to-date lists of all digital certificate holders so that the UK Government can verify their identities when transacting through the Government Gateway.
  607W
  The information supplied by applicants will depend on the certificate issuer and the intended use of the certificate. Any personal information provided and not intended for public access is covered by the DPA. It is not the Government's role to make assessments on the compliance of certificate issuers with the DPA but they are bound by its requirements.

  Whether or not a digital certificate complies with US export laws is a matter for the firm and the issuer of the certificate, not the UK Government. The certificate policy should make clear the extent of any liability of the certificate issuer to the certificate relying party. This is a matter for the certificate issuer and the applicant.

  Estate Sales
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what capital has been realised by the sale of the estates of each of HM Treasury and its agencies since 1997 and what is the estimated value of what remains. [75684]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Proceeds from estate sales for April 1996 to March 2002 amount to £165,954,000. These sales relate solely to the Office of Government Commerce. The estimated value of remaining property is £107,098,000.

  Foot and Mouth Relief
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Treasury over the impact of the taxation of foot and mouth relief for small businesses, with particular reference to those involved in tourism. [77307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Departments continue to provide help and support, on a case by case basis, to those businesses and individuals who still face financial difficulty because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The Revenue Departments have helped over 27,000 businesses by agreeing to defer over £264 million in tax, national insurance contributions and VAT.

  Individual Tax Codes
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the Inland Revenue in determining an individual's tax code; and if he will make a statement. [77020]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under Pay As You Earn a code number is used to ensure that about the right amount of tax is deducted from pay according to an individual's known circumstances. And, at the end of the year, the Inland Revenue checks to see that the correct amount of tax has been paid. The Inland Revenue issues approximately 26 million notices of coding every year and each is based on the latest information available.

  The Inland Revenue computer systems automatically determine a code number for each taxpayer prior to the start of each tax year. During the tax year, some code numbers are revised by staff on receipt of information from a taxpayer or employer. The Inland Revenue undertakes annual reviews to monitor the accuracy of work in the Department. This shows that coding accuracy in 2001–02 was 94 per cent.
  608W

  Life Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of the tax exemption on the cost of charges and commissions included in life insurance products in the last 12 months. [77677]

  Ruth Kelly
  I regret the information is not available.

  Money Laundering
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amendments are being proposed to the EU Directive on money laundering which allowed prior notification to the legal representatives of suspects; and if he will make a statement. [77217]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Second EC Money Laundering Directive was agreed in December 2001 and is not subject to amendment.

  Network Rail
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Office for National Statistics will publish its joint letter with the National Audit Office concerning the accounting treatment of Network Rail; and if he will make a statement. [74769]

  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. M. Taylor, dated 28 October 2002.)
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on when the Office for National Statistics will publish its joint letter with the National Audit Office concerning the accounting treatment of Network rail. (74769)
  The Office for National Statistics made its joint statement with the National Audit Office concerning the accounting treatment of Network Rail on Thursday the 24 October. I am enclosing a copy of this statement. and shall also be placing a copy in the House of Commons Library. The statement is also available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ pdfdir/networkl002.pdf and on the National Audit Office website at: http://www.nao.gov.uk/pn/01–02/nao—ons.htm.

  Pensions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to hold an investigation into the erroneous figures on the value of United Kingdom pension contributions which have been published by the Office for National Statistics over the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [77001]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 28 October 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on pension contribution statistics [77001].
  I commissioned a Review of ONS Pension Contribution Statistics on the 2 July of this year. The Terms of Reference of this Review were set out in a Press Notice (copy attached).
  The review panel included senior statisticians from ONS, Inland Revenue, Department of Work and Pensions and the Government Actuaries Department, supported by experts from the Association of British Insurers and from the University sector.

  609W
  The panel produced a report which I published on 10th October. (I attach a copy of the Press Notice that accompanied the publication of the review).
  I am currently drawing up an implementation plan, based on the review recommendations, and I expect to announce the details of that before the end of November. I will steer that programme of work drawing on the same sorts of expertise that contributed to the review.

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the marginal rate of tax at which all contributors' pension contributions could be allowed if(a) all contributions were to be allowed at a single rate and (b) the cost were the same as that of the present system of tax reliefs. [76787]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of reliefs under the current system are given in table 7.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website; http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.Uk/ stats/pensions/p t09 1.htm

  They are subject to a wide margin of error and are not indicative of the effects of changing the system, as there would be significant changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Population Estimates
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of local authorities in England and Wales ranked by the difference between the Office of National Statistics mid-2000 Population Estimates and the 2001 census(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a percentage. [76619]

  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. Ian Lucas, dated 28 October 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for a list of local authorities in England and Wales ranked by the difference between the Office for National Statistics mid-2000 Population Estimates and the 2001 Census (a) in absolute terms and (b) as a percentage. (76619)
  The attached tables supply the information you have requested. I will be placing copies in the House of Commons Library. The current estimates for the years 1982–2000 are based on the 1981 Census figures, rolled forward, and will be shortly revised to take account of the results of the 2001 Census and an assessment of the cumulative errors that have built up in the mid-year estimates. Final revised Mid Year Estimates for 1991–2000 will be released on 13 February and for 1982–1990 at a later date.
  In order to assist users in interpreting changes over time, ONS have issued a set of interim revised national estimates for the period 1982–2000. At the national level, for example, the previous mid-year estimate for population of England and Wales for 2000, of 52,943 thousand has now been accordingly revised to 51,913 thousand.

  Red Diesel
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of duty in each EU member state in respect of red diesel. [77542]
  610W
  John Healey
  "Red diesel" is gas oil which has been marked with a red dye and a tracer chemical making it eligible for a rebated rate of excise duty. The effective duty rate in the UK is currently 3.13 pence per litre. This rebate is specific to the UK. While many other EU member states operate rebate schemes that are similar to the UK's, they are applied in very different ways so no direct comparison is possible.

  Split Capital Trusts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the actions taken by the Financial Services Authority to address investor concerns about the fall in value of the Split Capital Trust market in the UK over the last two years. [77494]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority issued a discussion paper on the split capital investment trust market in December 2001. The results of this discussion paper were published in May 2002. Since then the FSA have been investigating past problems, including possible problems with marketing literature, possible mis-selling and alleged collusive behaviour by some managers of split capital trusts. Looking forward, they have been considering if any changes are needed to the rules of their regulatory handbook or the listing rules. They have also been liaising with the Association of Investment Trusts on their proposals for improved disclosure of the portfolios and borrowings of split capital trusts.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) oral and (b) written communications took place between the Financial Services Authority in the UK and the Guernsey Financial Services Commission between 1st December 2000 and 30th April 2002 on the subject of the (i) risk characteristics and (ii) disclosure and regulation relating to Split Capital Trusts; and if he will make a statement. [77495]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the course of its duties the FSA liaises regularly with other financial regulators about issues of mutual interest. The details of these discussions is a matter for the FSA itself.

  Tax Self-Assessment
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the on-line tax self-assessment service complies with the requirements of the Welsh Language Board. [76744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no facility at present to enable self-assessment tax returns to be filed on-line in Welsh. The Inland Revenue's aim is to have an on-line filing service available in Welsh and is currently working towards this end.

  The Welsh Language Board are aware of the situation, have accepted the current position and accepted the Inland Revenue's plan to make this service available.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the on-line tax self-assessment material is not available in Welsh; and what proportion of this is available in Welsh in another form. [76747]
  611W
  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no on-line tax self-assessment material available in Welsh. 100 per cent. of tax self assessment material is available in Welsh in paper format or electronically via the Welsh language pages on the Inland Revenue's website. The electronic material can be downloaded, printed and completed manually by individuals.

  VAT Inspections
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints his Department has received in each of the last five years relating to VAT inspection. [76831]

  John Healey
  Where available, relevant statistics in relation to their complaints procedures will be published in HM Customs and Excise's Annual report, which is due for publication later this Autumn.

  Working Tax Credit
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) families with children and (b) lone parents who will be eligible for working tax credit and will have relevant incomes as defined under section 7 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 of less than £5,060 a year for the purpose of calculating entitlement. [77268]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families with children expected to benefit from the working tax credit and to have relevant incomes as defined under section 7 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 of less than £5,060 for the purpose of calculating their tax credit entitlement is estimated to be 350,000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were recorded in Cambridgeshire in each of the last three years. [74783]

  Mr. Denham
  Violent crime is comprised of offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. The requested figures are given in the table.

  Violent crime in Cambridgeshire

  Year ending March

  Number of recorded violent crimes

  1999–2000

  7,056

  2000–01

  7,419

  2001–02

  8,584

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is not necessarily an accurate guide to trends in violent crime, as it is subject to changes in reporting and recording. For example, in the British Crime Survey, for England and Wales as a whole, the number of common assaults showed a statistically significant decrease of 24 per cent. between 1999 and interviews during 2001–02, whereas common assaults recorded by the police in England and Wales increased by 15 per cent. over the same period.
  612W

  Air Weapons
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the acquisition and possession of air weapons. [75309]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are very well aware of, and take very seriously, the damage which can result from the misuse of air weapons. We are looking at a number of options for dealing with the problem of air weapon misuse including a change in the age limits at which air weapons may be acquired and possessed. We will bring forward proposals shortly on measures to tackle this problem.

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the powers of the police to confiscate drink in the possession of young people. [75347]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The police have powers to confiscate alcohol from under-age drinkers in public places (Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997). Section 29 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 further clarified the confiscation powers. This enables the police to deal with situations where young people's drinking is causing a nuisance to others or may lead to bad behaviour. We have taken careful note of representations from the police to increase the confiscation powers to include sealed containers, and we intend to bring forward amendments to do this when parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 September 2002,Official Report, columns 74–75W, when he will introduce legislation to amend the regulation issued under section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 in respect of the confiscation of alcohol from under-age drinkers in public places. [76527]

  Mr. Denham
  The regulations made under section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 are The Local Authorities (Alcohol Consumption in Designated Public Places) Regulations 2001. These set out the procedures to be followed by local authorities, relating to consultation and publicity, before making an order identifying a public place for the purposes of restricting anti-social public drinking. The regulations do not cover police powers to confiscate alcohol, and we have no plans to change them.

  We are considering representations from the police and others about existing police powers to confiscate alcohol and we will introduce any changes in the law that may be necessary as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what evidence he has collated on the effectiveness of(a) anti-social behaviour orders and (b) acceptable behaviour contracts; [76258]

  (2) what measures the Government are using to encourage greater use of anti-social behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts in Wales. [76259]
  613W
  Mr. Denham
  A major Home Office review of all aspects of the use of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) was published in April 2002. The review found that ASBOs were being used successfully to reduce many different types of anti-social behaviour, although there were some areas in which the orders were not being applied for. In response to these findings we brought forward a wide range of enhancements to the law relating to ASBOs in the Police Reform Act.

  We have also commissioned a survey of Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) schemes in England and Wales, and is also evaluating the original ABC scheme in Islington. This research will be published in spring 2003.

  The Home Office is producing new, joint guidance on anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs). The new guidance will include examples of good practice and reflect the changes to anti-social behaviour orders introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. It will encourage greater use of ASBOs and ABCs by helping all those involved in protecting the community to implement the measures more effectively.

  Asylum and Immigration Policies
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to offer language and citizenship education to those settling in the UK. [75327]

  Beverley Hughes
  The advisory group, chaired by Professor Sir Bernard Crick, will be making recommendations on language and citizenship education for people seeking naturalisation. The advisory group is working on a programme of study, which will be part of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) language teaching for those assessed as not having sufficient English. The Group has had two meetings so far and intends issuing an interim report early in the New Year, with a final report around Easter 2003.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill refers to applicants having to deomonstrate "sufficient English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic)".

  The Group is presently interpreting 'sufficient English' as meaning enough linguistic ability to sustain unskilled employment in an English-speaking environment. For those with that minimal level already, they consider that attendance at classes should raise their level of competence to the next entry level, as defined in the existing adult learning language skills criteria. In other words, the Group is considering the concept of attendance and progression, rather than requiring all applicants to reach an absolute standard that for some might never be achievable.

  The Group has considered whether there might be some sort of screening process to filter out those people who already have sufficient English. While we do not want to make unnecessary work for people who already have a good command of one of the UK languages, we do want them to demonstrate their knowledge of life in the UK. Screening might also be used to allocate people to programmes which best meet their needs. ESOL
  614W
  teachers are well used to assessing linguistic capability to get people on to the right course and a number of such tools already exist.

  Defining these borderlines more precisely will of course take a little time. Issues of numbers and resources, as well as standards, will also need to be considered. And, as I have said already, those with good English already may not be required to attend all the classes and may study privately for the citizenship element of the programme. This will require some innovative thought about delivery methods, bearing in mind that the overall objective is to facilitate integration and not just to test knowledge.

  For those people for whom any course of study would be too challenging, perhaps by virtue of their age or infirmity, or because they have learning difficulties, the Bill includes a provision to waive these requirements. So, people who can provide sound reasons for not demonstrating progress or achievement will not be debarred from acquiring British citizenship.

  The Group is currently considering a "Living in the United Kingdom" programme under six broad heads. These are:
  Information on everyday needs—for instance, types of housing, paying bills, and schooling;
  Knowing the law—for instance, the rights and responsibilities of a citizen;
  Sources of help and information—including both national and local voluntary and community bodies;
  Employment—for instance, understanding how to get a job, and employment rights and responsibilities;
  Britain as a changing and multi-cultural society—including the four historical nations, the new ethnic and religious groups and changing patterns in family life and relationships;
  British national institutions—political, economic and social.

  The level would obviously be basic, and dependent on someone's needs at a particular point in their immigration history. But the Group is involved in ongoing discussions as to whether a more in-depth programme on the last two items would not be sensible for those with good English already.

  I understand that, because some migrants do not become eligible for free education immediately, the Group intends recommending that the kind of information contained in the "Living in Britain" programme should be made available, perhaps at the point at which entry clearance is granted, to people such as work permit holders or spouses who have an avenue to indefinite leave to remain. For this purpose, the members will be proposing that the Government produces a 'Living in Britain' booklet to be given out at ports of entry or at posts abroad. Such a booklet could be translated into a number of languages to help those who, as yet, have not acquired language skills but who could, nevertheless. benefit from what it contains in their path to becoming active, involved citizens.

  The Group intends to make an interim report early in the new year for public discussion and hopes to make a final report around Easter. The group will shortly be embarking on a widespread programme of consultation.
  615W

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum claims received a decision within two months in the last six months. [75314]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information relates to October 2001 to March 2002, for which 68 per cent. of new substantive asylum applications made in that period were decided and served within two months.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list the countries from which the Government will not as a matter of course accept asylum applications. [75332]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no list of countries from which the United Kingdom will not accept asylum applications.

  There are provisions in the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill to introduce a list of countries from which the starting presumption is that asylum claims will be clearly unfounded. However, there will continue to be individual consideration of those claims.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of each country from which a visa is required applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications in 2001; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before the visas expired; and how many applied(i) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (ii) for political asylum [76148]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information is given in the attached table. The information on grants of settlement includes persons who entered the United Kingdom with an entry clearance leading to settlement; and the data on asylum seekers includes those applicants who had not previously applied for entry clearance.

  Entry clearance data for 2001 by nationality is not yet available. Data for 2000 was published in the Command Paper Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2000 Cm 5315, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Information is not available on the number of persons who return to their country of nationality before the leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom expires. Information is not available on the number of holders of visas for temporary purposes who subsequently apply for asylum or for settlement.

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum for nationals of countries or territories which require visas, 2001

  Nationality

  Grants1

  Applications for asylum2,3

  Afghanistan

  1,790

  9,000

  Albania

  160

  1,065

  Algeria

  725

  1,145

  Angola

  220

  1,025

  Armenia

  30

  95

  Azerbaijan

  60

  105

  Bahrain

  15

  4—

  Bangladesh

  4,005

  500

  616W

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum for nationals of countries or territories which require visas, 2001

  Nationality

  Grants1

  Applications for asylum2,3

  Belarus

  75

  80

  Benin

  5

  10

  Bhutan

  5

  50

  Bosnia

  1,425

  50

  Bulgaria

  290

  120

  Burkino Faso

  5

  10

  Burma (Myanmar)

  65

  100

  Burundi

  210

  615

  Cambodia

  5

  5—

  Cameroon

  140

  370

  Cape Verde

  5—

  4—

  Central African Republic

  4—

  5

  Chad

  5—

  30

  China

  1,460

  2,390

  Colombia

  495

  360

  Comoros

  5—

  5—

  Congo

  110

  520

  Croatia

  325

  35

  Cuba

  90

  15

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  465

  1,395

  Djibouti

  25

  5

  Dominican Rep

  45

  6—

  Ecuador

  90

  245

  Egypt

  395

  45

  Equatorial Guinea

  5

  5

  Eritrea

  130

  620

  Ethiopia

  410

  610

  Federal Republic of

  2,450

  3,190

  Yugoslavia

  Fiji

  30

  5—

  Gabon

  10

  5

  Gambia

  265

  65

  Georgia

  40

  130

  Ghana

  2,280

  200

  Guinea

  25

  105

  Guinea-Bissau

  5

  10

  Guyana

  185

  5

  Haiti

  5

  5—

  Hong Kong, holder of C1 or D1

  25

  5—

  India

  7,005

  1,850

  Indonesia

  200

  20

  Iran

  1,185

  3,415

  Iraq

  1,205

  6,705

  Ivory Coast

  165

  280

  Jordan

  170

  30

  Kazakhstan

  45

  40

  Kenya

  890

  310

  Kuwait

  15

  10

  Kyrgyzstan

  10

  10

  Laos

  5

  4—

  Lebanon

  245

  175

  Liberia

  105

  115

  Libya

  305

  145

  Macedonia

  90

  745

  Madagascar

  5

  4—

  Maldives

  5

  4—

  Mali

  5

  5

  Mauritania

  50

  5

  Mauritius

  365

  20

  Moldova

  30

  445

  Mongolia

  5

  145

  Morocco

  570

  35

  Mozambique

  15

  5

  Nepal

  170

  640

  Niger

  10

  5

  Nigeria

  4,940

  870

  North Korea

  4—

  5—

  Oman

  5

  4—

  617W

  Grants of settlement and applications for asylum for nationals of countries or territories which require visas, 2001

  Nationality

  Grants 1

  Applications for asylum 2.3

  Pakistan

  11,160

  2,860

  Papua New Guinea

  10

  4—

  Peru

  145

  15

  Philippines

  1,295

  15

  Qatar

  5

  5—

  Romania

  350

  1,415

  Russia

  1,010

  455

  Rwanda

  165

  540

  Sao Tome and Principe

  5

  4—

  Saudi Arabia

  40

  5

  Senegal

  30

  10

  Sierra Leone

  720

  1,930

  Slovakia

  405

  60

  Somalia

  7,195

  6,465

  Sri Lanka

  2,305

  5,510

  Sudan

  500

  390

  Surinam

  5

  4—

  Syria

  145

  105

  Taiwan

  160

  5—

  Tajikistan

  5

  5

  Tanzania

  260

  80

  Thailand

  1,175

  10

  Togo

  30

  100

  Tunisia

  180

  25

  Turkey

  2,440

  3,700

  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

  50

  6—

  Turkmenistan

  5

  5

  Uganda

  675

  475

  Ukraine

  390

  440

  United Arab Emirates

  20

  5—

  Uzbekistan

  30

  15

  Vietnam

  160

  400

  Yemen

  355

  170

  Zambia

  330

  20

  Stateless/nationality unknown

  330

  330

  1 Excluding persons given indefinite leave to enter

  2 Excludes dependants

  3 Provisional data

  4 Nil

  5 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 (1 or 2)

  6 Not available

  Asylum Seekers
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were arrested in 2002. [75649]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is not collected centrally on the nationality of the immigration status of persons arrested.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been directed to(a) Hampshire, (b) Portsmouth and (c) Southampton; and if he will make a statement. [76507]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at the end of June 2002, 6901 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation in Hampshire, of which 2501 were being supported in Portsmouth and 4401 in Southampton.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1. html.
  618W
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Note
  Figures exclude cases where the asylum seeker support has been ceased.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those who sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 2001(a) entered the country on valid travel documents and claimed asylum immediately, (b) entered the country on valid travel documents and claimed asylum after any permission to stay expired and (c) entered the country illegally. [76626]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available. In 2001, 65 per cent. of applications for asylum were made in-country and 35 per cent. were made at port.

  The 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees recognised that people trying to escape persecution often relied upon the use of false documents and unusual means of travel. Article 31 of the Convention provides that refugees should not have any penalties imposed upon them as a consequence of entering the country of refuge illegally in order to seek sanctuary, provided that they travel to that country directly from their own country, present themselves to the domestic authorities without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being supported by the national asylum support service; and of these how many have dependent children [76916]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]As at the end of June 2002, the national asylum support service (NASS) was supporting 59,6601 asylum seekers (excluding dependants) of which 10,6501 had at least one dependant.

  The number of asylum seekers supported by NASS who have children among their dependants is not available.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.
  Figures exclude cases where the asylum seeker's support has been ceased.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the asylum seekers who are supported by the national asylum support service made in-country applications for asylum [76917]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]The information requested is not available.

  The only available statistics are on the percentage of asylum applications which were made in-country. In 2001, 65 per cent of asylum applications were made in-country.
  619W

  Asylum Seekers (Lichfield)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Department has to open a camp for asylum seekers in Lichfield District. [77560]

  Beverley Hughes
  Site searching has continued, as we said it would when we announced our shortlist for Accommodation Centre sites on 14 May. However, we will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities were removed from the list of those registered by the Charity Commission in the last year for which information is available [75341]

  Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission, as the Government Department that registers charities in England and Wales. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to the hon. Member, and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cells there are in Chelmsford Prison; how many are(a) single occupancy cells and (b) two person occupancy cells; how many prisoners are currently occupying single cells on their own; and how many are sharing a single cell with (i) one and (ii) two or more persons; [75569]

  (2) what the maximum number of places for prisoners in Chelmsford Prison is; how many prisoners there are in Chelmsford Prison; and if he will make a statement. [75568]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]The operational capacity of Chelmsford prison is 576. The number of prisoners held there on 18 October 2002 was 576.

  There are 430 cells at Chelmsford prison of which 419 are certified single cells, 10 are double cells and one is a triple cell. 285 of the certified single cells have single occupancy and the remaining 134 are doubled. There are currently no cells at Chelmsford which hold three prisoners.

  Child Prostitution
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with(a) his European counterparts and (b) senior police officers regarding tackling child prostitution; what proposals were examined; and if he will make a statement. [75113]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Discussions with European colleagues about the problem of child prostitution have been largely in the context of negotiations over a Draft European Union Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This will require member states to criminalise particular aspects of the sexual exploitation 620W
  of children aged up to 18, including those involved in prostitution. The UK fully supports this framework decision as a significant step to increase protection for children throughout Europe. We hope it will be agreed shortly.

  Strengthening our laws to meet the requirements of the framework decision will form part of our plans to reform the framework of laws dealing with sexual offences on which we will be publishing a paper later this autumn. This follows on from "Setting the Boundaries", the report of the Review of Sex Offences published in July 2000, which made a number of recommendations to strengthen the law, including providing better legal safeguards against those who seek to exploit children in prostitution.

  We also issued in May 2000 guidance to the police and other agencies on "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution", which highlighted the importance of children involved in prostitution being treated primarily as abused children. This followed discussions with representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the other agencies concerned.

  Moreover, we have been supporting under the Crime Reduction Programme a number of local projects aimed at evaluating best practice in dealing with prostitution, including how best to help young people leave behind their involvement in prostitution. All these projects are supported or led by the police and involve local agencies working together to find practical solutions. The aim is to identify the most effective strategies so that these can be disseminated.

  Child Protection (Internet)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures he has taken and plans to take to alert parents to the dangers of paedophiles using the internet to target children. [75335]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government set up a Task Force on Child Protection on the internet in spring 2001.

  A public awareness campaign was launched by the Home Office in December 2001, following discussion in the Task Force, to alert children of 14–16 and parents of younger children to the dangers presented by paedophiles using the internet, to deliver key safety messages, and to advise them of sources of information and support. The campaign used advertisements in national newspapers and magazines, radio, cinemas, satellite TV, and online. The key points were to make clear that someone a child meets on the internet may not be who they seem, and that children should not give out personal information online. This was well received and evaluation showed that it was successful in raising awareness of the key messages. We are now considering further activity to be carried out later this year.

  Children in Custody
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve the protection of children held in prison custody. [75346]

  Hilary Benn
  Improvements in the protection of children held in prison custody are being taken forward by the development of child protection policy and
  621W
  practice, involving co-operation between the Prison Service, the Youth Justice Board and social services, as well as a range of community-based charities.

  Considerable progress has already been made. Through the revision of the child protection protocol and the policy set out in the relevant Prison Service order, the relationship between young offender institutions holding juveniles and their local Area Child Protection Committees (ACPC) have been greatly improved with most governors now having representation on the local ACPC.

  Each YOI in the juvenile estate has appointed a child protection co-ordinator (and deputy) and has established a child protection committee within the establishment, with some having representation on that committee from the local ACPC, police and other relevant agencies.

  A child protection training programme has been developed for all staff within the juvenile estate.

  Community Policing (Wales)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to encourage use of community police support officers in Wales. [76256]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to the development of Community Support Officers (CSOs) throughout England and Wales. On 23 September my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, announced a fund of £19million for the recruitment of more than 1,000 CSOs in England and Wales this financial year. 27 forces bid successfully for a share of this funding.

  Gwent is among the forces which will benefit from this funding. They bid successfully for £169,029 to recruit 30 CSOs. Gwent is also one of the six forces which were selected to pilot, over the next two years, detention powers for CSOs.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of hon. Members' correspondence at the IND is; what the target date is which he has set to clear the backlog at the IND; what discussions he has had with posts overseas concerning the processing of applicants for citizenship by British Overseas Citizens; how many persons are awaiting decisions on citizenship applications; and how many passports were lost by IND in 2002. [76098]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of outstanding cases in the backlog of MPs correspondence at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) as of 30 September was 1,808, of which 361 await ministerial reply and 1,447 official reply. We aim to reduce the backlog to frictional levels by the end of this year and are on course to do so.

  The Department published figures in June 2002 relating to the voluntary acquisition of British citizenship. In 2001 IND received 109,005 citizenship applications and made decisions on 90,295 applications. There are no available figures relating to the current number of applications awaiting a decision. There have been no substantive discussions so far with our overseas
  622W
  diplomatic missions about the processing of applications from British Overseas citizens etc. We and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are preparing the guidance needed by posts and applicants before the amendment in the Nationality and Immigration Asylum (NIA) Bill comes into force.

  With regard to the last part of the question, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate issue letters to members of the public where a passport cannot be immediately traced. As at 11 October 2002 a total of 265 such letters had been issued.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Baez Azez Baez. [76235]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 22 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 18 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. John Alosine Bangura. [76239]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 24 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 5 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Vida Obiri (Yeboah-Burgess). [76236]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 21 October 2002.

  Crime Detection Rates
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the crime detection rate and increase the numbers of criminals brought to justice. [75336]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Standards Unit is currently working with a number of police forces to improve their crime detection rates. This will be achieved through a structured performance enhancement programme, utilising the good practice guide and supported through other existing initiatives. Force performance is measured through the performance information supplied to the Police Standards Unit on a monthly basis.

  Through the further development and structured implementation of the National Intelligence Model (NIM), police activity can be targeted more effectively at both detecting and disrupting crime. This, coupled with the increased provision of analytical support, will provide the crime and disorder partnerships with the ability to detect crime and bring offenders to justice.

  On 17 October this year, the Government published the "Narrowing the Justice Gap" framework document. This document sets out a three-pronged approach to increase the number of offenders brought to justice. The strategy involves:

  623W
  overcoming weaknesses in the overall criminal justice process by encouraging good practice and inter-agency coordination at local levels;
  targeting particular types of offences;
  targeting particular types of offender, in particular the persistent offender scheme due to commence in 2003.

  The Government have made available £182 million over a four-year period to expand the national DNA database. The Home Office, ACPO and the Forensic Science Service are working together to maximise the benefits gained from the expenditure being made in the development and application of DNA and other forensic techniques.

  Crime Prevention Partnerships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of crime prevention partnerships in reducing crime in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [76790]

  Mr. Denham
  The Crime Reduction Director for the South East regards the performance of the City of Portsmouth's crime and disorder reduction partnership as good and Portsmouth recently won the award for the best crime and disorder strategy for 2002–05 in the South East region. According to the latest available figures, total crime in Portsmouth is falling faster than in similar partnerships across England and Wales.

  The partnership actively seeks to engage the local community in reducing crime. For instance, following a police operation in the Portsmouth, South constituency, there will shortly be a public meeting to work out with the local community ways of ensuring long-term sustainable improvements to the quality of life for the residents of Somerstown.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with reducing(a) crime affecting older people and (b) the fear of crime among older people. [75313]

  Mr. Wills
  Crime against the elderly is horrifying, but is thankfully uncommon; levels fell by 20 per cent. between British Crime Survey (BCS) 1996 and BCS 2000, and older people are on average only a sixth as likely as the young to suffer a personal crime. We are making special efforts to reduce the chances still further, and in particular we have developed and implemented a strategy to clamp down on the despicable crime of distraction burglary. Levels of fear of crime among older people are still too high; we are committed to reducing them, and we are working with charities such as Help The Aged to find new and better ways of tackling fear of crime among seniors as well as crimes against them.

  Death Forms
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties are incurred by erroneous completion of(a) death certificates and (b) cremation forms. [73417]
  624W
  Hilary Benn
  Under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the doctor who attended the deceased during his or her last illness is required to state the cause of death to the best of his or her knowledge or belief. The certifying doctor may not be able to be certain in all cases that the cause of death given is beyond question, and such deaths should be reported to the coroner. It would be an offence to refuse to issue a death certificate or to falsify a certificate. On conviction, such a person would be liable to a fine of up to £200.

  Contravention of regulations under the Cremation Act 1902 is an offence. On conviction, a fine of up to £1,000 may be imposed. Anyone convicted of wilfully making false representations, or falsifying a certificate, with a view to securing a cremation is liable to imprisonment of up to two years.

  Death certification procedures are being considered by the Review of Coroners Services and by the Shipman Inquiry which will be reporting next year.

  Prisons (Drug Addicts)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for (1) the Home Department what steps he is taking to segregate non drug addicts from drug addicts in prisons. [75466]

  (2) what estimate he makes of the number of prisoners who adopt a drug habit whilst in prison. [75467]

  (3) what action he is taking (a) to segregate inmates on first prison sentence and (b) to reduce recidivism among first time prisoners. [74929]

  (4) if he will increase the segregation of prisoners in order to reduce (a) recidivism and (b) prison drug use. [75464]

  Hilary Benn
  Specific reconviction figures are not collected for first time prisoners. The Prison Service has been set a target to reduce the rate of reconvictions of all released prisoners by five per cent. compared to the predicted rate by 2004. To meet this target the Prison Service draws on 'What Works' research to provide regimes which are effective in tackling offending behaviour and the factors which contribute towards re-offending.

  There is no evidence to suggest that segregating prisoners leads to a reduction in recidivism or overall drug use. There are no statistics available on which to base an estimate of the numbers of prisoners who adopt a drug habit whilst in prison; drug taking by its nature is a covert activity.

  Voluntary drug testing programmes are available for prisoners who wish to make a commitment to remain drug free. Ninety prisons currently have voluntary drug testing units in operation. These do not provide segregation but they do provide a degree of separation from prisoners not making a formal commitment to remain drug free.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will commit more resources to police forces in order to combat drug dealers who target the young operating in housing estates and outside schools. [69350]
  625W
  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to working to protect the young from any dealers who target them.

  Police authorities also participate in the Government's wider drugs' strategy. Over the three years from 2001–02 to 2003–04, the Home Office has made available £220 million for the Communities Against Drugs (CAD) programme. This scheme provides for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Drugs Action Teams (DATs) to build a stronger community links and helps local communities tackle neighbourhood drugs problems and associated crime.

  The communities themselves allocate the money to local projects reflecting their priorities in the fight against drugs, through education/support programmes, diversionary schemes and the disruption of the local drugs supply market. Police are involved in the partnership activities and receive financial support from the CAD programme.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued in(a) Hampshire and (b) the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [76526]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The drug treatment and testing order (DTTO) was introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and rolled out to courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2000, after successfully being piloted. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 July 2002, 192 DTTOs were made in Hampshire, of which 47 orders were made in Portsmouth (including Portsmouth, Fareham and Havant).

  DTTO figures for individual constituencies are not available.

  Drug-related Crimes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) racially motivated, (b) violent, (c) street and (d) drug-related crimes were reported in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North-West of England in the last 12 months. [73885]

  Mr. Denham
  Numbers of reported crimes are not collected centrally. Numbers of crimes recorded by the police in the year ending March 2002 are given in the table. As some of the forces in the North West, including Lancashire, implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation in April 2002, the given figures cannot be directly compared with those for previous years.

  The crime categories for which racially aggravated crimes are recorded separately are harassment, other wounding, common assault and criminal damage. The total numbers of these racially aggravated crimes are given in the table.

  Violent crime is comprised of the offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.
  626W
  'Street crime' is not a separate category in recorded crime figures, which are based on legal definitions. Figures are given for robberies of personal property

  Recorded crime figures do not contain details of whether offences are related to offenders' drug habits. Figures for offences specifically related to drugs themselves, including for example trafficking and possession of drugs, are given.

  Recorded crime in the year ending March 2002

  Lancashire

  North West Government Region

  Racially aggravated offences

  1,057

  4,746

  Violent crimes

  18,535

  106,892

  Robbery of personal property

  1,437

  13,656

  Drug offences

  3,169

  14,775

  Drugs-related Deaths
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to coroners' courts on recording deaths as drugs-related. [75331]

  Hilary Benn
  Coroners were advised about recommended verdicts in drugs-related deaths when these verdicts were first introduced in 1984. They have since been encouraged to report details for the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, and have been informed of the action plan to prevent drugs-related deaths in the light of the recent report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. In order to improve surveillance and monitoring, we will provide new guidance for coroners by March 2003.

  Dysfunctional Families
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to support dysfunctional families. [75322]

  Beverley Hughes
  All families need help from time to time, which is why we have a wide range of policies to help all families bring up their children in the best possible way.

  In addition, we have in place measures that support those most in need.

  Fireworks
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle the misuse of fireworks. [75342]

  Mr. Denham
  We have been working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to address the issue of fireworks safety and misuse, and to curb the problem of noise and nuisance they cause. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry (Melanie Johnson) launched this year's safety campaign on 15 October when she announced a range of measures, including proposals to ban air bombs.

  We are encouraging trading standards officers, Health and Safety Executive and police forces to make full use of existing legislation. Throwing fireworks is one of the offences covered in the fixed penalty notice scheme being piloted in four police force areas. A

  627W
  monitoring scheme has also been set up with nine CDRPs to focus on best practice and identify clearly the number and scale of the problems caused.

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police have left the Hampshire Constabulary in the last 12 months because of(a) retirement, (b) early retirement, (c) injury and (d) other employment; and if he will make a statement. [76503]

  Mr. Denham
  The precise information requested is not collected centrally. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has provided the figures set out in the table for the 12 months ending 31 March 2002.

  Hampshire constabulary wastage 2001–2002

  Number

  Dismissed or required to resign

  4

  Voluntary resignations

  48

  Medical retirements

  19

  Ordinary retirements

  102

  Transfers

  61

  Died in service

  1

  Total wastage

  234

  Illegal Raves
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidelines he has issued to chief constables on the control of illegal raves in England. [76121]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Guidance was issued to police on illegal raves in November 1994 and was contained in Home Office circular 45/94. This circular contained an introductory guide to provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We have made clear in the White Paper "Justice for All" (CM 5563) our intentions to supplement police powers to deal with nuisance caused with raves, and legislation will follow at the earliest opportunity: further guidance to the police will then be issued.

  Immigration Service Removal Centres
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net cost is in a full year of substituting contract and agency staff to undertake work in removal centres that previously was undertaken by detainees; from what budget the extra cost is taken; what proposals he has for giving financial incentives to detainees to assist in the running of removal centres; what factors he considered before deciding to prevent detainees from working; and if he will make a statement. [75422]

  Beverley Hughes
  Immigration detainees held in Immigration Service removal centres have never been required to work nor are they expected to assist in the running of the centres.

  Following their redesignation earlier this year as removal centres, the prison service detention facilities at Dover, Haslar and Lindholme ceased to operate under Prison Rules. As a consequence, detainees no longer had
  628W
  the opportunity to undertake paid employment in the centres and the practice of relying on such work for the provision of certain ancillary services came to an end. Work formerly undertaken by detainees at these centres has been contracted out or transferred to agency staff. For this year this has resulted in a net additional cost of £1.09 million. This will be met from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's budget.

  Regimes in immigration removal centres provide detainees with a wide range of constructive activities based on education, crafts, physical education, religion and recreation. All activities are voluntary although detainees are encouraged to take part in them. Some centres provide a cash allowance, although not as an incentive to engage in activities, and we are considering standardising this and making it universal. While we are considering incentives and further ways to enhance activities available to detainees, we have no plans to require detainees to undertake paid work or to assist in the running of removal centres.

  Imprisonment of Juveniles
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end and to reduce imprisonment of juveniles. [75345]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government strongly believe that custody for juveniles should very much be a last resort, and we have provided the courts with a wide range of community-based penalties which are specifically targeted at young people. Sadly, however, we recognise that there is a small minority of young people—just 4 per cent. of those juveniles dealt with by police and courts each year—whose offending is so serious or so persistent, that custody may be the only immediate answer. In those cases, we must ensure that such a sentence is as constructive an experience for them as possible, and to this end we have introduced the new Detention and Training Order for juveniles and improved the custodial regimes with supervision and support after release.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs and Civil Protection Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 October; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [76018]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Together with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Filkin and my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 and 15 October.

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 48 (12810/02) (a copy of which has been placed in the Library) with the exception of item 9. The Council also reached political agreement on the Directive on legal aid and the Framework Decision on combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  The Framework Decision on combating corruption in the private sector and the Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug

  629W
  trafficking remained subject to reservations on the scope of the offence and the penalties for trafficking in small quantities of drugs respectively.

  The Council discussed whether the Framework Decision on confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property should create an obligation on member states to provide for confiscation of property beyond that arising directly from the offence. Lord Filkin argued that it should and that the burden should be on the offender to prove that the property was acquired legitimately. The majority of member states agreed but argued that this obligation should arise only in circumstances involving a limited number of offences and that the burden should be on the court to establish the origin of the property. Member states shared the view that there should not be an automatic assumption that the property of a spouse or co-habitee was also acquired from criminal proceeds.

  The Council examined some of the outstanding reservations on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. There was agreement to include a provision recognising the application of fundamental human rights, subject to negotiation of an accompanying Recital. Member states were, however, divided on the level of the financial threshold below which member states could refuse to execute a financial penalty. Four member states were also unable to accept the absence of a dual criminality requirement in the instrument.

  The Council reached a general approach on the Council Decision on the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity subject to parliamentary scrutiny reserves from five member states, including the UK, and pending the opinion of the European Parliament.

  The Presidency sought agreement to the Council Decision establishing a mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism. Lord Filkin expressed the Government's broad support for the measure but said that it could not enter into a political agreement since the text remained subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the UK. He reserved the right to return to the substance. Two other member states also maintained parliamentary scrutiny reserves.

  The Council agreed the principles for determining the selection procedure for the appointment of the Europol Directorate as part of the proposal for amending the Europol Staff Regulations. Lord Filkin said that it was essential to establish a fair and open procedure which led to appointment on merit.

  Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the member states and of candidate countries met in the margins of the Council and discussed the timetable for the removal of internal frontier controls in the Schengen area post-enlargement. There was also a discussion of the obligations and responsibilities created by new instruments applying the principle of mutual recognition. Lord Filkin emphasised that the successful application of these instruments required trust in each other's judicial systems. He welcomed the Commission's new proposals for monitoring arrangements to be
  630W
  included in the accession treaties. A Declaration was agreed condemning violence against commercial lorry drivers. The candidate countries were informed of the Council's intention to agree, the following day, a declaration concerning applications for asylum from citizens of the candidate countries.

  The Commission presented its two proposals for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status and a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies or other purposes. The Commission also reported on its progress in negotiating readmission agreements with third countries. The Presidency presented a draft programme on EU returns to Afghanistan.

  The Presidency provided information on member states' planned projects to follow up the plan for the management of the external borders and the plan for fighting illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. The Council agreed conclusions on action to be taken as a matter of urgency to further prevent and combat illegal migration and trafficking in human beings.

  The Council discussed the criteria for assigning responsibility for an asylum claim and the deadlines for transfers in the Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member states responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national (Dublin II). Lord Filkin supported the existing qualifying period for the application of the illegal presence criterion and called for the deletion of the requirement to prove illegal entry before applying this criterion.

  The Council discussed the definitions of a refugee and the concept of "serious and unjustified harm" in the Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. The UK and the Presidency welcomed a proposal from Commissioner Vitorino reformulating the definition of "serious and unjustified harm" to clarify its scope of application in conflict situations, responding to UK concerns.

  The Presidency sought adoption of the Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in member states. One member state maintained the view that the provision on access to labour markets should be deleted. The Presidency agreed that the Council should work with a view to incorporating an addition to the Directive, proposed by the UK, to allow a member state to refuse support in cases where the applicant does not submit his claim as soon as reasonably practicable. The Council would seek to approve the Directive at its November meeting.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the integration of third country nationals and discussed the outstanding issues on the Council Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. The majority of member states were able to accept the inclusion of refugees within the scope of the text and favoured a five year residence requirement. There was

  631W
  also general support for the measures regarding rights of mobility for third country nationals. The UK has not opted in to the adoption of this measure.

  Ministers agreed a Declaration asserting that from the point of signature of the Accession Treaties applications for asylum from citizens from the EU candidate countries should be treated as manifestly unfounded.

  The Council also invited COREPER to report on the possibility of agreeing a list of safe third countries and the Schengen Mixed Committee to consider possible amendments to the Schengen manual with a view to strengthening the procedures for passport control at the Schengen area entry points.

  Local Government Funding Settlement
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief constables on the effect on police forces of the proposed local government funding settlement. [75343]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regularly meets chief constables. Matters of police funding and the local government funding settlement are discussed periodically.

  Money Laundering
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Government agencies are responsible for tackling money laundering in the UK. [75076]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A number of Government agencies have responsibility for combating money laundering in the United Kingdom.

  In England and Wales, the Economic Crime Branch of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) is responsible for the receipt, analysis and dissemination of all reports made in the United Kingdom which are indicative of a suspicion of money laundering. Subsequent investigations of a suspected money laundering offence are undertaken primarily by police forces, the National Crime Squad or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE), but can also fall within the investigative remit of other agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office or Inland Revenue. Prosecutions for money laundering offences are conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service and HMCE.

  In relation to Scotland, investigations of a suspected money laundering offence are carried out by the police and Customs and Excise under the direction of the procurator fiscal. Prosecutions are conducted by the Lord Advocate or his representative, the procurator fiscal.

  In addition, the Financial Services Authority has the power to make rules on money laundering, and impose civil penalties for breaches of those rules. It also has the power to prosecute breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations. HMCE has responsibility for the oversight of Money Service Operators and has powers to prosecute for a range of money laundering offences.
  632W
  In November 2001, the Government published its National Asset Recovery Strategy drawn up by the Asset Recovery Committee. One of the central aims of the strategy is to prevent criminals and their associates from laundering the proceeds of criminal conduct, and to detect and prosecute such laundering where it occurs. The strategy has the support of the Departments and agencies involved in the fight against money laundering activity who have committed themselves to acting in accordance with its principles.

  National Crime Intelligence Service Report
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the recent National Crime Intelligence Service report. [73852]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service published their annual assessment of the threat to the United Kingdom from serious and organised crime on 22 July. The assessment, based on available information and intelligence, is important in providing an authoritative statement on the threat and informing the Government's response to it.

  Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) amendments and (b) new clauses he has introduced to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (i) in the Commons between Second Reading and the commencement of Committee stage, (ii) in the Commons during Committee stage, (iii) in the Commons during Report stage and (iv) subsequently. [75409]

  Beverley Hughes
  The numbers of Government amendments and new clauses introduced into the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill since 12 April 2002 are set out in the table. The majority were minor or technical. The substantive amendments which were introduced in the Lords reflected new policy developments and additional time was given to the Bill with the recommitment of Parts III, V and VIII.

  Bill stage

  Amendments

  New clauses

  (i) between Second Reading and Committee

  3

  1

  (ii) during Commons Committee stage

  105

  5

  (iii) during Commons Report

  95

  7

  (iv) subsequent to Commons Report

  139

  12

  Total

  342

  25

  Nottingham Police
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff were employed by the Nottinghamshire Police on (i) 31 March 1997, (ii) 31 March 1998, (iii) 31 March 1999, (iv) 31 March 2000, (v) 31 March 2001, (vi) 31 March 2002 and (vii) 31 September 2002; and what the projected number is for 31 March 2003. [77353]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table. Police strength information for September 2002 is not yet available. Plans for strength in March 2003 are a matter for the Chief Constable.
  633W

  Nottinghamshire Police

  Year as at 31 March

  Police Strength

  Civilian Support Staff

  1997

  2,323

  1,003

  1998

  2,323

  987

  1999

  2,225

  1,039

  2000

  2,204

  1,024

  2001

  2,212

  1,039

  2002

  2,330

  1,087

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength—1997–2002.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to ensure that those released from Oakington Reception Centre pending appeals have a duty to report daily or weekly to the police or other authorities. [75399]

  Beverley Hughes
  Those released from Oakington are granted temporary admission. As part of the conditions attached to this they can be required to live at a specified address and to report at specified times to an immigration or police officer.

  It is Government policy that wherever possible asylum seekers on temporary admission should be required to report at regular intervals to immigration officers, who are best placed to monitor progress on the application and act on up-to-date information.

  The Immigration Service already has eight reporting centres for this purpose and more are planned. Immigration officers also operate reporting in a number of police stations in the regions. In all cases where those released from Oakington are granted temporary admission to an area with existing reporting facilities, reporting restrictions will be imposed. In addition the Immigration Service will shortly be introducing teams of visiting officers and a mobile reporting van. This will result in more asylum seekers being required to report to an immigration officer on a regular basis.

  Persistent Offenders
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to tackle the problem of persistent re-offending; and if he will make a statement. [75738]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]Last week we announced that a persistent offender scheme will start in February 2003 across the whole criminal justice system. Its aim will be to target the most prolific offenders, to bring more offences committed by them to justice, and to rehabilitate them more effectively. This scheme is an important part of the 'Narrowing the Justice Gap' programme which aims to reduce the difference between the number of crimes reported to the police and the number of offences brought to justice. In addition the Government have already: given the courts new secure remand and tagging powers for 12 to 16-year olds who repeatedly offend on bail; funded the Youth Justice Board's intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for the most prolific young offenders; and renewed its commitment to maintain the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders at or below 71 days.
  634W

  Police (Part-time)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to recruit part-time police officers and to allow full-time officers to change to part-time if they wish to(a) before and (b) after they have completed 30 years service. [75317]

  Mr. Denham
  All new recruits may apply to work part-time, as may established police officers of all ranks, regardless of whether officers have completed 30 years' service or not. Managers must give full consideration to all requests to change to part-time working, taking into account operational needs.

  As part of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) Agreement of 9 May, part-time working will be made easier for officers in all ranks, regardless of whether they have completed 30 years service or not. We plan to remove the current 16-hour a week minimum requirement for part-time working by 1 April 2003, together with the requirement for job sharing in respect of middle and senior ranks.

  Police (Pay)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans to improve the pay and conditions for frontline police officers. [75348]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) Agreement of 9 May, approved by the Secretary of State, contains a number of measures that will improve the pay and conditions of all police officers and particularly frontline officers from 1 April 2003. There will be a new special priority payment scheme which is targeted on frontline operational officers in particular and gives extra rewards to officers in the most difficult and demanding posts. In addition, there will be increases in basic pay on top of the annual police pay award, shorter pay scales and competence-related pay for the most experienced officers in the federated ranks.

  Police (Surrey)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to ensure the maintenance of present levels of police services in Surrey. [75319]

  Mr. Wills
  Sufficient resources will be provided to support all police authorities, including Surrey, in maintaining stable levels of service and continuity in local policing.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on proposed changes to the police funding formula and their impact on future police authority funding. [75328]

  Mr. Denham
  I am considering all the responses received on the proposed changes to the police funding formula. A final decision will be taken shortly.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to expand the provision of community officers to all areas: and over what timescale. [75330]
  635W
  Mr. Denham
  The number of police officers in England and Wales is the highest ever, 129,603 officers on 31 March 2002. Police strength is on track to reach our target of 130,000 officers by March 2003. We have set a further target for it to reach 132,500 officers in 2004.

  Decisions about the deployment of officers to community policing or other duties are for Chief Officers.

  Community Support Officers (CSOs) will have a vital role to play in support of the police. By tackling anti-social behaviour and the host of public nuisance, disorder and environmental problems that accompany it, they will make an invaluable contribution to community safety and regeneration.

  More than £19 million has been made available this year to recruit, train and deploy CSOs. Twenty-seven police forces in England and Wales bid for a share of this fund and we were able to fund them all. Hertfordshire made a successful bid for 14 CSOs to provide reassurance and a visible presence for communities in Watford and Stevenage.

  We expect to see more than 1,000 CSOs on the streets by April 2003 and more than 4,000 by 2005.

  Police Paperwork
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the paperwork of police officers. [75337]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to tackling the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices that keep officers off the streets. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established a task force, under the chairmanship of Sir David O'Dowd, to identify ways in which forces can free up the time of front line officers. The task force's report was published on 17 September and contained 52 recommendations to increase the presence of police in communities. This is a vital opportunity to change the culture of the police service and bring about a real difference to the everyday lives of officers on the front line.

  We have now set up a steering group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office, to take forward these recommendations. We are working with key stakeholders to reduce bureaucracy in police stations, on the streets and in court.

  Police Vehicles
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures are being taken to reduce the number of collisions involving police vehicles which lead to injury and death. [75333]

  Mr. Denham
  Measures already in place include a new police driver training course, launched in December 2000, which introduced a universal standard for driving in England and Wales. An essential element of the course is that officers should recognise the need to give priority to public safety above all other considerations such as attending an incident or apprehending a suspect. Where pursuits are concerned, there is a nationally agreed ACPO Pursuit Code of Practice and it is already police policy to consider continuously the consequences 636W
  of a pursuit and whether to break it off. In addition, all forces have adopted some or most of the recommendations from the 1998 Lind Report on Police Pursuit Driver Training.

  Policing Charges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his guidance in respect of policing charges. [75324]

  Hilary Benn
  Guidance on recovering costs for the policing of football matches is set out in Home Office Circular 34/2000. We have recently set up a working group, with representatives of the Home Office, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Association of Chief Police Officers and the football authorities to consider a range of issues, including charging for the policing of matches, and the investment of football clubs in the wider community.

  Prisons
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the prison population. [75316]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government believe that prison is right for those convicted of an offence who are a danger to the public or who are serious or persistent offenders and that sentences served should be as long as necessary for punishment, public protection and rehabilitation but no longer. It also recognises that short sentences with no support and no supervision after release do not allow the correctional services to do effective behavioural or rehabilitation work with offenders. We set out our proposals for reducing the use of short sentences in the White Paper "Justice for All".

  Home detention curfew plays an important role in managing the prison population by enabling prisoners to be released from prison early, while still subject to restrictions placed on their liberty. This facilitates a smoother and more effective integration back into the community and helps offenders to serve or resume employment or training as soon as possible.

  As also announced in the White Paper "Justice for All" I have commissioned an independent review of the correctional services in England and Wales looking particularly at effectiveness and value for money in the delivery of services to reduce re-offending and how we improve our ability to manage the prison population. This review is in progress. As well as the correctional services, other professional and voluntary sector stakeholders have also been invited to submit their views.

  Racial Equality Services
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much money has been spent on racial equality services by the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland in each of the last five years; [74979]
  637W
  (2) what the breakdown of spending is in each of the areas of Scotland served by a racial equality council. [74978]

  £

  REC

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Central Scotland

  54,500

  55,700

  56,700

  45,400

  74,500

  Edinburgh and Lothian

  16,900

  50,900

  57,900

  61,400

  77,800

  Fife

  24,200

  22,200

  36,300

  61,200

  48,700

  Grampian

  63,100

  61,200

  52,000

  61,600

  80,100

  Tayside

  25,400

  26,100

  34,100

  55,300

  47,300

  West of Scotland

  79,200

  73,500

  90,000

  103,800

  114,300

  Total spend

  263,300

  289,600

  327,000

  388,700

  442,700

  Rape
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his estimate is of the number of cases of rape that went unreported in(a) Lancashire and (b) the north-west of England in the last 12 months; [73866]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of cases of rape that went unreported in Wales in the last 12 months; [73867]

  (3) how many cases of rape were reported in (a) Wales, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West of England in the last 12 months. [73813]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of rapes cases reported to the police is not available centrally. The following details the number of rape incidents (both male and female) recorded by the police in the 2001–02 financial year.

  Recorded crimes of rape in Wales, Lancashire and the north-west of England

  2001–02

  Number

  Wales

  420

  Lancashire

  194

  North-west

  1,174

  It should be noted however that the British Crime Survey (BCS) estimates that only 20 per cent. of rapes come to the attention of the police (Home Office Research Study 237). In the calendar year 1999 there were 8,281 incidents of rape recorded by the police in England and Wales; however the British Crime Survey estimates that there were 61,000 rape victims (once or more) aged 16 to 59, in this year.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action she plans to take to help protect female students from rape. [73799]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government provide targeted crime prevention advice to students regarding their personal safety. While not intending to cause unwarranted alarm, this advice aims to equip both male and female students with information to make themselves safer by taking some common sense precautions. The Government have undertaken a wide range of initiatives across the criminal justice system aimed at protecting women and men—including students—from rape.
  638W
  Beverley Hughes
  The total spend on racial equality services in each of the last five years broken down by spend in each area of Scotland served by a Racial Equality Council (REC) is as follows:

  One of the key parts of our preventative strategy is the management of previous offenders, to prevent re-offending. Recent legislative changes have provided an improved framework within which the Prison Services, the National Probation Service, the Police, the Youth Justice Board and others can work together to assess and manage the risk posed by sex offenders both in custody and in the community.

  Other initiatives include the introduction of a rigorous assessment system throughout the Prison and Probation Services.

  We have taken a number of key steps with regard to sentencing of sexual offenders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced extended sentences for serious sexual and violent offences. Under the broad review of sentencing that began in July 2001, we are looking at tougher determinate sentences for sex offenders that will ensure that they stay in prison, up to the full term if necessary, so long as they present a risk of harm to our communities. We are also undertaking a root and branch review of sex offences legislation, in order to provide new, coherent, and clear law to protect individuals from abuse and exploitation. We will be publishing our proposals for legislative reform shortly.

  The Violence Against Women (VAW) initiative is a key part of the Home Office's Crime Reduction Programme (CRP). The aim of the VAW initiative is to identify the most effective and cost effective approaches to reducing domestic violence and rape and sexual assault by known perpetrators.

  In July of this year we published an inter-agency action plan ope, which details practical measures across the criminal justice system to:
  Improve the investigation of rape cases;
  Enhance the quality of advice, decision making, case preparation and presentation at court, and;
  Better the treatment of victims and witnesses in cases involving allegations of rape.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to prevent rape and related crimes against women and to promote rehabilitation after the crime has occurred. [73845]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government has undertaken a wide range of initiatives across the criminal justice system aimed at preventing rape and supporting victims. The
  639W
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced extended sentences for serious sexual and violent offences. Under the review of sentencing that began in July 2001 we are looking at tougher determinate sentences for sex offenders. We have also undertaken a review of sex offences legislation. We will be publishing our proposals for legislative reform shortly.

  An important part of our preventative strategy is the management of previous offenders to stop re-offending. Recent legislative changes, including the establishment of the multi-agency public protection panels, have improved the way in which public protection agencies—the prison services, the national probation service, the police, the Youth Justice Board and others—work together to assess and manage the risk posed by offenders both in custody and in the community.

  The probation service has run sex offender programmes for many years, which aim to reduce the risk of re-offending by changing the offender's behaviour. The programmes have recently been researched and evaluated and three accredited programmes, which challenge conventional thinking regarding the deviance and social inadequacy of sex offenders, are now being implemented in England and Wales. The service is also working on an accommodation plan, since the provision of appropriate accommodation is essential to the management of sex offenders in the community. Other initiatives to prevent rape include the introduction of a rigorous assessment system throughout the prison and probation services.

  The Violence Against Women (VAW) initiative is a key part. of the Home Office's Crime Reduction Programme (CRP). The aim of the VAW initiative is to identify the most effective and cost effective approaches to reducing domestic violence and rape and sexual assault by known perpetrators. Its projects will be independently evaluated to provide evidence of impact and cost effectiveness, with a view to disseminating findings and recommendations from the successful projects as good practice.

  In July of this year the Home Department published an action plan on rape, which details practical measures across the criminal justice system to: improve the investigation of rape cases; enhance the quality of advice, decision making, case preparation and presentation at court; and, provide better treatment of victims and witnesses in cases involving allegations of rape.

  We are also continuing our work to reduce the occurrence of assaults against women through the provision of targeted crime prevention advice to women regarding their personal safety. While not intending to cause unwarranted alarm, this advice aims to equip women with information to make themselves safer by taking some common sense precautions.

  The Government have also taken action to help the victims of rape. We have: provided grant support to the Rape Crisis Federation; more than doubled the grant to Victim Support, which has helped to introduce a national telephone helpline for victims in magistrates courts; improved payments made to victims of sexual offences by the criminal injuries compensation scheme; and, given victims in serious cases—where offenders are
  640W
  sentenced to 12 months or more for a violent or sexual offence—the right to be consulted about the release plans of those who attacked them.

  Reoffenders
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of notifiable offences is committed by persistent reoffenders; and if he will make a statement. [75739]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]Research suggests that about half of notifiable offences are committed by persistent reoffenders; and that about 15 per cent. of notifiable offences are committed by the core group of offenders who will be targeted under the persistent offender scheme, due to start in February 2003. These estimates are derived from studies on the reconviction of offenders for more serious crimes, with assumptions made to relate them to unsolved crimes. Details of the relevant research can be found in Annex B of the White Paper "Criminal Justice: the Way Ahead" (February 2001).

  Sex Offenders Act 1997
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when(a) child murderers and (b) sex offenders, who have been convicted abroad and who subsequently return to the Untied Kingdom, will have their details recorded on the sex offenders' register and be monitored and controlled in the same way that would occur if they had been convicted in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [74925]

  Hilary Benn
  The review of Part One of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 looked at ways of both:requiring offenders convicted of sex offences abroad to register on their arrival in the UK; and
  imposing the registration requirements on offenders who commit offences of violence, including murder, when there is a sexual element to the offence.

  The Government consulted on the proposals contained in the review and responses are currently being analysed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that he intends to publish his proposals for reform of the law in the Autumn and to legislate specifically to enable sex offenders from abroad to be required to register. Such registration would attract the full range of mechanisms for monitoring and control as domestic sex offenders.

  The Government consulted on the proposals contained in the review and responses are currently being analysed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that he intends to publish his proposals for reform of the law in the Autumn and to legislate specifically to enable sex offenders from abroad to be required to register. Such registration would attract the full range of mechanisms for monitoring and control as domestic sex offenders.

  Special Constables
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables are members of the police forces in England and Wales as at the beginning of April; and what his estimates are of the numbers in(a) April 2003 and (b) April 2004. [75334]
  641W
  Mr. Denham
  Data on special constabulary strength is collected for March and September each year. On 31 March 2002 there were 11,598 serving special constables in police forces in England and Wales.

  We have made it clear that the special constabulary has a vital role to play in reducing crime and providing reassurance to the public. The Government is committed to increasing the numbers of specials. We are working with the police service on a number of measures, including a new headline role, new training packages and good practice guidance, to help forces improve performance on the recruitment, management and deployment of specials. A number of "Specials Champions" forces have been identified to take forward iniatives and support the good practice guidance. Deputy Chief Constable, Peter Fahy, of Surrey Police has agreed to lead the police on this work.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent progress has been made in reducing street crime in Sussex. [75157]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's street crime initiative is targeted at the 10 forces which account for 83 per cent. of robbery in England and Wales. The initiative is serving to identify and remove any systemic blockages which currently hinder the tackling of street crime not only in those 10 areas, but across the country. Good practice in partnership working across the criminal justice system and between other agencies will be disseminated to all areas, including Sussex.

  The Government have recently published figures for the first six months of the initiative including a document detailing the achievements made through partnership working, the "Delivering the Street Crime Initiative: Partnership in Operation" can be found in the Library or on the Crime Reduction website on www.crimereduction.gov.uk/streetcrime.

  Examples of what has been achieved so far which have national implication are:
  The extension of section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to provide for remands of 12 to 16-year-olds. This power has now been extended to the rest of the country.
  The extension of the Bail Act 1976 and the Child and Young Persons Act 1969 to provide tagging while on bail for 12 to 17-year-olds. Tagging for 12 to 16-year-olds has now been extended to the rest of the country. The provision of door-steeping conditions while on bail which allows police officers to check on curfew conditions.
  To combat the theft of mobile phones, we have introduced legislation making the reprogramming of the phones unique identifying number (IMEI) illegal.

  Through this initiative we are sending out a clear signal that we will not tolerate crime on our streets, wherever it occurs.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on coordination of policies on street crime. [75338]

  Mr. Denham
  The Street Crime Action Group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has been meeting regularly since March. These meetings involve ministerial colleagues from across Government,642W
  the police and other criminal justice agencies, and local government. The group's discussions have focussed on how the police in the 10 areas with the highest levels of street crime can target the problem most effectively. They have also been on how the whole of Government can make a difference, how other agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Youth Justice Board, schools, local authorities, health, education and social services can join together in a concerted effort to rid the streets of crime on a sustainable basis.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the levels of street crime. [75339]

  Mr. Denham
  On 14 October 2002, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the results of the Street Crime Initiative to date. The figures show that, since the start of the initiative, street crime has fallen by 16 per cent. during the period April to September in the 10 police forces which accounted for over 80 per cent. of the robbery problem in 2001–02. For robbery, the more serious offence, the number of offences in September is 25 per cent. lower than March for the 10 forces as a whole.

  The new figures show that what was an escalating situation has been reversed over the period since the launch of the Street Crime Initiative. There has been a 10 per cent. reduction (4,600 offences) in the number of robberies during the period April to September, compared to the same period last year.

  The full report, "Street Crime Initiative: Figures to the end of September", is available in the Library.

  Strip Searching
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on action taken following the recent Prison Service report on strip searching; what assessment he has made of technological developments that might replace routine strip searching; what his estimate is of the cost of replacing strip searching by metal detectors at Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway; what guidance he has issued on Prison Service policy and minor changes in procedures; what research he has commissioned to explore further changes in strip searching procedures; and what arrangements he has made for the statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches. [74268]

  Hilary Benn
  The Review of Searching was an internal Prison Service review. The recommendations were accepted by the Prison Service Management Board and action to implement the recommendations, including the issue of policy guidance, has been or is being taken.

  The recommendations of the review were to:

  1. commission research into the effectiveness of strip searching;

  2. introduce procedures to ensure that new receptions understand they will be strip searched and what is involved;

  3. evaluate emerging technology;

  4. ensure statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches will be provided using future information technology (IT) to be introduced throughout the Service;

  5. issue guidance on strip searching of menstruating women;

  6. issue guidance on strip searching of pregnant, disabled or elderly prisoners;

  643W

  7. post-operative and bedridden prisoners, and those who are in severe pain or have recently given birth, should be strip searched only in exceptional circumstances;

  8. when the prison officer entry level training course is revised, include awareness of searching of under-18s;

  9. revise searching strategies and make specific provisions for young offender institutions (YOIs) continuing to hold juveniles. New strategies for prisons to be re-roled as juvenile centres;

  10. issue guidance that gender is not a genuine occupational qualification for cell searching;

  11. consider using the sideways stance for rub down searching of violent prisoners;

  12. ensure managers set and communicate realistic targets for rub down searches;

  13. cease the practice of randomly rub down searching official and professional visitors to Category C and D prisons and to most women's prisons and YOIs;

  14. draw a distinction between solicitors and barristers, and legal advisers who are not counted as solicitors for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), and should be searched as though they were domestic visitors;

  15. issue guidance on how to react to a passive drug dog indication; and

  16. issue guidance on when a prisoner may be in the 'sight' of the person of the opposite sex, for the purposes of Prison Rule 41(3).

  A copy of the review is available in the Library.

  12 of the 16 recommendations have now been implemented, and action on recommendations 2, 4, 11 and 14 is in hand.

  Recommendation 2 will be implemented when the Prison Service Order on Reception, which is currently being reviewed, is re-issued. Recommendations 11 and 14 will be covered in the revision of the Security Manual, which is under way. Recommendation 4 is that the Prison Service should make arrangements for the statistical recording and monitoring of strip searches. An IT solution to this requirement is being considered by the Prison Service's IT provider, although its achievement will depend on an assessment of the relative priority compared with other major IT developments needed by the service.

  Recommendation 3 was to set aside resources to evaluate technology to replace routine strip searching. The Prison Service has set aside resources to enable the Police Scientific Development Branch to do this. As present, there are no suitable available alternatives capable of finding all items found during a search, such as drugs, weapons or other contraband.

  There are no plans to use metal detectors in place of strip searching at Holloway prison, or elsewhere. Metal detectors are unable to detect drugs and any non-metallic contraband hidden beneath clothing.

  A Prison Service Instruction issued in August 2000 dealt with the minor changes in procedures covered in recommendations 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16. Governors were asked to comply with recommendations 9, 13 and 15 in separate guidance and correspondence.

  The Prison Service has commissioned research into strip searching procedures and perceptions (to meet recommendation 1). The research will be carried out by a research team from Nottingham University. The
  644W
  research methodology is being developed, and the research will be carried out in a representative sample of prisons over the next nine months. The researchers are due to make their report to the Prison Service by September 2003.

  Victim Impact Statements
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about victim impact statements. [75340]

  Hilary Benn
  The Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) was closely involved in developing the new Victim Personal Statement Scheme, which was introduced in October 2001. Since then, the LCD has been represented on the Home Office led working group, which is overseeing the evaluation for the scheme.

  Violent Crime
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have died from violence in each of the last five years. [75553]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]Homicide statistics are published annually in Chapter 4 of "'Criminal Statistics England and Wales'. Data are published on a calendar year basis up to 1997 and a financial year basis from 1997–98. The latest statistics relating to 2000–01 were published in December 2001 in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000". Table 4.6 gives currently recorded homicides by age and gender of victim.

  Homicides of children under 16 years are given in the following table.

  Age of victim

  Under one year

  One and under five years

  Five and under 16 years

  1996

  27

  20

  33

  1997

  33

  20

  30

  1997–98

  30

  16

  26

  1998–99

  40

  22

  25

  1999–2000

  31

  13

  23

  2000–01

  50

  19

  29

  Note:

  Data as at 3 October 2001; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts or as further information becomes available.

  Workers from Eire
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are on the entry into the UK of workers from Eire who have been accepted by that country from EU candidate countries. [75904]

  Beverley Hughes
  Workers from EU candidate States seeking entry to the United Kingdom (UK) through the Common Travel Area remain subject to immigration control. A work permit, and where appropriate a visa, would be required if they sought leave to enter the UK to work.
  645W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Offices
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of those employed in benefits offices were over 55 years old in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [74313]

  Mr McCartney
  Information on the percentage of staff employed in benefits offices who were over 55 years old at 30 April in each of the last five years is in the following table.

  Date

  Percentage of staff over 55

  April 2002

  8.1

  April 2001

  6.9

  April 2000

  5.9

  April 1999

  5.3

  April 1998

  5.4

  Note:

  2002 figures include staff from the former Employment Service because of the creation of Jobcentre Plus

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 635W, on child maintenance, for what reason the figure given was on a different basis to his Department's PSA target; and if he will make a statement. [77784]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures are consistent with one another.

  The figures given in the answer of 15 October 2002, Official Report, column 635W, on child support maintenance, are based on aggregates of:
  (a) for 1997, figures, for both total number of parents with care in receipt of the relevant benefit and the number of such parents with care receiving maintenance, for income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, family credit and disability working allowance;
  (b) for 2002, figures, for both total number of parents with care in receipt of the relevant benefit and the number of such parents with care receiving maintenance, for income support, income-based Jobseekers allowance and working families tax credit.

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

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the South East between l April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76559]
  646W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information on job vacancies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information on the total numbers of people employed for each Civil Service grade is in the table.

  Total number of people employed for each Civil Service grade

  London

  South East

  Grade

  SIP

  WTE

  SIP

  WTE

  SCS

  103

  101

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  89

  84

  8

  8

  Grade 7

  287

  279

  22

  22

  SEO

  375

  370

  52

  51

  HEO

  1,035

  1,007

  357

  335

  EO

  5,215

  4,942

  2,868

  2,609

  AO

  6,616

  6,150

  5,348

  4,789

  AA

  1,214

  1,127

  831

  729

  Total

  14,934

  14,060

  9,486

  8,543

  Notes:

  1. Figures are point in time as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Figures are shown as headcount totals (Staff In Post) and whole-time equivalent totals (WTE).

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the basis is of his policy on payment to people who become disabled over the age of 65 years of the mobility component attached to disability benefits; [76031]

  (2) what the basis is for the difference in the qualifying period for old claimants and younger claimants for disability benefits. [76035]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]Disability living allowance and attendance allowance are designed to provide a contribution towards the extra costs associated with severe disability. The benefits are assessed by looking at the disabled person's care needs and, in the case of disability living allowance, mobility needs.

  Disability living allowance was introduced in 1992 by bringing together the separate attendance and mobility allowances into a single benefit, which gave additional help to severely disabled people under age 65 for whom disability is more financially disruptive in terms of lost opportunity to earn and save.

  The vast majority of people can expect to have some restrictions as they get older and it is reasonable to expect people to make provision for this. Attendance allowance continues to be available for severely disabled people aged 65 or over who need help with personal care.

  Disability living allowance unified and simplified the six months qualifying test inherited from attendance allowance and the 12-month prospective qualifying test inherited from mobility allowance by providing that a severely disabled person must have satisfied the entitlement conditions throughout the past three months and be likely to continue to satisfy them throughout the next six months.

  Attendance allowance retains a six month qualifying period because a prospective test is less likely to be relevant to the disabilities—often degenerative—suffered by older people.
  647W
  The Government believe that this broad framework is fair and sensible, and in particular that it is right to give the most help to those who are severely disabled early in life and who may face limited opportunities to work and save.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to allow recipients of disability living allowance to receive these benefits in another European Union country. [76268]

  Maria Eagle
  Disability living allowance is a non-contributory benefit designed to complement the substantial range of other help available to severely disabled people in the United Kingdom. It has always been Government policy, therefore, that it should be available only to people who normally reside here.

  Disability living allowance is listed as a 'special non-contributory' benefit in EEC Regulation 1408/71. Such benefits are granted exclusively in the member state in which a person resides. People covered by the regulation can access any special non-contributory benefits, which are available in their country of residence.

  European Year of Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the official British contribution to mark the forthcoming European Year of Disabled People. [76819]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government is contributing £1 million to fund the UK programme of activity to support the European Year of Disabled People.

  We have agreed an overall plan for the European Year, including a theme, "Promote Rights and Participation", funding, and a competitive bidding process for projects at local, regional and national level.

  Launch events are being planned for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. These will be held in January 03.

  We expect to announce the successful projects before the end of this year.

  Ex-Service Personnel (Benefits)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to compel local authorities to give disregard for housing and council tax benefit to ex-service personnel. [76984]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We believe that the current disregard of £10 a week for war disablement and war widows' pensions in the income-related benefits strikes the right balance between acknowledging the special reasons for these pensions and prudent use of public funds.

  In addition to the statutory provision, local authorities have the discretionary power to disregard up to the full amount of any war pension in housing benefit and council tax benefit. Any amount on top of the £10 statutory disregard is funded from authorities' own resources.

  Local authorities, through their discretionary schemes, are best placed to determine the needs of their local residents, taking account of local priorities. We have no plans to change the present arrangements.
  648W

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many occupational pensioners have protected claims to incapacity benefit because their initial date of claim preceded the inception of the disallowance of such pensions; and how many of such initial claimants have subsequently returned to work. [76409]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Incapacity benefit recipients with an occupational pension were not separately identified prior to 6 April 2001 as receipt of a pension was irrelevant to their claim. Therefore this information is not available.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 21 October 2002 to the hon. Member for Harwich,Official Report, column 14, on the Universal Bank, what alternative arrangements he will put in place for those people who will not be able to use the PIN number associated with a Post Office card account. [77785]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers will be able to choose from a range of account options. For some people the Post Office card account may not be the most suitable option and they may prefer to use an account with a cheque book or pass book. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options and which will enable them to decide which is right for them.

  Customers who do want a Post Office card account but are unable to cope with a PIN number will have the option of nominating someone else to collect their money for them. In these cases, a second card will be issued.

  We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who cannot be paid directly into an account. We will develop an alternative method to pay this group of benefit recipients.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Modernisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make an assessment of the effect of changes to the sitting hours of the House on the working conditions and remuneration of servants thereof. [77435]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  As the financial and employing authority of the House, the Commission has been giving careful consideration to the possible effects of these proposals. The extent of the changes will depend on the decisions of the House on motions which are to be debated tomorrow. In turn, the effects of the changes will be determined by how the House, Committees and Members adapt to any new arrangements: for example, in the sitting times of Select Committees and the use of Library and catering facilities. The Commission is
  649W
  mindful of its obligations as an employer, and has already asked the Board of Management to assess effects on staff as any changes come into force.

  HEALTH

    Bed Blocking
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were blocked in Salisbury district hospital in each month since January 2001. [77313]

    Ms Blears
    Information on delayed discharges has been collected at health authority rather than individual trust level, on a quarterly basis. As of Quarter 1 of 2002–03 this information will be collected quarterly at primary care trust level. All available information has been placed in the Library.

    The Government recognises that delayed discharges are a problem across the south. Health and local authorities are working together to take action to improve the situation. In October 2001 the Government announced an extra £300 million in the "cash for change" initiative to tackle delayed transfers of care. Last year Wiltshire received over £700,000, this year over £2 million.

    Mr. Flook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were blocked in Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust beds in each month since January 2001. [77761]

    Ms Blears
    Information on delayed discharges has been collected at health authority rather than individual trust level, on a quarterly basis. As of Quarter 1 of 2002–03 this information will be collected quarterly at primary care trust level. All available information has been placed in the Library.

    The Government recognises that delayed discharges are a problem across the south. Health and local authorities are working together to take action to improve the situation. In October 2001 the Government announced an extra £300 million in the 'Cash for

    Table 1: Age standardised incidence rate for breast cancer1, females, English counties2 and Wales, years of registration 1991 to 1999. Rate per 100,000 population 3

    Area

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Bedfordshire4

    105

    127

    107

    106

    112

    94

    144

    126

    98

    Berkshire4

    114

    113

    107

    116

    114

    123

    120

    124

    122

    Bristol/Bath area

    110

    99

    97

    98

    104

    98

    113

    116

    126

    Buckinghamshire4

    118

    122

    116

    118

    117

    138

    130

    127

    131

    Cambridgeshire4

    135

    114

    109

    121

    101

    110

    111

    112

    128

    Cheshire4

    106

    103

    98

    93

    110

    100

    99

    102

    113

    Cornwall (and Isles of Scilly)

    94

    100

    89

    117

    116

    108

    123

    115

    132

    Cumbria

    87

    101

    93

    94

    87

    105

    97

    107

    113

    Derbyshire4

    113

    104

    101

    106

    100

    101

    106

    107

    113

    Devon4

    104

    108

    106

    93

    104

    104

    113

    121

    127

    Dorset4

    116

    118

    133

    141

    122

    135

    136

    125

    153

    Durham4

    97

    87

    82

    99>

    92

    114

    109

    113

    109

    East Sussex4

    106

    114

    106

    94

    111

    115

    124

    109

    113

    Essex

    105

    99

    93

    107

    111

    108

    124

    113

    118

    Gloucestershire

    108

    119

    102

    96

    106

    102

    101

    121

    151

    Greater London (Metropolitan county)

    102

    105

    98

    100

    108

    106

    119

    116

    114

    Greater Manchester (Metropolitan county)

    100

    104

    102

    102

    105

    109

    107

    114

    114

    Hampshire4

    106

    114

    125

    125

    121

    117

    125

    115

    110

    Herefordshire and Worcestershire4

    97

    118

    110

    116

    101

    114

    124

    115

    112

    Hertfordshire

    109

    93

    123

    112

    120

    124

    145

    131

    130

    650W
    Change' initiative to tackle delayed transfers of care. Last year Somerset received over £700,000, this year over £1.5 million.

    Blood Products
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available to the House the findings of his Department's inquiry relating to Lord Owen's period as a Minister at the Department in relation to blood products used for transfusion. [76822]

    Ms Blears
    I have now instigated a comprehensive review of papers from the period in question, which is estimated to be completed early in the new year. The findings from the review will be made available to the House.

    Breast Cancer
    Mr. Simmonds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the statistics on the incidence rate of breast cancer for(a) Lincolnshire and (b) each county in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for (i) men and (ii) women. [74922]

    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Letter from Mr. Cook to Mr. Mark Simmonds dated 28 October 2002:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the incidence rate of breast cancer in (a) Lincolnshire and (b) each county in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for (i) men and (ii) women. (74922)
    Incidence rates of breast cancer in women are given in the first table, for each county in England, and for the whole of Wales. The most recent period for which these data are available in the form requested is the nine years from 1991 to 1999. Figures by county in Wales cannot be produced for a similar period because of changes to local government boundaries. The equivalent figures for Northern Ireland are not readily available.
    For men, the number of cases of breast cancer is too small to allow reliable calculation of incidence rates. Consequently, the annual numbers of newly registered cases of breast cancer in men, for the whole of England and for Wales, are given in the second table.
    651W

    Table 1: Age standardised incidence rate for breast cancer1, females, English counties2 and Wales, years of registration 1991 to 1999. Rate per 100,000 population3

    Area

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Isle of Wight4

    107

    114

    97

    131

    114

    156

    171

    152

    135

    Kent4

    110

    116

    94

    103

    107

    107

    119

    113

    117

    Lancashire4

    102

    107

    98

    111

    104

    97

    105

    108

    110

    Leicestershire4

    98

    110

    107

    94

    89

    86

    98

    98

    113

    Lincolnshire

    114

    119

    95

    106

    107

    98

    97

    125

    117

    Merseyside (Metropolitan county)

    105

    97

    95

    101

    104

    101

    100

    104

    103

    Norfolk

    110

    104

    111

    107

    110

    115

    117

    107

    125

    North Yorkshire4

    104

    104

    86

    100

    103

    108

    116

    115

    120

    Northamptonshire

    115

    127

    100

    119

    112

    127

    117

    116

    126

    Northumberland

    94

    97

    98

    75

    65

    69

    62

    107

    107

    Nottinghamshire4

    99

    107

    109

    92

    100

    104

    101

    103

    99

    Oxfordshire

    126

    141

    124

    132

    115

    126

    117

    127

    145

    Shropshire4

    110

    128

    115

    110

    112

    113

    102

    108

    125

    Somerset

    114

    116

    138

    97

    93

    100

    108

    118

    143

    South Yorkshire (Metropolitan county)

    108

    106

    97

    97

    91

    92

    98

    96

    111

    Staffordshire4

    105

    98

    98

    94

    109

    98

    110

    105

    103

    Suffolk

    105

    99

    101

    119

    109

    108

    110

    118

    120

    Surrey

    105

    109

    110

    107

    119

    113

    130

    115

    125

    Tees Valley less Darlington

    87

    87

    91

    93

    100

    105

    107

    104

    100

    The Humber

    100

    94

    101

    97

    107

    102

    105

    94

    108

    Tyne and Wear (Metropolitan county)

    95

    99

    83

    87

    80

    91

    95

    109

    104

    Warwickshire

    106

    111

    102

    115

    101

    93

    116

    116

    112

    West Midlands (Metropolitan county)

    109

    106

    101

    99

    101

    101

    100

    112

    110

    West Sussex

    94

    96

    93

    105

    114

    114

    118

    127

    114

    West Yorkshire (Metropolitan county)

    95

    103

    104

    100

    98

    96

    108

    110

    110

    Wiltshire4

    100

    136

    132

    113

    116

    128

    130

    119

    136

    Wales

    97

    117

    120

    124

    105

    105

    110

    102

    120

    1 For years 1991 to 1994, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code 174. For years 1995 to 1999, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C50.

    2 Data are presented for English counties, and former counties, based on boundaries as at 1 April 2002.

    3 Rates are based on mid-year population estimates produced following the 1991 Census.

    4 Former county of.

    Note:

    Age standardisation is to the European Standard Population.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

    Table 2: Number of new cases of breast cancer1, males, England and Wales, years of registration 1991 to 1999

    Number

    Year

    England

    Number Wales

    1991

    189

    13

    1992

    178

    13

    1993

    224

    20

    1994

    166

    18

    1995

    212

    19

    1996

    192

    23

    1997

    230

    12

    1998

    265

    13

    1999

    272

    19

    1 For years 1991 to 1994, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 175. For years 1995 to 1999, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, code C50.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

    Mr. Simmonds
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the death rate from breast cancer in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) each county in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for (i) men and (ii) women. [74923]
    652W
    Ruth Kelly
    I have been asked to reply. The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Simmonds dated 28 October 2002:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the death rate from breast cancer in (a) Lincolnshire and (b) each county in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for (i) men and (ii) women. (74923)
    Death rates from breast cancer in women are given in the first table, for each county in England, and for the whole of Wales. The most recent ten year period for which these data are available is 1992 to 2001. Figures by county in Wales cannot be produced for a ten year period because of changes to local government boundaries. The equivalent figures for Northern Ireland are not readily available.
    For men, the number of deaths from breast cancer is too small to allow reliable calculation of death rates. Consequently, the annual numbers of deaths from breast cancer in men, for the whole of England and for Wales, are given in the second table.
    653W

    Table 1: Age standardised mortality rate for deaths with an underlying cause of breast cancer1, females, English counties2 and Wales, 1992 to 2001 3 Rate per 100,000 population

    Area

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Bedfordshire

    38

    35

    40

    39

    34

    34

    34

    27

    25

    32

    Berkshire

    42

    40

    35

    44

    34

    35

    39

    33

    32

    33

    Bristol/Bath area

    41

    38

    36

    36

    32

    34

    34

    32

    34

    33

    Buckinghamshire

    45

    39

    37

    41

    31

    34

    41

    37

    35

    38

    Cambridgeshire

    41

    45

    44

    41

    30

    36

    37

    29

    35

    31

    Cheshire

    43

    39

    38

    32

    34

    32

    32

    32

    27

    32

    Cornwall (and Isle of Scilly)

    36

    37

    33

    43

    36

    37

    31

    30

    32

    28

    Cumbria

    36

    33

    32

    35

    35

    33

    34

    36

    37

    29

    Derbyshire

    41

    43

    41

    41

    38

    37

    31

    29

    30

    33

    Devon

    40

    40

    39

    37

    36

    33

    33

    27

    33

    32

    Dorset

    42

    34

    38

    38

    26

    35

    33

    30

    33

    25

    Durham

    34

    36

    35

    33

    38

    35

    29

    30

    28

    29

    East Sussex

    35

    37

    40

    38

    34

    37

    36

    31

    32

    32

    Essex

    40

    41

    38

    41

    38

    32

    37

    32

    34

    30

    Gloucestershire

    37

    34

    38

    41

    36

    40

    34

    35

    35

    32

    Greater London (Metropolitan County)

    40

    39

    37

    34

    36

    35

    32

    32

    33

    32

    Greater Manchester (Metropolitan County)

    38

    38

    37

    37

    36

    33

    31

    35

    32

    32

    Hampshire

    41

    38

    36

    34

    36

    36

    36

    36

    33

    30

    Herefordshire and Worcestershire

    40

    39

    37

    38

    37

    37

    32

    38

    33

    29

    Hertfordshire

    33

    39

    38

    42

    35

    36

    41

    36

    35

    35

    Isle of Wight

    39

    33

    35

    27

    21

    34

    34

    37

    23

    27

    Kent

    43

    44

    40

    37

    33

    31

    33

    33

    32

    33

    Lancashire

    34

    36

    37

    39

    33

    33

    32

    31

    29

    32

    Leicestershire

    36

    39

    40

    42

    33

    33

    27

    28

    31

    28

    Lincolnshire

    43

    40

    39

    41

    34

    37

    32

    32

    32

    35

    Merseyside(Metropolitan County)

    37

    36

    36

    35

    36

    38

    35

    35

    32

    31

    Norfolk

    36

    37

    36

    35

    36

    37

    37

    34

    33

    29

    North Yorkshire

    40

    36

    29

    30

    38

    30

    31

    34

    36

    30

    Northamptonshire

    40

    39

    42

    40

    38

    33

    36

    33

    34

    31

    Northumberland

    42

    34

    46

    27

    36

    29

    34

    31

    28

    33

    Nottinghamshire

    46

    36

    40

    38

    37

    36

    37

    33

    27

    35

    Oxfordshire

    39

    36

    33

    37

    33

    30

    40

    33

    33

    28

    Shropshire

    40

    41

    36

    38

    36

    43

    35

    33

    36

    30

    Somerset

    36

    40

    37

    36

    36

    35

    32

    30

    31

    29

    South Yorkshire (Metropolitan County)

    38

    39

    44

    36

    39

    35

    31

    33

    29

    32

    Staffordshire

    40

    40

    40

    42

    40

    31

    36

    34

    32

    27

    Suffolk

    42

    44

    43

    39

    33

    37

    36

    32

    31

    29

    Surrey

    40

    42

    39

    33

    29

    34

    28

    34

    29

    29

    Tees Valley less Darlington

    39

    37

    41

    35

    34

    36

    32

    27

    33

    30

    The Humber

    38

    38

    38

    35

    43

    33

    33

    30

    29

    29

    Tyne and Wear (Metropolitan County)

    41

    40

    40

    35

    31

    37

    37

    33

    31

    30

    Warwickshire

    48

    37

    36

    39

    42

    31

    35

    29

    31

    27

    West Midlands (Metropolitan County)

    40

    37

    39

    35

    37

    37

    33

    34

    32

    28

    West Sussex

    39

    36

    36

    33

    36

    27

    38

    32

    34

    30

    West Yorkshire (Metropolitan County)

    35

    35

    34

    34

    31

    30

    28

    29

    28

    28

    Wiltshire

    38

    41

    37

    38

    41

    39

    35

    35

    28

    32

    Wales

    39

    40

    39

    36

    36

    35

    34

    34

    34

    32

    1 For years 1992 to 2000, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code 174 For 2001, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C50

    2 Data are presented for English counties, and former counties, based on boundaries as at 1st April 2002.

    3 The introduction of ICD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that the number of deaths for this year are not comparable with data for earlier years.

    Research has shown that the Introduction of ICD-10 led to an apparent increase of 2.7 per cent, in the number of deaths coded to female breast cancer.

    Rates for the years 1993 to 2000 have therefore been adjusted by 2.7 per cent, to produce comparable trends for this period.

    Data for 1992 are not adjusted because of coding changes introduced in 1993.

    4 Rates for 2001 are based on mid-year population estimates produced following the 2001 Census.

    Rates for earlier years are based on mid-year population estimates produced following the 1991 Census.

    There is therefore a discontinuity in this time series. ONS will publish revised sub-national population estimates for 1991 to 2000 in February 2003.

    Age-standardisation is to the European Standard Population

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics
    654W 655W

    Table 2: Number of deaths with an underlying cause of breast cancer1. males, England and Wales, 1992 to 20012

    Number

    Year

    England

    Number Wales

    1992

    85

    7

    1993

    81

    6

    1994

    82

    5

    1995

    74

    6

    1996

    63

    4

    1997

    65

    2

    1998

    73

    2

    1999

    63

    2

    2000

    68

    3

    2001

    77

    3

    1 For years 1992 to 2000, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code 175.For 2001, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code C50

    2 The introduction of ICD-10 led to an apparent increase of 10 per cent, in the number of deaths coded to make breast cancer. The figures should therefore be interpreted with caution.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on raising awareness of breast cancer since 1997; what progress has been made in cutting the number of deaths from breast cancer since 1997; and what care is available to people who suffer emotionally from the removal of a breast after treatment for breast cancer. [74406]

    Ms Blears
    5: We congratulate the charities that work together on breast cancer awareness month and their efforts to raise awareness of the disease. In addition to these efforts, the Government have spent approximately £10,000 on a breast awareness teaching kit for primary care in conjunction with the European Community and the cancer research campaign. £38,500 has also been spent nationally on "Be Breast Aware" leaflets and £131,000 on information leaflets for women about breast screening.

    There has been a 6 per cent. reduction in deaths from breast cancer between 1997 and 2000. The annual numbers of deaths in England has decreased from 11.240 in 1997 to 10,609 in 2000. Over the same period the age standardised death rate for breast cancer has fallen by 7.7 per cent. from 1997 to 2000.

    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is due to publish guidelines on supportive and palliative care in October 2002. This will include guidance on information, communication and psychological and social support. The NICE guidance is now available for consultation on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

    The Patient Cancer Survey 1999–2000 found that women with breast cancer reported generally positive experiences of breast cancer services.

    Cancer
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the number of cancer patients awaiting radiotherapy treatment but not included on official NHS waiting lists. [75772]
    656W
    Ms Blears
    The Department has received a number of informal representations about waiting times for radiotherapy. In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times, we are making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current workforce and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the effectiveness of new systems for logging data relating to cancer treatment introduced under the NHS cancer plan; and if he will make a statement on these systems. [75784]

    Ms Blears
    No representations have been received. Monitoring the national health service cancer plan targets robustly and effectively requires the ability to track information across the patient pathway of care, from urgent general practitioner referral for suspected cancer, to their first definitive treatment. The Department, in collaboration with the NHS information authority, is developing a national database so that this data can be collated nationally and locally. The database is currently undergoing user testing in the NHS prior to general introduction.

    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the waiting list for breast cancer was for each month since September 2002; and how many breast cancer patients were tested to ascertain their suitability for a NICE-approved treatment for each of these months; [75796]

    (2) what the waiting lists for breast cancer were for each month since September 2000; and how many (a) prostrate, (b) ovarian and (c) lung cancer patients were tested to ascertain their suitability for a NICE-approved treatment in each of these months; [75797]

    (3) what the waiting lists for breast cancer were for each month since September 2000; and how many leukaemia patients were tested to ascertain their suitability for a NICE-approved treatment in each of these months. [75798]

    Ms Blears
    Data on waiting lists for breast, leukaemia, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer for each month since September 2000 are not collected centrally.

    The cancer plan sets out waiting times targets for cancer treatment that will be implemented over the next five years. By 2005, all cancer patients will wait a maximum of one month from diagnosis to treatment and a maximum of two months from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment. We are currently developing systems to monitor performance against this target.

    In addition, a new target of one month from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer was introduced in December 2001. Central monitoring of performance against this target began in January 2002 with data being collected quarterly. The table shows quarterly performance against this target.
    657W

    Breast cancer one month from diagnosis to treatment

    Percentage

    Quarter 4 2001–02

    94.2

    Quarter 1 2002–03

    94.4

    The Department does not collect information about the suitability of patients for specific treatments. The responsibility for arranging tests and deciding what treatment is best for the patient rests with the clinicians concerned. This is done in consultation with the patient and is informed by the patient's clinical history. Relevant guidance from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence would also be taken into account. Discussions between patients and clinicians about suitable treatments are confidential.

    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the number of people diagnosed with lung cancer since 1992; and how this compares with other(a) Commonwealth and (b) EU countries; [75834]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the number of people diagnosed with leukaemia since 1992; and how this compares with other (a)Commonwealth and (b) EU countries; [75832]

    (3) what assessment he has made of the number of people diagnosed with (a) breast cancer, (b) ovarian cancer, (c) leukaemia, (d) prostate cancer and (e) lung cancer since 1992; and how this compares with other (i) Commonwealth and (ii) EU countries; [75831]

    (4) what assessment he has made of the number of people diagnosed with prostate cancer since 1992; and how this compares with other (a) Commonwealth and (b) EU countries. [75833]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Gregory Barker, dated 28 October 2002:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning what assessment has made of the number of people diagnosed with various types of cancer since 1992; and how these figures compares with other (i) Commonwealth and (ii) EU countries. (75831,75832, 75833, 75834).
    Figures on the numbers of people diagnosed with cancers of the breast, lung, ovary and prostate, and leukaemia in the EU countries can be found on the EUCAN database. This database contains information for the latest year for which cancer incidence, mortality and population data are available in the 15 Member States of the European Union; at present the latest data available are for 1997. The EUCAN database is available on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) website at:
    Comparable data for the Commonwealth countries can be found on the GLOBOCAN database. The GLOBOCAN 2000 database contains estimates of cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide for 2000. The GLOBOCAN 2000 database is also available on the IARC website (at the same address).
    Figures for the UK are included on both of these databases in the format which allows comparison with other countries.
    658W

    Cancer Care
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the component parts of the national cancer waiting lists as published by the NHS. [75769]

    Ms Blears
    The NHS cancer plan set out new goals to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment. The ultimate goal is that no one should wait longer than one month from an urgent general practitioner referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice.

    The first step in reducing cancer waiting times was the introduction of the two week waiting time standard from urgent general practitioner (GP) referral to out-patient appointment for cases of suspected breast cancer from April 1999. The two week standard was extended to all other urgent cases of suspected cancer during 2000.

    From December 2001 targets of a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month maximum wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia were introduced. By 2005 the target of a maximum two month wait from urgent GP referral to first treatment and a one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for will cover all cancers.

    Existing monitoring arrangements cover the two week standard and the December 2001 targets.

    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning its target to introduce 1,000 new cancer consultants to the NHS by 2006. [75781]

    Ms Blears
    The Department has received a number of informal representations about the expansion of the cancer workforce. The national cancer director works closely with cancer networks, professional organisations and workforce development confederations to ensure that national decisions about workforce planning reflect the needs of the service. The table shows good progress in increasing the number of doctors working in cancer services. This increase means the national health service is on track to hit the target set out in the cancer plan of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006.

    Hospital medical consultants within selected specialties relating to cancer—England

    Headcount

    1999

    March 2002

    All Cancer specialties

    3,360

    3,860

    Of which

    Clinical oncology

    300

    320

    Clinical radiology

    1,510

    1,680

    Haematology

    510

    580

    Histopathology

    840

    960

    Medical oncology

    110

    180

    Palliative medicine

    90

    150

    Source:

    Department of Health medical and dental workforce census
    659W
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the transparency of cancer fund allocation within NHS health authorities in England and Wales; [75804]

    (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure greater transparency on how public money for cancer is spent; [75775]

    (3) what procedures are in place to ensure that funds awarded for cancer services within NHS health authorities in England and Wales are distributed accordingly and not allocated to other areas of health care. [75805]

    Ms Blears
    The Department and the national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, have received both formal and informal representations about cancer funding from national health service and voluntary organisations as well as individual clinicians and managers providing cancer care. Professor Richards is working with chief executives of strategic health authorities to ensure that the money gets through to cancer services and that cancer plan targets are met.

    We are devolving power from the centre to locally run services, to allow the freedom to innovate and improve care for patients. The increased resources that we have made available and will continue to make available to support the implementation of the cancer plan will move to the NHS frontline. Primary care trusts will have freedom to decide where NHS resources are best spent, but they will need to account publicly for how they have used resources against the test of high clinical standards and good value for money.

    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the effectiveness of the peer review teams introduced under the NHS Cancer Plan. [75783]

    Ms Blears
    The Department has received a number of informal comments about the 2000–01 peer review process. A formal evaluation of the peer review process has been commissioned. Decisions about the future of the process will take all these views into consideration.

    Cardiac Surgery
    Dr. Richard Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to primary care trusts to allow patients waiting for cardiac surgery to be treated out of their area in(a) the UK and (b) abroad. [76244]

    Ms Blears
    The following guidance on domestic and overseas treatment has been issued to primary care trusts:

    Extending Choice for Patients— Establishing the Heart Surgery Scheme (March 2002)

    Further Advice and Guidance (April 2002)

    Additional Revenue Allocations (April 2002)

    Update and Next Steps (June 2002)

    Copies of the guidance have been placed in the library.

    Departmental Websites
    Dr. Vincent Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the web site links associated with his 660W
    Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75584]

    Ms Blears
    A list of websites associated with the Department has been placed in the Library.

    There would be a disproportionate cost associated with identifying the start up costs, the hosting arrangements and what assessment takes place for each site listed. However, we are able to provide the operating costs for all the websites hosted by the Department. These are shown in the table:

    Financial Year

    Hosting and maintenance (£k)

    Estimated staff costs (£k)

    (£k)

    1998–99

    20.9

    178.9

    199.8

    1999–00

    54.3

    229.4

    283.7

    2000–01

    49.3

    2777.1

    326.4

    2001–02

    73.3

    339.7

    400.8

    2002–03 (to 30.09.02)

    57.5

    169.8

    227.3

    The current hosting supplier is EDS Ltd. The Office of Government Commerce provided hosting until the end of June 2002. EDS provide a monthly service report which includes a web performance return.

    Domiciliary Oxygen Service
    Jim Knight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to publish the review of the Domiciliary Oxygen Service; [75943]

    (2) whether he intends to accept the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians made in their 1999 guidance Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Services; [75944]

    (3) what analysis has been undertaken of the benefits of liquid oxygen to those with respiratory problems; and if he will introduce a three modality system of oxygen supply for such patients. [75945]

    Mr. Lammy
    The review of the domiciliary oxygen service has not yet been concluded. There are no plans at present to change the arrangements under which oxygen is provided for patients who need it. The therapeutic benefits of oxygen do not depend on the modality of oxygen supply.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people died in 2001 while on the waiting list for heart surgery; and if he will make a statement.

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]The information requested is not collected centrally. [75944]

    Drug Misuse
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each of the last five years the amount of expenditure on preventative measures to tackle the
    661W
    misuse of (a) alcohol, (b) tobacco, (c) cannabis, (d) ecstasy, (e) amphetamines, (f) LSD, (g) heroin, (h) cocaine and (i) crack cocaine. [75736]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 23 October 2002]Most of the work on the prevention of alcohol misuse is undertaken at local level by National Health Service (NHS) health promotion units and primary health care professionals such as general practitioners and practice nurses. It is not possible to separately identify the funds devoted to this alcohol misuse prevention work. Over the period 1999–2003 a total of £76 million will have been invested in the NHS smoking cessation services. Actual spending on the public education campaign is £46 million with £13 million committed for 2002–03.

    It should be noted that figures listed below for the years after 1998 when the Government's drug strategy was launched are a Department of Health contribution to overall prevention funding. Other Government Departments, in particular the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills, also provide substantial funding.

    £

    1998/99

    Around 1. 5m made available for national campaigns

    1999/00

    Around 1.5m made available for national campaigns

    2000/01

    Around 1. 5m made available for national campaigns

    2001/02

    Around 1. 5m made available for national campaigns. In addition 11. 164m ring fenced money for drug prevention spent.

    2002/03

    Around 1. 5m made available for national campaigns. In addition 15. 75m ring fenced money for drug prevention allocated.

    Prior to 2001–02, drug prevention funding was not ring fenced. However health and local authorities could use mainstreamed funds to finance drug prevention.

    GP Czar
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits the GP Czar has made to Portsmouth South; and if he will make a statement. [76505]

    Mr. Hutton
    Professor David Colin-Thome is the national clinical director of primary care for England as well as a practising general practitioner.

    He has not visited Portsmouth South during his time in office, nor been invited to do so.

    Haemophilia
    Mr. Connarty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to make a decision before the end of 2002 on whether to make recombinant available to all people with haemophilia. [75866]

    Ms Blears
    We hope to announce our decision on the availability of recombinant before the end of 2002.

    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent further consideration he has given to making recombinant clotting factors available to all haemophilia patients in England. [76827]

    Ms Blears
    The Government is still considering whether to make recombinant clotting factors available to all haemophiliacs in England taking full account of representations made by the All Party Parliamentary 662W
    Group on haemophilia, the haemophilia society, the United Kingdom haemophilia centre doctors organisation and others. We hope to announce our decision before the end of 2002.

    Health Care (Portsmouth)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the 2002–03 budget was(a) finalised and (b) published for the (i) Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and (ii) Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust; and if he will make a statement; [76504]

    (2) what plans he has to bring an end to the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust deficit; and if he will make a statement. [76497]

    Ms Blears
    The management of the trust is a matter for the local health community managing within the context of "Shifting the Balance of Power", local partnership and agreement. Work is under way across the whole health economy to identify recurrent solutions to address the deficit.

    I am advised by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority that the Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust board approved initial budgets for 2002–03 at its meeting on 25 April 2002. There were a number of areas of service development that required additional investment, which have been agreed in the last two months. In the case of Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust, the outline budget was presented to its board at a public meeting in June.

    The public release of details of the proposed budget and the subsequent publication of audited accounts are matters for each individual organisation to determine.

    Meat and Poultry
    Mr. David Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's planned expenditure is on training in the meat and poultry sectors in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [74734]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 15 October 2002]I have been asked to reply.

    The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funds generic training leading to a national qualification. While there is a small volume of LSC-supported vocational training for new entrants to the meat and poultry sector, it is likely that the bulk of training in this sector will be in-service and not supported by the LSC.

    Sector Skills Councils, which are replacing National Training Organisations, have a responsibility to work with employers to identify training needs and ways of meeting them. Lantra has been designated as a trailblazer sector skills council covering environmental and land-based industries, including agricultural production. Lantra receives some financial support from Defra and DIES, though it will principally be for industry sectors to generate funds for training. The meat and poultry sectors will also benefit from publicly-funded services, such as Defra's Farm Business Advice Service.
    663W
    The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) a Defra non-departmental public body (NDPB), funded by statutory levy, has the general duty of promoting greater efficiency in the livestock industry and the livestock products industry, and other functions which include:
    1. In sections of the livestock industry or livestock products industry for which no industrial training board has been established, encouraging and promoting the training of employees
    2. Co-operating with the industrial training board for any other sector of either industry in the improvement of the training of employees in that section of the industry. (Agriculture Act 1967, Schedule 1, paragraph 17)

    The MLC therefore fund training in the red meat sector, both directly and through support to the Meat Training Council (formerly a national training organisation), discussions are under way regarding its possible inclusion in a larger food and drink SSC). The MLC planned expenditure on training during the periods in question is:

    £

    2002–03

    160,000 (forecast)

    2003–04

    175,000 (indicative)

    2004–05

    200,000 (indicative)

    Mental Health
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual expenditure per person under the age of 18 on mental health services in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each health authority in each of the last six years. [75633]

    Jacqui Smith
    The requested information is not collected.

    National Institute for Clinical Excellence
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to reduce delays in obtaining NICE guidance for cancer treatments. [75800]

    Ms Blears
    When the Department becomes aware of an impending licence for a significant new cancer treatment it is considered for referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The appraisal process takes a minimum of 54 weeks from referral to completion as it has been designed to allow the full participation of patients, clinicians, companies and stakeholders. NICE is fully aware of the need to ensure that the process is as streamlined as possible, without losing any of the important safeguards it contains, in order to publish guidance soon after the treatments are launched.

    Physical Activity Levels
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to encourage improved health and preventative health programmes through increased physical activity. [75208]

    Ms Blears
    The Government recognises the importance of physical activity to improving health and has set up a programme of activity to increase rates of physical activity. Together with the Countryside 664W
    Agency and Sport England, the Department is developing a programme of local exercise action pilots (LEAPs), which will test out different community approaches to increasing physical activity. The results will inform and lead action on physical activity across the National Health service.

    Local strategies to increase physical activity are being developed as part of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. To support the development of local physical activity programmes, the Department published a national quality assurance framework for exercise referral systems in April 2001. This offers guidance to primary care and fitness professionals who work together to offer tailored exercise programmes to patients whose health would benefit from increased exercise.

    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has considered the case for primary care trusts having physical activity co-ordinators within their public health teams. [75209]

    Ms Blears
    The issue of whether Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) should appoint physical activity co-ordinators as part of their public health teams is a matter for local determination. However, what is clear is that PCTs have a role in delivering improvements to public health, including increasing rates of physical activity. In order to assist PCTs in this, together with the Countryside Agency and Sport England, the Department is developing a programme of local exercise action pilots (LEAPs) to test out different approaches to increasing physical activity.

    This programme will fund one pilot in each of the nine regions in England. Pilots will be led by PCTs and based in neighbourhood renewal areas and some will also involve sport action zones. The ongoing results will inform and lead action on physical activity across the National Health Service.

    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has considered the case for a cross departmental strategy at national, regional and local level for joined-up action and funding to improve physical activity levels. [75210]

    Ms Blears
    The Government recognises the importance of a strategic approach in order to increase rates of physical activity. This Department works closely with other Government Departments to ensure that policy initiatives on health, sport and recreation, education and transport are co-coordinated and contribute to our shared goal of increasing access and rates of physical activity. This has been backed up by significant investment, including £581 million from the new opportunities fund for a physical education and sports programme, £459 million to transform physical education, school sport and club links over the next three years and £2.5 million for a new programme of local exercise action pilots, led by primary care trusts (PCTs).

    At a national level, Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health have regular monthly meetings to ensure joint working and co-ordination on issues relating to physical activity and sport. The Department of Health has also set up a

    665W
    national alliance on physical activity that draws together policy makers, experts and practitioners to share local experiences and learning on strategies, plans and practices to increase physical activity.

    At a regional level the positioning of regional directors of public health and their teams in the Government offices of the regions provides a very real opportunity to make connections across policy areas that will support increased physical activity.

    Locally, PCTs have a key responsibility for ensuring that a strategic approach is taken to increasing physical activity through their involvement in local strategic partnerships.

    Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on prescribing the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in each of the last three years, broken down by NHS trust; and if he will make a statement. [76008]

    Ms Blears
    Information on the net ingredient cost of pneumococcal vaccines prescribed in general practitioners practices in England, by Health Authority, 2000 and 2001 has been placed in the Library.

    Data is taken from the prescribing analyses and cost system from the prescription pricing authority and only available by health authority.

    Post-Surgery Radiotherapy
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for post-surgery radiotherapy in(a) Southampton Hospital and (b) the nearest three units which provide similar services has been in the last year for which figures are available; what clinical guidance is on such waiting times; and if he will make a statement. [76742]

    Ms Blears
    The information requested on waiting times for post surgery radiotherapy is not collected centrally.

    The NHS Cancer Plan sets out new goals to reduce waiting times for diagnosis and treatment. The ultimate goal is that no one should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment, except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice. In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times we are making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current workforce and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

    Palliative Care
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the success of the 'education and support programme for district and community nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care; [75808]
    666W
    (2) how many proposals have been received for the 'education and support programme for district and community nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care': and what the source of these proposals was. [75809]

    Ms Blears
    Funding of £6 million over three years has been made available to train and support district and community nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care. Bids were invited in April 2001 with one project from each cancer network being chosen. The projects were required to reflect collaboration between education provider(s); training recipients; specialist palliative healthcare professionals; and education consortia/confederations and demonstrate a multi-professional approach to the training provision. Details of the projects can be found on the web at www.doh.gov/cancer/edusup.htm

    We are in the second year of the programme. All reports received so far suggest that the project is proving beneficial and is being well received by district and community nurses. The project will be evaluated.

    Prostate Cancer
    Gregory Barker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a full review will be published on current progress in implementing the Government Prostate Cancer Programme issued in December 2000. [75807]

    Ms Blears
    Good progress has been made since the national health service prostate cancer programme was published on 6 September 2000. All targets within the programme have been achieved, and the planned increase in consultant urologists is currently being exceeded.

    Public Health Laboratory Service
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) Public Health Laboratory Service Management and (b) trades unions concerning (i) the transfer of local public health laboratories from Public Health Laboratory Service central organisation to hospital trusts; and (ii) the timing of implementation of the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [74807]

    Ms Blears
    A discussion document on the proposals was issued in June 2002, and representations were received from the PHLS Board and from Amicus and the British Medical Association on both the detail of the proposals and on the proposed timing. We sought to address issues raised in the final decisions about which laboratories would transfer to the NHS from 1 April 2003. This was announced on 3 September. Representations have since been received from Unison.

    Radioactive Xenon Gas
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what experiments have been conducted using the release of radioactive xenon gas from Harwell Atomic Energy Research Laboratories. [75688]

    Mr. Wilson
    I have been asked to reply.
    667W
    I understand from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that a short series of tests using mildly radioactive xenon gas were carried out in April 1961, in order to improve the understanding of weather conditions on the dispersal of airborne materials.

    Radiographers
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Health Professions Council regarding the increase in the retention fee for radiographers; and if he will make a statement. [76015]

    Mr. Hutton
    [Holding reply issued on Monday 21 October]The Health Professions Council (HPC) ended a three month public consultation exercise on 30 September 2002. One of the issues for consultation was the level at which the HPC should set its fees from April 2003. The Department provided a consolidated response to the consultation of which the issue of the level of fees formed part. The HPC will analyse the feedback it has received and produce a document summarising the replies, which they aim to publish in November.

    Radiotherapy
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have been waiting more than(a) six, (b) 12 and (c) 18 months for radiotherapy treatment in each English health authority area; [76036]

    (2) whether waiting times for radiotherapy are reported as part of the waiting times for (a) inpatients and (b) outpatients; and if he will make a statement. [75992]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answers 24 October 2002]Waiting times for radiotherapy treatment are not collected centrally. In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times, we are making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current workforce and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

    Renal Services (Portsmouth)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received the South East Health Board Review Panel's analysis of and recommendations for the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Renal Services; and if he will make a statement. [76005]

    Ms Blears
    Officials of the Department's directorate of health and social care for the south of England have received the report on Portsmouth renal services by the external review panel, commissioned by the regional director of public health for the south east. In response to the report Portsmouth hospitals national health service trust has produced a detailed action plan. Progress against it is being closely monitored by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight health strategic health authority and the directorate of health and social care (south).
    668W

    Salisbury Alcohol and Drugs Advisory Service
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Salisbury Alcohol and Drugs Advisory Service; and what the waiting time is for an appointment. [72615]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 15 October 2002]I understand that an additional £60,000 has been made available to Salisbury alcohol and drugs advisory service (SADAS) in recognition of the shortfall in the original allocation for 2002–03. This will enable the strengthening of staffing resources, which will allow them to improve all their services, including detoxification, capacity and structured day care provision.

    SADAS is taking part in the combined national treatment agency and modernisation agency waiting times pilot. The current waiting times being reported by SADAS are shown in the table.

    Waiting times

    Highest priority cases

    1–2 weeks

    Treatment for under 25 year olds

    Up to 8 weeks

    Arrest referral

    Up to 12 weeks

    Low risk

    Up to 52 weeks

    It should be noted that the figures above measure the time from referral to treatment, and not from the first appointment, which may have occurred at an earlier date.

    Smallpox Vaccine
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he estimates it would cost clinically to test the smallpox vaccine to be supplied by Powderject. [67542]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Government have made no estimate of the cost of clinical trials for this vaccine, as the costs of any such trials normally fall to the supplying company.

    There are currently no proposals for clinical trials of this vaccine in the United Kingdom, and the Government are not meeting any costs for any future limited clinical trials that might be required in fulfillment of an application for a product licence for smallpox vaccine supplied by Powderject Pharmaceuticals.

    Since smallpox does not currently exist in the population, trials of protective efficacy are not possible. Therefore, the likely protective efficacy of a new

    669W
    smallpox vaccine must be inferred from other parameters. Clinical trials are not mandatory for unlicensed vaccines.

    The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control are conducting independent potency and quality checks on the new vaccine prior to the vaccine being finally accepted.

    Smoking
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage smoking rates in each

    Table 1: Prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by socio-economic group, England 1990 to 2000

    Percentage

    Unweighted1

    Weighted1

    1990

    1992

    1994

    1996

    1998

    1998

    2000

    Non-manual

    24

    23

    21

    22

    21

    22

    23

    Manual

    35

    33

    32

    34

    32

    33

    31

    Total

    29

    28

    26

    28

    27

    28

    27

    Weighted base (000s)

    —

    35,290

    35,452

    Unweighted base

    15,002

    15,663

    14,447

    13,381

    12,295

    —

    11,829

    1 From 2000, ONS have weighted the data to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups (for example young men). The 2000 results are provided based on weighted data only. The results based on weighted and unweighted data are not directly comparable, so the results for 1998 have been presented as weighted, and as unweighted data.

    Note:

    In this table, the non-manual social-economic group category includes professionals, employers and managers, and intermediate non-manual and junior non-manual workers. The manual social-economic group category includes skilled manual (including foreman and supervisors) and own account non-professional, semi-skilled manual and personal service, and unskilled manual workers.

    Source:

    ONS General Household Surveys, 1990 to 2000.

    Table 2: Prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by standard region England, 1990 to 2000

    Percentage

    Weighted1

    Unweighted1

    Weighted

    Unweighted

    Region

    1990

    1992

    1994

    1996

    1998

    1998

    2000

    Base 2000 (000)

    Sample 2000

    North

    32

    31

    28

    31

    27

    28

    28

    2,557

    85

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    29

    28

    28

    28

    28

    29

    28

    3,771

    1,25

    North West

    33

    30

    27

    30

    31

    32

    30

    4,472

    1,52

    East Midlands

    28

    25

    26

    26

    26

    27

    25

    2,895

    99

    West Midlands

    29

    26

    24

    28

    28

    29

    26

    3,925

    1,30

    East Anglia

    26

    27

    24

    25

    22

    23

    26

    1,733

    60

    Greater London

    31

    29

    29

    29

    30

    31

    27

    5,253

    1,50

    Outer Metropolitan area

    29

    26

    25

    25

    24

    25

    25

    8,201

    2,80

    Outer South East

    28

    28

    27

    28

    South West

    27

    25

    24

    27

    24

    25

    27

    3,724

    1,30

    All England

    29

    28

    26

    28

    27

    28

    27

    36,531

    12,15

    1 See notes to table 1 re: weighting.

    Source:

    ONS General Household Survey 2000, published as "Living in Britain", results from the 2000 General Household Survey. Available from the internet at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib/index.html.

    Suicide
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the data available on death rates from(a) suicide and (b) undetermined injury in each year since 1996. [75641]

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

    Letter from L. Cook to Dr. Evan Harris, dated 28 October 2002:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your enquiry about the publication of death rates from (a) suicide and (b) undetermined injury in each year since 1996. (75641)
    670W
    year since 1990 in (a) England and (b) each NHS region for (i) all adults, (ii) non-manual groups and (iii) manual groups. [75640]

    Ms Blears
    Information on smoking prevalence for adults is obtained from the general household survey; questions on smoking were included every two years. The most recent results are for 2000. Information on smoking prevalence in non-manual and manual groups is not readily available by region; sample sizes for some regions are relatively small and would not be very robust. The available information is given in the tables.

    These data were published in Table 3 of Mortality Statistics from injury and poisoning 2000, Series DH4 no. 25 which is available on the National Statistics website at hhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme—health/DH4—No25.pdf.

    Heart Surgery Waiting Lists
    Mr. Laws
    ; To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died in 2001 while on the waiting list for heart surgery; and if he will make a statement. [75994]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.
    671W

    Waiting Times
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) CT scans and (b) MRI scans are included in figures for (i) in-patient and (ii) out-patient waiting times; and if he will make a statement. [75986]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]Information on computerised tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans is not collected centrally. Waiting times for consultant-led in-patient elective admissions and consultant-led first out-patient appointments, following general practitioner referral, are collected on the consultant's main specialty not by procedure. CT scans and MRI scans will be included in the figures if they take place as an elective in-patient admission or as a first out-patient appointment, but will not be separately identifiable.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting for a neuro-physiology(a) diagnostic test and (b) consultant appointment at (i) Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton and (ii) Yeovil District Hospital; how many of these have waited more than (A) three, (B) six, (C) nine, (D) 12, (E) 15, (F) 18 and (G) 24 months; and if he will make a statement. [75990]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients waiting for diagnostic tests and consultant appointments.

    Information is collected on waiting times for first out-patient appointment for clinical neuro-physiology consultant specialty. There are no data held centrally for Taunton and Somerset National Health Service Trust for this specialty. For East Somerset NHS Trust there were no patients waiting over 13 weeks as at 30 June 2002, the most recent date for which information is available.

    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each NHS Trust have been waiting more than(a) six, (b) 12, (c) 18 and (d) 24 months for (i) CT and (ii) MRI scans; and if he will make a statement. [75991]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 24 October 2000]Information on waiting times for magnetic resource imaging (MRI) scans is not collected centrally. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be 672W
    carried out as quickly as possible, however this is dependent on the clinical priority of all the remaining patients waiting to be scanned. To increase the capacity of diagnostic services, we are making unprecedented investment for the provision of new and replacement scanners. By 2004, 88 new MRI scanners and 186 new computed tomography (CT) scanners will have been delivered through central purchasing initiatives. In addition to this, workforce initiatives are underway that aim to improve recruitment and retention of staff and we are streamlining the way care is delivered through the cancer services collaborative.

    Welfare Food Scheme
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the plans to reform the welfare food scheme to help ensure children from poorer families have a healthier start in life. [78310]

    Ms Blears
    We have today published proposals to reform the welfare food scheme under the title Healthy Start.

    The welfare food scheme has done great service for the last 60 years in providing milk and vitamins, primarily to expectant and nursing mothers, babies and children under five years of age in low income families. In line with our commitment in The NHS Plan, we are seeking to bring the scheme up to date in line with the latest expert advice on nutrition. Our proposals for this £142 million scheme will broaden the nutritional base of the scheme and offer a wider choice to families. We propose to do this through the introduction of a fixed face value voucher that can be exchanged for fruit and vegetables, cereal based foods, other foods suitable for weaning, as well as milk and infant formula. We are also proposing to link the scheme more closely with the NHS through antenatal and post-natal clinics. The new scheme will provide a healthier start for children from poorer families and link with our wider efforts to tackle health inequalities, and improve nutrition and food access.

    We are already working with the devolved administrations and actively seeking the views of interested parties and stakeholders on these proposals, including the users of the scheme, health professionals, the food and dairy industry and small firms. This consultation will run until 13 December.

    Copies of the Healthy Start document are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/healthystart.
    673W

  DEFENCE

    Anti-tank Missiles
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2002, ref: 73313, what steps he will take to find the anti-tank missiles lost in the Bristol Channel. [76178]

    Dr. Moonie
    Two extensive searches of the range have failed to locate the lost pallet of munitions that contained the anti-tank missiles. The most recent of these was conducted between 7 and 11 October 2002 by a six-strong team from the Royal Navy Southern Diving Group. A report into the findings of this latest search is currently being prepared and its findings will determine the Ministry of Defence's next steps.

    C41STAR
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of the contracts for the two studies awarded to Logica and BAE Systems for the C41STAR is; and if he will make a statement. [76794]

    Dr. Moonie
    The C4ISTAR contracts awarded in August and September 2002 to Logica and BAE Systems each have a maximum value of £700,000.

    Condoms
    Harry Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many condoms have been purchased by his Department for non-medical purposes in each of the last five years; and what his Department's planned requirement is for each of the next five years. [77372]

    Dr. Moonie
    Condoms are not purchased for non-medical purposes. The Ministry of Defence purchases condoms for medical use. They are supplied to service personnel for the prevention of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and as a form of contraception.

    Department Job Vacancies
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal, and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in his Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south east between 1 April and 31 March 2001; and what is the total employment for each Civil Service grade. [76564]

    Dr. Moonie
    Information on the number of job vacancies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The available information is given in the table, showing the position as at April 2001.

    London region

    South east region

    Responsibility level

    Vacancies

    Total staff (headcount)

    Vacancies

    Total staff (headcount)

    Grade 6 and

    above

    215

    65

    Grade 7

    335

    179

    SEO

    606

    590

    HEO

    Information

    1,141

    Information

    1,923

    674W

    London region

    South east region

    Responsibility level

    Vacancies

    Total stuff (headcount)

    Vacancies

    Total staff (headcount)

    EO

    not available

    1,358

    not available

    2,720

    AO

    1,800

    2,720

    AA

    1,142

    2,321

    Other1

    18

    Trading funds

    1,249

    6,753

    Total

    1,846

    18,116

    1 Not included in the table. The 'Other' section includes staff who do not have a recorded grade and industrials on temporary promotion.

    Note:

    A breakdown by grade equivalence is no longer available for Trading Fund staff and will include staff previously classed as Industrial.

    Employment
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 596W, what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by (a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has responsibility was in each year since May 1997 [37917]

    Dr. Moonie
    Other than information held concerning the dimension of offices within the Ministry of Defence, no central records are presently maintained about the size of empty properties owned by the Department, or agencies or public bodies for which I am responsible. Information on such statistics could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. (6937)

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340, by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

    Information about the number of press officers working in the Ministry of Defence Press Office for the period form 1996–97 to 1998–99 is contained in Appendix 10 of the Report on the Government Information and Communication Service by the Public Administration Select Committee dated 29 July 1998. Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of the House. The number of press officers employed in the Department's Corporate Commissions division Headquarters Press Office during the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was 13 and 25 respectively. The difference in the figures relates to staff turnover throughout the year. In addition, the Defence Agencies, the Permanent Joint Headquarters, and the single Service Commands and units also employ personnel with a press officer function, some as a secondary task to their main roles. Accurate information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    675W

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects delivery of the first tranche of 55 Eurofighters to be complete. [76359]

    Dr. Moonie
    Delivery of the first tranche of 55 Typhoons (formerly known as Eurofighter) for the Royal Air Force is expected to be completed by the end of 2005.

    Focus Groups
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74999]

    Dr. Moonie
    Focus group research is undertaken by various organisations and agencies of the Ministry of Defence. Information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the Directorate General of Corporate Communications (DGCC) carries out corporate research on behalf of the Department as a whole. Since June 2001 DGCC has let two focus group research contracts: one with Colquhoun Associates to better understand the public reaction to the events of 11 September 2001 as part of our work on the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review; and the other conducted by internal staff supported by Independent Field Work Company to look into the public image of the MOD.

    I am withholding the value of each of these contracts as the information is protected in accordance with Exemption 13 [third party's commercial confidences] of the Code of Practice on access to Government information. However the total cost of the two contacts was around £34,000 including VAT. Focus Group research is an important management tool, and we do not routinely publish the reports on the MOD website. However we consider all requests for disclosure on a case by case basis.

    HMS Nottingham
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the heavy-lift recovery of HMS Nottingham from Australia to the UK will be; where HMS Nottingham will be repaired in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [76341]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 143W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to repair HMS Nottingham on her return to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [77082]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 143W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
    676W

    Initiatives
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75668]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence has two central schemes, which have not been subject to a national roll out. In the last academic year the Department rolled out its Skill Force programme to 11 pilot locations: Ashfield (Nottinghamshire), Birmingham, Bristol, Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), Knowsley (Merseyside), North Lanarkshire, Leicester, Rochdale, Newcastle, West Norfolk, Islington (London). The budget for the Skill Force programme was approximately £1 million funded by the Treasury's Invest to Save Budget, Ministry of Defence and co-funding from local partner organisations. The initiative is expanding to 23 schemes with a start date of November 2002. This expansion is being co-funded by the DfES and Welsh Assembly.

    The Army Cadet 'Outreach' programme is being undertaken by 25 counties within the UK: Berkshire, Bristol, Bucks, Cheshire, Cleveland, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed, Essex, Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hampshire, Kent, Middlesex, Northumbria, Oxfordshire, Powys, Surrey, Yorkshire, Perthshire, Lancashire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, and Wiltshire. The cost for this programme is some £150,000.

    The Ministry of Defence has a number of other schemes/initiatives, which have not been rolled out nation wide, such as Ministry of Defence base specific conservation projects. However, details of these types of scheme are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Iraq
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the annual production capacity of chemical weapon agents at the al-Muthanna establishment in Iraq in 1991. [75825]

    Mr. Hoon
    According to information supplied to the United Nations by Iraq the annual production capacity of the al-Muthanna site in Iraq in 1991 was 4,000 tonnes of chemical weapon agents per annum. This is indicative of the large scale of Iraq's chemical weapons programme at that time.

    We assess that the capacity of this production site could have been higher if Iraq had reduced the wastage rates at the site.

    Job Advertisements
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many posts were advertised in the press in each year since June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76856]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 24 October 2002]This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    677W

    Medical Reservists
    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regular service personnel and (b) reservists there are in the medical establishment in the British armed forces. [74651]

    Dr Moonie
    As at 1 July 2002, there were 6,489 personnel in the regular Defence Medical Sendees. This figures excludes student nurses and other new entry trainees.

    As at September 2002, there were 4,829 medical and associated support personnel in the volunteer reserve forces.

    MOD Salaries
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the salary costs of Ministry of Defence civilian personnel in each of the past four years; and what are the projected costs over the next four years. [76355]

    Dr. Moonie
    The amount spent by the Ministry of Defence on the salary costs of civilian personnel over the past four years is (in outturn prices):

    £ million

    1998–99

    2,224

    1999–2000

    2,259

    2000–01

    2,267

    2002–03

    2,246

    The latest forecast for civilian salary costs for 2002–03 is £2,328 million.

    Decisions on the allocation of the defence budget over the following four years will be made in the normal way through the MOD's annual planning process. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Operation Antler
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of Operation Antler into the activities of scientists at Porton Down. [74919]

    Mr. Denham
    I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 609W.

    I gave an update on progress to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on 29 April 2002. Official Report, column 609W.

    I am advised by Wiltshire constabulary that the inquiry, Operation Antler, is still ongoing and it would not be appropriate for a statement to be made at this time.

    Operation Saif Sareea
    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons he has learned from Operation 678W
    Saif Sareea for the likely requirement for (a) additional medical personnel and (b) medical reservists to meet the UK's military commitments in 2002–03. [74645]

    Dr. Moonie
    Medical personnel were deployed on Exercise SAIF SAREEA II solely to provide medical support to the deployed troops. It was not intended that they should participate as part of the exercise and therefore medical facilities were not scaled to cope with casualties that could arise from an actual operation. The Ministry of Defence is satisfied that it will be able to meet its military commitments through the use of Regular medical personnel and medical reserves.

    Pay Audit
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the pay settlement awarded to the non-industrial sector at his Department; and if he will make a statement. [77041]

    Dr. Moonie
    I have received eight letters on this issue. The Ministry of Defences' decision to implement the 2002 pay offer followed ballots by the three unions concerned in which a majority of votes cast were in favour of the deal. The award introduces new pay arrangements from August 2002, including bonuses to reward the best performers for their contribution to Ministry of Defence business during the year. Similar arrangements are being introduced for industrial staff following a separate ballot which also produced a majority in favour of acceptance.

    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a pay audit on the non-industrial staff of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [77042]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence is conducting an equal pay review of its civilian pay systems and will prepare an appropriate action plan by April 2003. All Government Departments are going through this process, in line with Cabinet Office guidance. The work is being taken forward in full consultation with, and the involvement of, the trades unions.

    Photo Reconnaissance Imagery Strike Module
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the in-service date is for the Photo Reconnaissance Imagery Strike Module Improved Date Modem; and if he will make a statement. [75998]

    Dr. Moonie
    The programme to fit the Photo Reconnaissance Imagery Strike Module enabled Improved Data Modem (PRISM IDM) to Jaguar aircraft is continuing. The IDM entered service in September 2002, enabling the transmission of data over conventional voice radio links. PRISM offers additional capability and will enter service once other planned enhancements to the aircraft, upon which it depends, have been realised. Work on these enhancements is in hand.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the contract for the photo reconnaissance imagery strike module data modem by QinetiQ is worth and if he will make a statement. [76796]
    679W
    Dr. Moonie
    The total cost of procuring the photo reconnaissance imagery strike module enabled improved data modem for the Jaguar fleet was some £2.5 million. This figure included ground test equipment, documentation, engineering support and integration advice.

    QinetiQ
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to report to Parliament on the final contractual terms and other arrangements for Carlyle Investments to become the strategic partner for QinetiQ. [77378]

    Dr. Moonie
    I informed Members at the beginning of September that we were about to enter a limited period of exclusive negotiations with Carlyle Financial Investments as our preferred bidder for partnering QinetiQ. These negotiations are currently well under way and, as we remain on target to complete the sale before the end of the year, I expect to be in a position to give the House details of the arrangements in the near future.

    SA80 Rifle
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent findings of investigations into the effectiveness of the SA80. [77067]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 550W to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).

    Suicide
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving armed forces personnel under 25 years of age have(a) attempted and (b) committed suicide in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [76624]

    Dr. Moonie
    We are unable to provide details of attempted suicide. Although data on all self-inflicted injuries are held at the relevant service casualty branches, information is not centrally held on whether the self-inflicted injury was attempted suicide.

    Between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2001 there have been 19 reported suicides by members of the regular armed forces under the age of 25. These figures are based on coroners' (or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) verdicts of suicide and excludes self-inflicted deaths with: open verdicts, accidental deaths or deaths due to misadventure. Figures from 1999 onwards may change significantly as there are a number of verdicts outstanding. These figures are broken down by year in the table:

    Year

    Total

    1997

    8

    1998

    2

    1999

    5

    2000

    3

    2001

    1

    Grand Total

    19

    680W

    Tactical Tomahawk Missiles
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what share of the contract to modify the next generation of Tactical Tomahawk missiles will be paid by the UK; and if he will make a statement. [76793]

    Dr. Moonie
    An equally funded United Kingdom—United States programme is in progress to develop and test a version of the Tactical Tomahawk Block IV missile capable of being fired from submarine torpedo tubes.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to allow members of the Territorial Army to become eligible for senior positions. [77068]

    Dr. Moonie
    Members of the Territorial Army already hold senior positions in the armed forces. There are currently two Territorial Army brigadier posts and one tri- service post open to one-star officers of all reserve forces. In addition, one TA officer currently holds local brigadier rank. I do not currently plan any changes to these arrangements.

    Visits
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 October, Ref 36810, if he will give the(a) dates of the occasions, (b) countries visited and (c) parliamentary private secretaries involved. [76104]

    Dr. Moonie
    [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is set out in the table.

    Date of travel

    Country

    30 November to 6 December

    Falkland Islands

    1998

    1–2 December 1999

    Germany

    16 February 2000

    France

    The parliamentary private secretaries involved were those for the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Minister for Defence Procurement.

    War Pensions
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans to make to war pensions. [76982]

    Dr. Moonie
    There are no plans to make changes to war pensions.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to allow war widows and widowers to keep their pensions on remarriage. [76983]

    Dr. Moonie
    There are no plans to allow war widows and widowers to keep their pensions on remarriage.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the recent settlement paid out to ex-service pensioners. [76985]

    Dr. Moonie
    Rates of war pensions are reviewed on an annual basis.
    681W

    Website Links
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75587]

    Dr. Moonie
    The information requested is, for the most part, not available centrally or in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The Ministry of Defence has registered approximately 460 domain names under the mod.uk second-level domain. These are sub-delegated to numerous organisations within the MOD and armed forces. The MOD does not currently have a record of which are currently in use. A variety of other domain names (under gov.uk, org.uk etc) have also been registered locally, but no central register currently exists.

    The MOD does not currently maintain a composite record of individual websites, costs, contractors and assessments. It would entail disproportionate cost to obtain these details for all of the locally managed websites that are operated by departmental organisations.

    For the five central corporate websites of the MOD and the armed forces, all of which are live, the data are as follows. In the case of the MOD corporate website, the only metric available across all years is that of the number of hits (i.e. requests for files, including pages, images and others). For the remaining websites, the metric used is of page impressions (i.e. requests for pages only).

    Ministry of Defence (corporate) — http://www.mod.uk

    Start up costs

    Aggregated with operating costs. Website established circa 1996, funding commenced financial year 1998–99. Expenditure includes that on MOD news website (established 2001)

    Operating costs

    Financial year

    £

    1998–99

    54,000

    1999–2000

    100,000

    2000–01

    153,000

    2001–02

    202,000

    Hosting company

    Financial year

    Contractor

    1996–97

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    1997–98

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    1998–99

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    1999–2000

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    2000–01

    PSInet UK

    2001–02

    PSInet UK/Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

    Assessments (note: news pages on separate website since December 2001)

    Internal statistical evaluations only. Usage of the MOD website began to be measured on a monthly basis in December 1997. The figures for 2000–01 are rounded extrapolations based on data recorded between June 2000 and December 2001. Hits for the period from

    682W

    Ministry of Defence (corporate)—http://www.mod.uk

    December 1997 to September 2002 are as follows:

    Year

    Number of hits

    December 1997–December 1998

    4,576,859

    December 1998–December 1999

    18,195,760

    December 1999–December 2000

    20,700,000

    December 2000–13 December 2001

    26,200,000

    14 December 2001–31 September 2002

    30,786,501

    Ministry of Defence (news)—http://news.mod.uk

    Start up costs

    Aggregated with operating costs. Site was established in April 2001 (was previously part of the Ministry of Defence corporate website). Funded as part of the MOD corporate website expenditure

    Operating costs

    Financial year

    £

    2000–01

    As per Ministry of Defence website

    2001–02

    As per Ministry of Defence website

    Hosting company

    Financial year

    Contractor

    2000–01

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    2001–02

    Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

    Assessments

    Internal statistical evaluations only. Page impressions for the period from April 2001 to September 2002 are as follows:

    Year

    Number of page impressions

    April 2001–March 2002

    1,373,823

    April 2002–September 2002

    500,175

    British Army—http://www.army.mod.uk

    Start up costs Operating costs

    Aggregated with operating costs

    Operating costs

    Since the Army website was established in 1 996, total expenditure on its construction and maintenance has been approximately £2,630,000

    Hosting company

    Financial year

    Contractor

    1996–97

    Corsellis-Montford Interactive

    1997–98

    Corsellis-Montford Interactive

    1998–99

    Corsellis-Montford Interactive

    1999–2000

    Corsellis-Montford Interactive

    2000–01

    Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

    2001–02

    Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

    Assessments

    Internal statistical evaluations only. Usage of the Army website began to be measured on a monthly basis in November 2001. Page requests for the period from November 2001 to September 2002 are as follows:

    Month

    Number of page impressions

    November 2001

    1,386,158

    December 2001

    1,104,423

    January 2002

    1,497,885

    February 2002

    1,001,671

    March 2002

    1,274,174

    April 2002

    1,475,467

    May 2002

    1,357,795

    June 2002

    1,308,677

    683W

    British Army — http://www.army.mod.uk

    July 2002

    1,294,325

    August 2002

    1,304,292

    September 2002

    1,527,909

    Royal Air Force—http://www.raf.mod.uk

    Start up costs

    £17,500

    Operating costs

    Financial year

    £

    Figures for previous years unavailable without incurring disproportionate cost

    2001–01

    74,000

    2002–03

    87,500

    Hosting company

    Financial year

    Contractor

    1997–2002

    Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

    Assessments (note: news pages on separate website since December 2001)

    Internal statistical evaluations only. Usage of the RAF website began to be measured on a regular basis in 2000. Page impressions for the period 2000–02 are as follows:

    Year

    Number of page impressions

    1999–2000

    5,730,953

    2000–01

    9,056,317

    2001–02

    7,164,507

    684W

    Royal Navy—http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk

    Start up costs

    Aggregated with operating costs. Funding commenced financial year 1999–2000

    Operating costs

    Financial year

    £

    1999–2000

    93,000

    2000–01

    96,000

    2001–02

    114,000

    Hosting Company

    Financial year

    Contractor

    1999–2000

    PSInet UK

    2000–01

    PSInet/lnsite Ltd

    2001–02

    Insite Ltd

    Assessments (note: news pages on separate website since December 2001)

    Internal statistical evaluations only. Usage of the Royal Navy website began to be measured on a regular basis in 1999. Page impressions for the period from December 1997 to May 2002 are as follows:

    Year

    Number of page impressions

    1999–2000

    Average 450,000 per month

    2000–01

    650,000 per month

    2001–02

    2,100,000 per month

    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish the Defence White Paper. [77788]

    Mr. Hoon
    I hope to publish the Defence White Paper before the next Summer.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

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 giving a lecture at Durham University on Friday, 1st November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant, me leave of absence.

Gibraltar
2.36 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy relating to the forthcoming referendum in Gibraltar on the proposal for shared sovereignty.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have always been clear that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar unless the people of Gibraltar agree to it, and that, if we can reach agreement with Spain on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package will be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they will decide.
The referendum now being organised by the Government of Gibraltar is a local initiative in which Her Majesty's Government are not involved. There
2
will be no proposals on the table on which to vote. The question that the referendum will not answer is how to ensure a better future for Gibraltar.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. In the last referendum on sovereignty in Gibraltar, was there not almost a 100 per cent vote against any transfer of sovereignty? In view of the fact that, since then, Spain has pursued a consistent policy of making life difficult for the Gibraltarians, which will not have endeared Spain to them, was it not a serious blunder on the part of the Government—for the first time on the part of any United Kingdom government—to agree to the transfer of some parts of sovereignty?
If the vote in the referendum next week goes against the government proposals, will not the right course be for the Government to kick the issue into the long grass? Should they not persuade Spain that, in its own interest, the right course is for Spain to concentrate on persuading the people of Gibraltar that Spain is in favour of them and that it will help rather than harass them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let us be under no illusions. Everyone knows that the referendum will produce an overwhelming "no" vote. As the noble Lord pointed out, the last referendum on whether to accept Spanish sovereignty produced a "no" vote of some 99.2 per cent. On every occasion that we have discussed this matter in your Lordships' House, I have stressed that Spain must make any package of proposals attractive to the people of Gibraltar because of the clear undertaking by Her Majesty's Government that there will, indeed, be a referendum.
The noble Lord concentrated only on the issue of sovereignty. But my right honourable friend's Statement in another place on 12th July indicated a very broad set of principles: not only issues about sovereignty but about more internal self-government; the retention of British traditions, customs and way of life; the retention of British nationality; and of the

3
freedom to retain institutions that the people of Gibraltar might want. If the referendum goes against us, then of course we shall have to consult again our colleagues in Spain. My right honourable friend last met his opposite number on 27th September and a further bilateral meeting is planned in due course.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for her reassurance that under no circumstances will any sovereignty over Gibraltar be handed to Spain without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Secondly, will she tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are doing in the meantime to try to prevent the Spaniards making the lives of Gibraltarians a misery through interference with frontier crossings, through their refusal to recognise the Gibraltarians' international telephone code and through forcing calls to be rerouted through Spain?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I reassure the House that Her Majesty's Government stand by the 1969 constitutional commitment not to enter into arrangements under which the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar would pass to another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That is an absolute undertaking. I reiterate it, as I have done on a number of occasions.
My noble friend may be interested to know that border delays have somewhat improved in recent weeks. I asked for an indication of that, knowing that I was to answer this Question in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I understand that delays in both directions have improved in recent weeks. However, my noble friend is right that there remain serious concerns over various telecommunications problems with Gibraltar. We are addressing those with the Government of Spain. But I am bound to say to my noble friend that it is only through engaging with Spain that we can improve on these issues. By turning our face away, we shall not help the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I certainly endorse the legitimacy of negotiations on this topic? Does she recall that, not all that long ago, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr Caruana, himself recognised that one cannot expect to engage the Spanish in a process of dialogue in which they are not free even to raise the issue of sovereignty? Does she also remember the advice that I gave in an article about 12 months ago in which I said that only when the parties have been working together for some time on all the practical issues might they be willing to start considering proposals on the sharing of the powerfully mystical concept of sovereignty? Does she understand that that has been difficult not only because of the sustained inability of the Spaniards to recognise the changes that they need to make but also because of the recklessness—if I may use that word—
4
with which Her Majesty's Government have been prepared to throw sovereignty on to the table in the way that they have.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have enormous respect for the views of the noble and learned Lord on the matter; he has been a most helpful source of wisdom in trying to find a way forward. When I have met with Mr Peter Caruana during the past five to five-and-a-half years, I have found him to be an able Minister for whom I have a great deal of respect. Having said that, the Government were not reckless in discussing the issue of sovereignty. The Spanish Government were bound to want to discuss it, and to have entered discussions without considering the issue would frankly have been disingenuous.
However, the noble and learned Lord is right to say that it is only when we can get people to work together that we can move forward. That is why we tried so hard to engage the Government of Gibraltar in the talks. Dialogue is not a threat but an opportunity for the Gibraltarians as both architects and builders of their future. The invitation to the Chief Minister to attend the Brussels process meetings remains open.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister speaks of a better future for the Gibraltarians. Is she aware that immediately after the forthcoming referendum—which, as she suggests, will probably reject by 100 per cent the current deal made over their heads—the Gibraltarians will produce positive ideas about how to advance a good future for Gibraltar? Those will involve all three parties instead of trying to bypass one of them. Will she undertake seriously to consider those proposals and encourage the Government to back them to produce some success instead of the present failure?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord on one point. He does not often make verbal slips, but this point is important: there is no deal. A set of principles has been agreed. No proposals flow from those principles. That was the point that I stressed in my Answer. Should the Gibraltarians make proposals suitable for discussion, I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider them constructively and want to discuss them with Spain. However, the dialogue must include the Government of Spain, who must also be persuaded that any such proposals are realistic.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, while recognising that, as has been said, the Government of Spain are obliged to seek to win the hearts and minds of the people of Gibraltar, are not the people of Gibraltar equally obliged to recognise the realities of the 21st century and the advantages for the peoples of Gibraltar, Spain and the United Kingdom in negotiating shared sovereignty within the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let me put it this way. I would stress to the people of

5
Gibraltar that a settlement would offer them an enormous prize: greater freedom, greater prosperity, more jobs, a better quality of life and a settled longterm future. Those things have been denied to them for a long time; I hope that they will recognise that it is in their interests to pursue them.

Disabled People: Equal Opportunities
2.46 p.m.
Lord Addingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the current arrangements to ensure equal opportunities and civil rights for disabled people in policy-making and legislating throughout Whitehall.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have an excellent record in this area. We consult widely and take on board the views of disabled people. As major employers, government departments place the recruitment and retention of disabled people at the heart of equality and diversity policies. As a service provider, the Government aim to make services as accessible as possible. Disabled people and their representative organisations influence policy-making and prospective legislation. They meet Ministers and officials frequently to ensure that their interests are at the centre of policy development.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. It is undeniable that things are better than they were, but that could have been said at any time during the past 10 or 15 years. In this parliamentary year, 681 Questions have been tabled. Another Bill on disability matters will be before your Lordships' House today. Much time has been taken up by a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. Does that not suggest that, whatever we are doing in government, we are wasting vast amounts of parliamentary time but are not dealing with all the needs of the disabled? From his position in the Whips' Office, would the Minister like to suggest how much the need for parliamentary time would be eased by introducing a Bill or series of Bills over a Parliament that dealt with half of those problems?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am severely tempted to say that parliamentary time would be saved if more Members spoke briefly and to the point—on any given volume of legislation. Some measures can be enacted by secondary legislation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Indeed, we plan to do so, as we announced last week. But some matters require primary legislation—for example, imposing a duty on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity or applying duties to public bodies, not just to services. Such things can be done only by primary legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problems of disability to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred are so vast
6
and complex, covering many departments, that the Minister for Disabled People should be a senior Minister dealing solely with disability? Does he further agree that the best way to ensure equal opportunities and civil rights for disabled people is for the Government to undertake to implement all the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister for Disabled People, Maria Eagle, is extremely able and I do not think that her rank affects her work. The recommendations of the task force are widely respected in government and are taken seriously. For example, I note that the Disability Rights Commission welcomed the White Papers on equality and diversity published last week.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope my noble friend does not insist too often that we should be brief and to the point because that would make life very difficult for a number of us. Will my noble friend emphasise the particularly important point here; namely, the role of your Lordships' House, which, I should have thought, compared with any other legislative assemblies in the world, has a remarkably large number of people suffering from physical disabilities who make a point of contributing on this subject in a very constructive way?
Is my noble friend aware that many noble Lords do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of the failure to speak up for the disabled'? Quite the contrary—this House does a remarkable job in making absolutely certain that nothing to do with the disabled is ever ignored in any piece of legislation that I have listened to in all my time here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the experience of my noble friend Lord Peston. I agree with him that the quality of debate and decision-making on matters affecting disabled people is very high in this House. That is, at least in part, because of the presence in the House of large numbers of people with disabilities. As to what that means for the future of the composition of the House, I leave that for the moment to Mr Cunningham and his colleagues.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend say what special arrangements are made to ensure that severely disabled people are fully and meaningfully consulted on policy-making on equal opportunities and civil rights, bearing in mind their difficulties often in securing even equality of access to the consultative process?
Let us reflect, for example, on the daunting difficulties of young people who are blind and prelingually deaf. Who could be more crucially affected by policy-making outcomes than them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's record in this area is evidence of the changes that the Government have made and the contribution that he has made to them. Our document Towards

7
Inclusion, published in March last year, which was itself a response to the Disability Rights Task Force, is evidence of that; as is the existence of the Disability Rights Commission, the very active part it plays and the close co-operation it has with government.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the point I was trying to make is that many of us who speak on disabilities are getting fed up with doing so. I am calling for the Government to try to get this right by taking on some major legislation, so we do not have to keep coming back and asking these questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an idealist. All these things move on at best in an asymptotic curve. One never gets to the position where one does not need any more legislation and everything has been got right. My experience of politics is not like that.

Indonesia
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent developments in Indonesia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the horrific attack in Bali on 12th October has focused the eyes of the world on Indonesia. I witnessed myself the appalling devastation. These events underline the urgency of our work to promote political and democratic reforms in Indonesia.
In addition to assisting the immediate police investigation into the bombing we are examining what further counter-terrorism assistance we can offer. We welcome the positive steps taken so far by the Indonesian Government in enacting anti-terrorist legislation.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that sympathetic and encouraging reply. Is she aware that the inter-faith parliamentary delegation to Indonesia last July was very encouraged by the Indonesian Government's attempts to promote reconciliation in the Moluccas and in Sulawesi, areas which have been torn by communal conflict exacerbated by Islamist terrorists, with many hundreds killed and hundreds of thousands displaced?
Is the noble Baroness aware—there has been the horrific attack in Bali to which she has referred—that there have been further attacks in the Moluccas and Sulawesi? What measures are the Government taking to help Indonesia promote the reconciliation which is desperately wanted by local Muslim and Christian leaders, and in rooting out the reportedly thousands of
8
Islamist terrorists still in the Moluccas and in Sulawesi and operating training camps on the islands of Banda and Misool?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the visit of the inter-faith parliamentary delegation. In fact, I have seen a copy of the group's report.
The United Kingdom's assistance to Indonesia is some £4 million from the Department for International Development to help to establish a UNDP conflict prevention and recovery unit in Jakarta. The purpose of the unit is to built up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in provinces which have been torn apart by conflict.
We also welcome the disbandment of Laskar Jihad and we hope that that will assist in the reconciliation process.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the anti-terrorism measures which she welcomed, which have just been introduced by the Indonesian Government, have been widely opposed by some traditional parties? Does she think that it would be possible for us to go beyond simply sending police to assist with the investigation in Bali, to collaborate with the Indonesian authorities in reconciling the need for strict anti-terrorism measures with the preservation of human rights? Could we make available to the Government of Indonesia our experience in this matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is quite right: there have been concerns expressed about those anti-terrorist measures. In fact I was asked about them myself. We have said that we are available to give assistance to the Indonesian authorities on this matter, should they so wish. I entirely agree with the noble Lord: it is possible to have strict and good anti-terrorism legislation while at the same time upholding international human rights standards.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, while one can show optimism about the Laskar Jihad and the recent statements of withdrawal, that will be believed by the people of Indonesia only when the attacks on minorities cease.
What representations have the Government made to the Indonesian Government about the detention of the Central Sulawesi Christian leader, Reverend Damanik, believed to be falsely accused of possessing illegal weapons?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our embassy in Jakarta is following developments closely in that case. Although we cannot intervene on an individual case before the courts, we continue to stress to the Indonesian Government the importance of a fair and transparent judicial system.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I recently met President Megawati? She was on her first official visit to Europe. I consider her to be

9
a very brave lady who needs all the help she can get, particularly in the face of what the past government of that country was made up of.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness had met President Megawati. I met her when I was in Indonesia. I also met the vice-president and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was clear from my meetings with all three that there is a determination in Indonesia to tackle the issue of terrorism.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, has the Laskar Jihad been disbanded? Have we any evidence or information on that? Is the noble Baroness aware that we are very grateful that Jemaah Islamiyah has now been proscribed here? Would it help the forces fighting against extremism in Indonesia if we also took a closer interest in, monitored and perhaps proscribed, the Laskar Jihad or what has replaced it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my understanding is that Laskar Jihad has been disbanded and the movements of members of Laskar Jihad have been tracked. With respect to JI, it was put on the UN banned list over the weekend. The Home Secretary has signalled his intention to put in place the relevant legislative mechanisms with respect to the United Kingdom on JI.

International Terrorism
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to form, or join, a coalition with other nation states, designed to eradicate international terrorism.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Kingdom is, and will remain, at the core of the long-term effort to eradicate international terrorism. We have disrupted Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan and denied it bases there. We are confronting states that condone or harbour terrorism. We are helping vulnerable countries to develop better counterterrorism capacity. We are committed to Afghan reconstruction. We have pushed through United Nations measures to block terrorist financing, and we are tackling the underlying causes of terrorism.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Are the Government making every effort, with others, to discover who was responsible for the bombs in Bali and also, now, in Moscow, which killed and injured so many? Are they ready to take counter-action when such information becomes available?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are making every effort. My noble friend Lady Amos gave comprehensive answers just now on Bali. As for the hideous events in Moscow at the weekend, it is clear that that was action taken on behalf of those who want independence for Chechnya.
The international community must pull together to counter terrorism. We have done that through our activities at the United Nations and by helping states that find it hard to deal with terrorism—possibly because they are failing states—to build the capacity to counter it.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, President Bush appears to regard the threat to invade Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. I find the conflicting objectives coming out of Washington extremely confusing. Does the Minister agree with the view of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia that war against Iraq would lengthen the anti-terrorist campaign and create more willing recruits to the terrorists' ranks?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that there are those who would agree forcefully with the noble Lord. At the invitation of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I went to an inter-faith discussion last week. At that meeting, many people—those from the Middle East, for example—said that war against Iraq would lead to much greater bloodshed in the Middle East. I am aware of such views.
At the same time, we have a responsibility to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. The fact that the threats and problems—terrorism, on the one hand, and Iraq, on the other—have arisen at the same time causes difficulties. However, in dealing with terrorism, we should not let Iraq believe that it can go on producing weapons of mass destruction without the rest of the world trying to stop it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the battle against terrorism the one thing we must all avoid is over-simplification? Most of the problems in which terrorism breeds are complex. It was reassuring to hear what my noble friend said about the causes of terrorism—economic, social and political injustice—but we must always seek to win as many people into the political process as possible, rather than pushing them into the arms of extremists.
Does my noble friend further agree that it is vital that we ensure that the essential domestic measures taken to deal with terrorism in any country, including ours, do not play into the hands of the terrorists by unnecessarily undermining the very qualities and principles that we defend?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the consummate common sense of my noble friend's question. Of course, the genesis of terrorism is complex; we had an excellent debate on Vie issue in

11
your Lordships' House, instituted, as I recall, by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. In that debate, the complexities of the issue were well aired.
It is important that we do not push individuals in different countries towards terrorism. There may be various reasons behind individual acts of terrorism, and individuals may find that their terrorism is allowed to flourish against a background of particular perceived social, economic and political exclusions. It is important that we try to deal with such issues. That is why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been working hard on the issue of failed states. Some worthwhile work has been produced on that issue, which was addressed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I think that I understood from the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, that the question of sanctions against Iraq—in connection with the production of weapons of mass destruction—is not necessarily connected with the struggle against terrorism. Can the Minister confirm that? The struggle against terrorism is a wider issue, which requires the use of non-military means as least as much as the use of military means.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in the mind of some, the two issues—terrorism and Iraq—are very much connected. We have discussed the issues in your Lordships' House, and there is, for example, no direct linkage that we can see between Al'Qaeda and Iraq, although it is true that some Al'Qaeda terrorists have sought sanctuary in Iraq.
The issues must, of themselves, be tackled. We must tackle them at the same time because they have arisen now, and our international responsibilities dictate that we should tackle them both.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we agree with the Minister's comment that, in the mind of many, there are links between terrorism and Iraq. We should approach the matter accordingly.
The Minister mentioned Afghan reconstruction. Can she say whether the reports in the weekend's newspapers that, since the fall of the Taliban, the output of opium poppy products in Afghanistan has increased by 18 times are true? That is despite the fact that the British Government have provided £40 million in an attempt to persuade Afghan farmers to reduce such production. It does not sound as though the war on drugs is going well in Afghanistan.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the issue of poppy products is complicated. Although, under the Taliban, a lot of planting was forbidden, the processing of poppy products into heroin went ahead. As a result, about 80 per cent of the heroin used in this country came from Afghanistan. That figure has decreased. It is a complicated issue, and, if I may, I
12
shall write to the noble Lord with better particulars of poppy products, on one hand, and heroin production, on the other.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the European Council.

Commonwealth Bill
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Blaker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise Bill
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"TRIBUNAL: REGULATIONS
(1) The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may together make regulations—

(a) empowering the courts to transfer to the Tribunal for determination by it any issue arising in any civil proceedings the determination of which depends on whether provisions of Chapter I or II of the 1998 Act or of Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty have been infringed where, in the opinion of the court making the transfer, the transfer would be conducive to the efficient conduct of the proceedings;

(b) making any rules that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may deem to be appropriate as ancillary to the power to make such transfers or to be

13
reasonably required in connection therewith and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to the effect that—

(i) on making such a transfer, the court making the transfer may state facts that the Tribunal shall then treat as established for the purposes of determining the issues transferred to it;

(ii) after having made its determination, the Tribunal shall remit the matter to the court that made the transfer to it, declaring the determination of that issue by the Tribunal, which, subject to any clarification or amplification by the Tribunal of its determination that may be requested by the court that made the transfer, shall then be treated as a determination of that issue by that court;

(iii) enabling courts that have made, or have in contemplation the making of, such transfers and the Tribunal to co-operate together in any way that they deem to be appropriate to enable issues arising in the proceedings before them to be determined as efficiently as possible.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as president and as chairman of the Tribunal judges of any of the courts provided that, before appointing a judge of the Court of Session or sheriff courts under this subsection, the Lord Chancellor shall first consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.

(3) In this section references to "the courts" are to the High Court of Justice and the county courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session and the sheriff courts in Scotland.

(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee and on Report, and your Lordships spent a great deal of time debating it on both occasions. I have tabled it at Third Reading to try to extract from the Minister a stronger commitment than he was prepared to give on Report about dealing with the mischief against which the amendment was directed.
In responding to the Minister on Report, I said:
"I am slightly reassured by his reference to the possibility of using a power that the noble Lord believes he already has to cope with what is likely to happen in the European Community in the next two or three years".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 788.]
Will the Minister give your Lordships' House a more powerful commitment? Will he undertake to include in this Bill the power the noble Lord thinks he has, but is not sure, to make delegated legislation under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in the future? I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, despite having missed the opening remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 1. I apologise to the noble Lord. To coin one of his phrases, he must have been even more telegraphic than usual in his introduction.
14
When the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, dealt with a similar amendment on Report on 15th October, he said:
"it is realistic and desirable for the courts themselves"—
he meant the ordinary courts—
"to build up a specialist body of law in this area".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 786.]
He went on to say that he did not want to see the "fragmentation" that the amendment would cause. I am not sure that those are good arguments.
There are several dozen High Court judges in the Queen's Bench Division alone and it is difficult to imagine how they could all build up expertise on competition law. Even when in future more cases are passed back to the national courts by the European Court of Justice, each High Court judge will sit alone. I cannot see how there could be a sufficient number of cases involving, for example, mergers or Chapters 1 and 2 of the Competition Act 1998 for such expertise to be spread and developed across the High Court in general.
As we all know, in many fields expertise is a matter of degree. However, in the Bill the Competition Appeal Tribunal is bound to build up a considerable amount of expertise. It will have the benefit of economists and others as members of the tribunal, not merely as expert witnesses in particular cases. They will help determine what everyone agreed when we last debated the matter are mixed questions of law, economics and fact and involve determining whether, for example, there is a substantial lessening of competition in a merger case. It is unlikely that a High Court judge, who may deal with a competition law case only once in a blue moon, can match the Competition Appeal Tribunal on that score.
I do not see how the amendment would cause "fragmentation". At the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that there would be fragmentation because,
"The consideration of civil proceedings would be split between the courts and the CAT".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 787.]
But it is not the amendment that does that. The Government, in Clause 17, have given the Competition Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to hear damages cases for breach of competition law as an alternative to going to a judge of the High Court. The amendment enables that judge, conscious perhaps of his own lack of expertise in the field, to transfer the matter to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Is not that a useful improvement to the Bill?
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment would give the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations allowing the courts to transfer to the Competition Appeal Tribunal issues arising in civil proceedings that require a determination of whether there has been an infringement of competition law. The tribunal's finding on the competition matter would then be binding on the court.

15
We certainly do not disagree with the thesis that the devolution of the enforcement of EU competition law to national competition authorities and national courts is likely to increase competition-law-based litigation in the United Kingdom. Exactly what sort of impact it will have is unknowable at this stage, but there will undoubtedly be some. If the increase in litigation materialises, as the Bill stands the court system would have to deal with it. The key question is whether it is realistic and desirable for the courts themselves to build up a specialist body of law in this particular area.
I respect the views of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Borrie, that this is a matter of judgment. However, the present view of the Government is that it is, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said, both realistic and desirable for the courts to build up this expertise.
It is already the case that national courts are empowered to take decisions on Article 81(1) and Article 82 and they can apply the equivalent provisions of the Competition Act 1998. It is true that in future Article 81(3) issues will be added to the range of issues that the courts will have to deal with. But judges, particularly those in the High Court where we would expect the vast majority of these cases to be heard, are expected to handle and, if necessary, become expert on a wide range of areas of law as and when these come their way. They often have to weigh technical evidence, including that relating to economic effects, presented by experts in a variety of cases. Indeed, the fact that these judges have a broader rather than a very specialised and narrow expertise may well lead to better justice overall provided they have the necessary basic familiarisation with competition law issues.
There are practical ways in which the expertise of judges in competition matters can be enhanced. The Judicial Studies Board is there to ensure appropriate training on new areas of law. There have, I believe, already been training sessions on competition law for the higher judiciary.
It will also be possible, if the nature and volume of litigation justifies it, for judges to be nominated as specialists in competition law. That does mean that they would be engaged exclusively on competition law, but they would be preferred judges when they are available. We need to see what volume of litigation emerges following modernisation, but this would seem to be an eminently practicable way of addressing any possible knowledge gaps in the justice system without fragmenting—I do not apologise for using the word—the judicial framework.
I want again to mention the point made on Report by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. The courts will be assisted, where necessary, by the Office of Fair Trading and by the European Commission. Under the modernisation regulation, the Commission will be empowered to submit written observations to the national courts on issues relating to the application of Articles 81 and 82. When we implement modernisation, we intend to provide a similar power
16
for the Office of Fair Trading. Both bodies will also, with the permission of the court in question, be able to submit oral observations as an expert witness. That is an important source of advice for the courts.
The alternative, which the amendment would provide, would be to give the Competition Appeal Tribunal a new role and additional powers and it would have a number of significant disadvantages. It would entail an undesirable fragmentation of the judicial system. The consideration of civil proceedings would be split between the courts and the CAT. The competition issue will often be only one among many in the context of complex litigation such as a contractual dispute.
Therefore, it is possible that referring the competition issue could bring about delay because the court would have to wait for the determination of the CAT. The pressure of other cases will mean that the CAT will not always be able to provide the streamlined service that we expect. We fear, too, that providing judges with a discretion to refer parts of cases to the CAT will introduce inconsistency in the system and uncertainty for parties about the path a case would take. It would all depend on the readiness of the individual judges to refer matters.
There are other important technical difficulties with the amendment. It would be highly unusual for a tribunal to make decisions on an issue arising in a case before a High Court or Court of Session judge that is then binding on that judge, not least because tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review, with the court exercising the powers of judicial review. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the CAT is a tribunal, not a court, and set up primarily as an appellate body to deal with appeals by individuals against the decisions of the competition authorities.
I should like to add one final point made by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury on Report, but well worth repeating. Although we do not believe that it would be appropriate to take the power contemplated in the amendment, if such a provision or something like it does prove necessary when we come to examine the implementation of the proposed EU modernisation regulation, we believe that it would be possible to use the powers under Section 2 of the European Communities Act, combined with those in Clause 204 of the Bill, to secure the goals of the amendment. In those circumstances, we believe that we could use those powers to give the CAT the jurisdiction it would need, and the courts the powers needed to enable matters or issues to be transferred for the CAT to determine, or for the CAT to assist the courts in appropriate cases. We do not want to send a signal that this is the direction in which we would have to go by taking a specific power, but an alternative power exists if it proves appropriate to use it to enable us to implement our Community obligations. In a practical

17
sense, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. That does not mean, however, that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the undertaking that he seeks.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response and to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his apposite intervention on this topic.
Your Lordships' House will agree that legislation made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 is a much less desirable way of implementing these proposals than legislation under a statute. After all, legislation made under Section 2 of the 1972 Act would be delegated legislation and the House would have no opportunity whatever to amend it. Your Lordships would have to take it or leave it.
I do not understand why the Minister is so opposed to this proposal. After all, the amendment states that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State "may" together make regulations. It is not mandatory, it is permissive; they may or they may not make regulations. So the discretion of the Minister and the Government is in no way constrained by what is proposed.
The Minister raised a number of matters of substance. I have dealt with most of them, both at Committee stage and at Report stage, but perhaps I may prevail on your Lordships' patience a little longer to deal with one or two of the points made by the Minister at this reading.
The first concerns the power of the OFT and the European Commission to make submissions to High Court judges. The Minister is right about that, but what good is it if the High Court judges do not have the experience to assess the merits of submissions put to them by the OFT and the Commission? Without the kind of expertise that judges in the Competition Appeal Tribunal will have, it will be all too easy for the OFT and the European Commission, on occasions to pull the wool over the eyes of the judiciary.
'The Minister referred to delay, but if he looks back at the history of the development of litigation in the High Court he will see that, by a process of evolution, specialisation has proved necessary in a number of areas: most notably in the commercial court, in the administrative court and in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Here we are proposing to short-cut that process by providing a ready-made specialised court to deal with the inevitable specialisation that will develop as a result of the rapid advance of competition law. Contrary to the Minister's assertion of slowing things down, having this facility to make references to the Competition Appeal Tribunal will speed things up.
The amendment has the great authority of Sir Jeremy Lever behind it. For that reason as well as the others, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Aberdare,L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Attlee,E.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Marlesford, L.

Barker, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Biffen, L.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Moynihan, L

Bradshaw, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brittan of Spennithrorne, L.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

O' Cathain, B.

Buscombe, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Byford, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Rawlings, L.

Cox, B.

Razzall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rennard, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Roper, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Sanberg, L.

Ezra, L.

Scott of Needham market, B.

Fearn, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Fowler, L.

Sharples, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goodhart, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Monifieth,L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jopling, L.

Wilcox, L.

Kingsland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cobbold, L.

Ahmed, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Amos, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Andrews, B.

Crawley, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

David, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bassam of Brighton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Dubs, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Carter, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Christopher, L.

Gavron, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Goudie, B.

19

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

L. Morgan, L.

Grenfell, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Pendry, L.

Haskel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Richard, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rooker, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sewel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Joffe, L.

Strange, B.

Jordan, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lipsey, L.

Thornton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Turnberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Warnock, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Weatherill, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitty, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord privy Seal)

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

European Council, Brussels
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council in Brussels on 24th and 25th October. The Statement is as follows:
"This European Council set the framework for the final stage of the enlargement negotiations. We are on course to finish those negotiations in December, sign an accession treaty with the candidate countries next spring, and welcome them into the European Union at the beginning of 2004.
"Enlargement has been a goal of successive British governments. It was an historic obligation to offer membership to those nations which won their freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their membership will establish a single market of 500 million people. We hope that these 10 countries will be joined by Bulgaria and Romania no later than 2007.
"The European Council also welcomed the reforms undertaken by the Turkish Government. The Council agreed that Turkish progress had brought forward the opening of accession negotiations. At the Copenhagen European Council in December we shall decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature. For our part, the British Government look forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union in accordance with the conditions which all candidates have to meet.
20
"The last stage of any negotiation is always the most difficult; and the last stage of this negotiation between the existing members of the European Union and the candidate countries is about money: what they pay into and receive from the EU budget, including structural funds and the common agricultural policy.
"The European Union will be generous to the new member states. It is right that we should be, given our own interest in their stability and prosperity. But at the same time we do not want to jeopardise the progress that has been made in reducing agriculture's share of the EU budget from over 60 per cent 20 years ago to 45 per cent now. The reforms agreed in Berlin in 1999 are worth 7 ½ billion euros to EU consumers and taxpayers. We want to extend that reform in two ways. Firstly, the Commission has brought forward proposals for the mid-term review of agriculture under paragraph 22 of the Berlin Conclusions of 1999 which, if agreed, would de-link agricultural subsidies from production for the first time in the history of the European Union. Secondly, we want to limit the growth of direct payments to farmers once the candidate countries have become full members.
"Before the summit, the main argument was whether enlargement could be blocked by the disagreement between France and Germany over limiting agricultural spending. Fortunately, before the summit, they reached agreement that future agricultural spending should be capped up to 2013 at the levels of 2006 envisaged by the Commission. In effect, because of allowances made for an inflation rate of only 1 per cent, this will mean a real terms reduction over and above the original Commission proposals. This agreement was welcomed by all.
"But there then arose the question of whether, in return for that, reform of the CAP prior to 2006 when the current financial perspective runs out would be postponed. This then dominated the latter stages of the summit.
"In our view, such a blanket opposition to reform would have been wholly unacceptable. It would mean effectively destroying the current reform proposals of the European Commission. It would seriously inhibit the offer the EU can make in the WTO Doha trade talks. Those talks are vital both for free trade and for the developing countries of the world. Those poor countries need agricultural reform in Europe and need it badly.
"Eventually, we agreed specifically that the limit on agricultural spending would be without prejudice either to the European Commission's mid-term review of agriculture based on paragraph 22 of the Berlin Conclusions, or to the Doha trade round. These issues can now be taken forward by the Agriculture Council, which, of course, operates by QMV. Despite the difficulty in negotiating this, it would have been quite wrong for the possibility of CAP reform to have been hindered in this way. As a

21
result of the summit outcome, enlargement remains on track and fundamental CAP reform remains on the agenda.
"During the European Council I also discussed with colleagues the issue of Iraq. We are all agreed on the need to ensure that Saddam has no chemical, biologic al or nuclear weapons programmes. We are working hard for agreement on the terms of a tough new Security Council resolution. The key point has to be that the weapons inspectors should return, free to do their jobs properly, without any of the restraints wrongly imposed before. Should there then be further a breach by Iraq, then I have no doubt action must follow.
"We also discussed the development of European defence. We agreed that Macedonia would be a good place to start and that we should therefore work urgently to complete agreement between the EU and NATO. In addition, we had a presentation from President Giscard d'Estaing on the Convention on the Future of Europe. In his speech today I am pleased to see both that the president makes it clear that Europe should co-operate as a union of European states, not a federal superstate, and I believe his proposals on subsidiarity, the role of national parliaments and on Council reform will be welcomed, at least here. We are well placed in this vital debate.
"Before concluding, I should like to update the House on the hostage crisis in Moscow that ended tragically with the loss of so many lives. At 9 p.m. local time on Wednesday, around 50 armed Chechens took several hundred hostages in a theatre in south-east Moscow. Among the hostages were three British nationals: Peter and Sidica Low and their son Richard. Peter Low and a few others were released on Thursday morning. I spoke to President Putin from Brussels on Friday. Britain sent a team of counter-terrorist experts to help. President Putin told me he had no doubt the terrorists were prepared to kill all the hostages, that they were heavily armed with explosives and that whatever decision he took was going to be immensely difficult. After the siege had ended at 5.30 a.m. local time on Saturday, I rang him again to welcome the ending of the siege. I asked him and he was able to tell me they had ensured the safe release of Sidica and Richard Low.
"It is yet too early to know the full facts of what happened. But I ask people to understand that when it was clear the terrorists were starting to execute the hostages, the Russian authorities had to act. I know how hard it will have been to make the right decisions. But there are no easy, no risk-free, no safe solutions to such a situation. And I hope people will understand the enormity of the dilemma facing President Putin as he weighed what to do, in both trying to end the siege with minimum loss of life and recognising the dangers of doing anything that conceded to this latest outrage of terrorism from Chechnya.
22
"While it is clear that hundreds survived, many did not. The loss of each innocent life will be mourned not just in Russia but throughout the world, and we send our deep condolences to the Russian people at this time".
"The attacks in Bali, the occupation of the Moscow theatre, the other terrorist attacks around the world, and the murder of the American diplomat in Jordan this morning are all brutal and horrifying reminders of this new form of terrorist extremism. A deadly mixture of religious and political fanaticism is being pursued by those who have no compunction about taking human lives, no matter how innocent, and little about losing their own. The only answer is both to defeat them by security, intelligence and policing but also to take head on, especially within the Muslim world, their perversion of Islam in the cause of extremism. I remain of the view that it is not just the methods of extremism but their ideas that must be countered.
"Thanks to the outcome of the summit, the way is clear to finish the enlargement negotiations by December. In the worst days of the Cold War it would have seemed incredible that countries who were under Soviet rule for nearly half a century could find their freedom. But they did. It is this opportunity and challenge of enlargement that has helped them to catch up half a century in the past decade. I hope the House will welcome this important step towards a Europe united, democratic and free".
3.44 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin, customarily, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. We on this side of the House agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that he expressed about the horrific terrorist outrage in Moscow and its dreadful consequences. It is still too early to judge exactly what happened, but it demonstrates yet again that terrorism knows no boundaries, physical or moral.
I also welcome what the Statement says about the continued progress towards the accession of new member states. That is important for the future stability of Europe, and we welcome the support offered for the decommissioning of dangerous nuclear reactors as outlined in the Presidency Conclusions. The Council agreed more than 200 million euros of support to Cyprus in 2004–06. In the words of the Presidency Conclusions, it is designed to enable the northern part of the island to catch up. Is that spending contingent on a political settlement in Cyprus? What do the Government think should happen if negotiations on the future of Cyprus are unsuccessful?
We also welcome the opening of the door to Romania and Bulgaria, and the more positive attitude towards Turkey. Many find the Commission's sometimes dismissive attitude towards that proud and loyal NATO ally deeply counter-productive. Will the Government urge on our EU partners that positive engagement with Turkey is vital for the future stability

23
and security of the Balkans and the Middle East? The Statement mentions Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who gave a progress report on the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Statement does not say what, if any, reservations the Prime Minister expressed about any of the ideas floated by Mr Giscard d'Estaing.
I turn now to perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of the summit: the reform of the CAP. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I have different perspectives on some aspects of European development, but we have both expressed scepticism about the Prime Minister's sometimes complacent statements that Europe is coming our way, or that success for his views is inevitable. With the CAP confirmed in place for more than a decade to come, and with resources rising year by year, will he now accept that such claims ring utterly hollow? Whatever we think of the deal between Mr Chirac and Mr Schröder, does not the fact that it happened before the summit even began show how completely the Prime Minister has been marginalised? Can he confirm No. 10's astonishing admission that he did not even know that France and Germany were going to broker this deal? What talks did the Prime Minister have with Mr Chirac and Mr Schröder in the weeks before the summit? A briefing given by a British spokesman asserted that Mr Schröder did not understand the details of the CAP agreement. Is that really our official assessment of the German chancellor? Why has No. 10 been talking up in its briefing the Prime Minister's rudeness to Mr Chirac? The Prime Minister lost the substance of the argument in Brussels. Spinning insults at other EU leaders is no way to recover from his isolation; it can only add to the long-term diplomatic damage.
How much money on the basis of the Brussels agreement will British taxpayers be contributing to the CAP until 2013? Does the additional one per cent per annum spending limit apply to rural development subsidies as well as farm subsidies? Will he accept that if he cannot give that assurance, the bloated budget of the CAP could soar far into the future? How will this be paid for, and what other EU budgets will be cut? Where does this leave previous statements by the Government that major reform of the CAP would have been agreed by 2004? Was this weekend's summit not a staggering setback for our key diplomatic objectives?
The noble and learned Lord will agree that the rebate secured in 1984 by my noble friend Lady Thatcher was a major achievement, and we welcome the Prime Minister's past defence of that. But can he confirm that Mr Chirac has now linked long-term reform of the CAP to a new look at the UK rebate? What is our assessment of support in Europe for that position? How resolute will the Prime Minister be in protecting British interests on this vital matter, which has been dealt with so successfully by successive British governments over the past 18 years?
Although I recognise that the Statement says that there was some discussion between colleagues on the issue of Iraq, it is equally plain that there was no
24
mention of Iraq in the Presidency Conclusions. EU failure to publish a conclusion on Iraq underlines the crucial importance of the US/UK relationship within the NATO alliance. Is it therefore not depressing that, as the Presidency Conclusions show, so much time was spent at the summit debating the footling fine-print of a European army when a clear and present danger is at our gates?
Was there discussion of the statement by President Prodi that the terms of the EU growth and stability pact were "stupid"? If not, why not? How can we be confident about the future framework for decisions on the euro if the president of the Commission and a number of heads of government are daily throwing the growth and stability pact into doubt? Is it not incredible that this was not discussed in the summit itself?
This was a summit that had nothing to say about CAP reform, nothing about Iraq or the war on terrorism, nothing about the growth and stability pact, nothing about the continuing slowdown in economic growth in Europe and nothing about free trade. It was a summit whose central decisions were decided by the big two before the other leaders even met. It was a summit where, I am sorry to say, the Prime Minister was sidelined and his arguments ignored. There are some very great questions before us in Europe of which enlargement, which we all so strongly support, is but one. Whatever our standpoint, should we not be disturbed that our Prime Minister resorts to carping on the fringes and seems to have no influence on the core?
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as one who sometimes disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition on matters concerning Europe, I should begin by agreeing with him in his thanks to the Leader of the House for the Statement. I also agree that, in terms of the United Kingdom Government's achievement, by any standard, this was a fairly mixed summit. I say that with some sorrow because, in many ways, the Prime Minister has been very effective in Europe and represented British interests very well. It would be difficult to conclude from the Statement that that is true of this summit.
There is, however, one great development to applaud—indeed, it would be a great historic mistake for us not to underline the significance of enlargement. Enlargement has been a long, slow, detailed and often difficult process. It has taken a very long time. At long last, however, we can say that it is certain—or as certain as anything can be—that, in 2004, some of the states attempting to join the European Union will do so, and that, by 2007, almost all the applicants from central and eastern Europe will become full members. It is perhaps worth saying in our cynical age that that is a very remarkable achievement indeed. For the first time in history—or at least for the first time since the Habsburg empire, which really was quite a long time ago—central and eastern Europe will be brought

25
together with western Europe. So, on that, let us congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the other 15 members of the European Union.
At this point, congratulations turn into great concern about the common agricultural policy, about which the Leader of the Opposition has also expressed his concern. The CAP disfigures the European Union in two ways. First, it has done extraordinarily little to help the smaller family farmers upon whom the health of the rural sector depends. A great deal of the money in the CAP has gone to very large farmers who have done very well from the CAP. Around those large farms, however, villages have disappeared and large tracts of countryside are no longer characterised by prosperity. All too often, even in our own case, there is prosperity for some in the countryside while small farmers go bankrupt. The argument for supporting the whole spectrum of rural development—agriculture, tourism and local industry—is far stronger than the argument for pouring money into guaranteed prices which benefit above all those who are already fairly well-off.
The second element of the CAP which is profoundly disturbing to noble Lords on all sides of the House is the fact that we are essentially backing away from what was promised to the third world at Doha. We have often been told—most recently in a debate in this House—that the single most important step we can take to help the now desperate third world is to remove the controls and protection extended to agriculture and associated industries in the EU countries. There is no longer any case whatever for the type of protection offered in the European Union. Moreover, there is a great temptation for the United States to follow those same procedures, and to point to the EU and say that we are not serious about helping the third world either.
I believe that we are serious about helping the third world and that the Government have tried very hard to do so. However, we have to be frank about this. The greatest single action we could take to help would be to undertake major reform of the CAP. At the moment, however, that seems to be off the agenda. Nothing in the Statement—with great respect to the Leader of the House—did more than imply the smallest moves toward CAP reform. A real-terms increase of 1 per cent rather than perhaps 2 per cent over the next 10 years is hardly a major reform.
Can the Leader of the House tell us anything at all about the Government's attitude to the Fischler reforms which now seem the sole remaining hope for sorting out this truly absurd policy? The Fischler reforms imply a major shift from supporting prices to supporting rural development in the widest sense. If the noble and learned Lord can tell us that the Government are committed to doing everything they can to bring the Fischler reforms into real operation, it would go a little way in mitigating the disappointment that both the Leader of the Opposition and I feel about the relative failure in this sphere.
I was pleased to hear about the further development on the possible accession of Turkey. I believe that Turkey still has some way to go, but that we would be
26
less than generous if we did not recognise that the Turkish Government have made some attempts to deal with the worries about human rights, prison policy, torture in prisons and other matters that disfigure that great country. I think that we all wish to see further reforms and advances. It is excellent that Turkey is advancing along these lines.
I shall touch briefly on two other issues, the first of which is Chechnya. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us the final assessment on the number of casualties. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to extend their deepest sympathy to the Russian nationals and the British and other foreign nationals who have suffered so grievously as a result of this terrorist attack. My only comment at this point is that it would be immensely helpful if we were to do whatever we can to keep some kind of political channel open with Chechnya. The war in Chechnya between the Russians and the Chechens has been particularly brutal and bitter. It has now lasted many years. Surely we in this country know better than most that political processes are essential and that trying to crush a national revolt of this kind results only in revenge after revenge leading nowhere.
The final point which I wish to raise with the Leader of the House is a very important question on Iraq. Whatever our views on Iraq, all of us agree that the best possible answer lies in getting the inspect ors back, ensuring that inspections are effective, and gaining access to all the possible development sites for weapons of mass destruction. However, can he assure us that the decision on whether the terms of the resolution currently being debated at the United Nations in New York have been complied with will be based on the recommendations of the inspectors themselves, led by Hans Blix? I hope that everyone appreciates how serious it would be if any Security Council member—be it the United States, Russia, France or the United Kingdom—took upon itself the decision on compliance. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can assure us that that will be an independent judgment made by those who are accountable to the United Nations and not by those who are accountable to any member state, however important and powerful that state may be.
Many of us on these Benches are profoundly concerned about the possibility of moving our focus away from the need to fight terrorism. We are not yet completely convinced that the best way of dealing with terrorism is to concentrate so totally on the subject of Iraq.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to both the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for their responses. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather overplayed his hand. It is always dangerous to underestimate the determination of a quiet man. If one looks at the matter objectively, as I always do on these occasions, the Prime Minister had an enormous series of successes. It seemed from the entirely synthetic drama that was puffed up for the

27
weekend newspapers as if the Franco-German alliance had reached conclusions and enforced them on the conference. However, nothing could be further from the truth, as even a second reading of the Statement indicates. I shall give some examples.
For years the Prime Minister has stressed the importance of the 10 candidate countries moving forward to full membership. He has succeeded in that. The overwhelming majority of those countries—Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia—as the Prime Minister said, have laboured under tyranny for 50 years. Within a short period of time they will be welcome to join us—if we have the largeness of imagination and heart within the European Union—to contribute to a democratic community.
The Prime Minister has always stressed the importance of Turkey. That has been recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to Turkey. I endorse what the noble Baroness said; namely, that Turkey has taken significant steps. I refer to the abolition of capital punishment, which is not, apparently, universal among all those countries with which we deal; the treatment of the Kurds in terms of education; and the other aspects of which the noble Baroness spoke. Those are significant steps and they should never be undervalued.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the moneys to Cyprus were specifically contingent. I do not believe that they were. Let us see what the Prime Minister said in the Statement. The question of CAP reform was never on the agenda; the presidency made that perfectly plain. The Prime Minister has said that as a matter of political judgment it is irresponsible and foolish to confuse enlargement, which was the agenda of the meeting, with CAP reform. I take up the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and those of the noble Baroness. It was made absolutely plain at Brussels that there is no question of our giving up on further CAP reform before 2006 in return for EU agreement to put a ceiling on expenditure from 2006 onwards. The Brussels conclusions make plain that both the CAP mid-term review and the commitments under the Doha development round remain unaffected. I am happy to reaffirm that and perhaps to give a degree of comfort to the noble Baroness.
It was said in the newspapers—so it must be true—that Mr Blair was rude to M Chirac. I dare say that he was robust. Whether or not he was robust, he certainly maintained, sustained and delivered the United Kingdom's position. Speaking for my own part, having known the Prime Minister for a little while, I have never seen him be rude on any occasion, not even to colleagues, despite the provocation which the Chief Whip sometimes offers him. The question of the rebate stands intact. It was not open for discussion, as Jack Straw and the Prime Minister said. Our position on the rebate has not been touched in the slightest. Indeed, the 1999 Berlin position remains.
28
There is a mention in the Prime Minister's Statement of Iraq. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about discussions on the proposed resolution at the Security Council. Those terms are still being debated, therefore, I cannot give any particular assurance on that, although I remind your Lordships that Secretary of State Powell said that he was hopeful that we would move to a resolution in the earlier part of this week. I simply transmit what Secretary of State Powell said. There have been delicate and long drawn out discussions.
As regards the casualties the noble Baroness mentioned, my most up-to-date information—I do not pretend that it is necessarily perfect—is that of the 117 casualties two were shot and 115 died as a result of gas. I underline that that is my present information. I stress that in the nature of things those cannot be more than tentative figures. I am trying to help the House as much as I can.
We hope for agreement on a resolution on Iraq. It is critically important that that situation should not be allowed to drift in limbo. I reaffirm what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said so often; that is, that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to act only in accordance with and in conformity with international law.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about Doha and the WTO which I have already dealt with. The purpose of the Prime Minister's attendance was to protect United Kingdom interests in the wider context of the European Union. We believe—firmly I know that not everyone on all sides of the House believes this—that they are coincident, or are capable of being, and that they are not alternatives. If the Prime Minister's dream of the 10 candidate countries becoming full members by the beginning of 2004 is achieved, it will constitute a significant achievement and advance.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given a measured account of the recent discussions and inevitably has concentrated on the reform of the common agricultural policy. But, as with St Augustine thinking of perfection, it is always to be deferred. It seems to me that reform of the common agricultural policy is always being deferred. But, surely, it is unwise to suggest that there is not a link between reform of the common agricultural policy and the enlargement of the European Union. Is it not a fact that the aspirant countries for enlargement have living standards roughly between one-third and one-half of those of the existing European Union countries? Is it not also true that their economies are substantially dependent on agriculture in terms of economic considerations, but perhaps even more in

29
terms of social considerations? Therefore, surely it must be wise to think in terms of CAP reform and prospective enlargement of the European Union.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that I did not imply to your Lordships that there was no link. I was careful to say that CAP reform was not on the agenda on this occasion, and that, indeed, the presidency had made that plain. Inevitably, as the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said, there is a connection but it is wrong I o confuse the two issues and think that they are the same. However, they are plainly linked.
All governments of whatever complexion—certainly in the 10 years that I have been here—have constantly struggled with that matter but the runaway, out of control CAP budget is now capable of being controlled. That is an important step. Of course, economies such as that of Poland are significantly dependent on agriculture in a way that ours is not, and a much greater proportion of its citizens are dependent on agriculture in a way that ours are not. I reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the third world, as the Prime Minster mentioned in the Statement, and which the Doha round will continue. We cannot simply continue with the CAP; I do not think that any serious political thinker proposes that we should. Equally, we cannot abandon it overnight.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that it is welcome that the mid-term review of the substance of the agricultural policy, including a greater emphasis on rural development, remains to be negotiated because comment before the summit implied that that might not be the case? Of course, budget limits, which were discussed at the summit, have a role, but we have a lot of experience of substantial underspending below the budget limits. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the right policy for us is to continue as we were before towards the substance of change on the basis of the mid-term review in, if I may say so, a bulldog style?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is absolutely right. The Prime Minister tried to stress that point in his Statement and I have tried to ventilate it a little more in answering questions. We want to shift spending from the old-style CAP—which was far too rigid and inflexible—to rural development.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I am pleased that the limit on agriculture spending will be without prejudice to the Commission's mid-term review of agriculture or to the Doha trade round and that the fundamental CAP reform that is obviously vital is still on the agenda.
This is not a popular subject on any side of the House, but I should like to ask about President Chirac's attitude towards the British rebate. My noble and learned friend may be aware that President Chirac is not likely to give up on this one over the years to come. My noble and learned friend may recall that in
30
March 1999, in a unanimous report, the European Union Select Committee recognised that, as a major net contributor, the United Kingdom had a problem, but we considered that the rebate would not necessarily be the best way of solving it for much longer. We proposed that a realistic negotiating result for the United Kingdom would be an agreement to forgo the rebate on condition that—and only when—the loss could be made up permanently through the savings of a reformed CAP and stabilised overall expenditure.
When the time comes in 2006, when I am sure that the rebate will be back on the table, does my noble and learned friend agree that we might be able to turn the tables on President Chirac, assuming he is still there, by calling his bluff and saying that if he is prepared to reform the CAP properly, we will be prepared to put our rebate on the table, provided we are assured that the CAP savings will compensate us for forgoing or cutting our rebate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Grenfell for that contribution, which is worth bearing in mind. The Prime Minister's adamant stance was that the abatement was not up for discussion or negotiation. That stance has succeeded. Without the abatement, the United Kingdom would have been paying 12 times more than the French, on an absolute or a per capita basis. We are a very generous contributor—more generous than France. France has benefited in a way that we have not. The whole structure of the CAP needs reform in the long term. As I said earlier, all governments have said in the past that they wish for reform. Undoubtedly, the timetable to which the noble Lord referred will be an important stimulus to reform, which must come one way or another. The policy is wholly ruinous in two ways. First, it does not bring about desired consequences. Secondly, it is an unjustifiable economic drain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, unless the CAP is reformed, how will those of the 10 new applicants whose economy depends mainly on agriculture know before they join how their economy will fare? Will they not be entering into a state of uncertainty?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the nature of things, all political advance involves some uncertainty. That is what political judgment is about, as I am sure the noble Lord agrees—particularly following the 1997 election. There are some key messages on the financing of enlargement. There will be a significant amount of new money. That will be within the ceilings already agreed at Berlin. We will seek to ensure that no candidate is worse off after enlargement, but they cannot continue to expect to be subsidised by others indefinitely without change.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I particularly appreciated the brief but clear reference in the Statement to Turkey and its future. The key fact for me is not just that there have been recent changes, to which my noble friend Lady

31
Williams referred, but that Turkey is an Islamic country with a tradition of secular law. That is the key reason why we should decide that Turkey belongs in the community that we are forming in Europe. While I appreciate the Government's position, what reason is there to believe that they can prevail come December?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Her Majesty's Government's position has always been generally supportive of Turkish accession to the European Union. All such conclusions are partly altruistic and partly selfish. We firmly believe, not least because of the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, gave, that Turkey becoming a full member would be of benefit to the European Union—and therefore to the United Kingdom. I accept that we are brought to that optimistic conclusion not simply because of the recent advances that Turkey has made, but those advances are very significant. The noble Lord referred to Turkey as an Islamic religious culture, but a secular state. That has been the position for a relatively short period—only since the end of the first quarter of the last century. These discussions have been beneficial to the European Union and to Turkey. There is plainly an advantage to Turkey in being a full member of the European Union. There is no doubt that the internal reforms have been assisted by the context of application for entry. It will undoubtedly be of benefit to the European Union if Turkey joins. The European Union is capable of being an oasis of stability in a world that is becoming increasingly fearful and uncertain.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall also refer to Turkey. It is an important country that is already 60 million people strong and is projected to reach a population of 110 million in a few years. At the same time, Germany's population is projected to drop to 60 million. That means that Turkey will be a dominant country in the European Union. I hope that has been taken into account in discussions on Turkey's future in the European Union.
What are the Government's reactions to Mr Giscard d'Estaing's proposals? The noble and learned Lord touched on the issue. Are the Government really in favour of a written constitution? Are they in favour of abolishing the rotating presidency in favour of a semipermanent presidency? Are they in favour of the virtual abolition of the national veto and of the imposition—or, rather, introduction—of a legal personality for the European Union? What, in his view, would be the implications of such a legal personality?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would not say that Turkey would become dominant, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, implied, it will be extremely important. There is a distinction. It is important to bear in mind that Mr Giscard d'Estaing has indicated his preliminary views. He is not able to impose his views, nor does he seek to. The convention
32
will not make its final report to the European Council until June 2003. At the moment working groups are producing their reports and four new groups are to be established in the autumn. Questions of legal personality and so on are matters for discussion and elucidation. To my noble friend Lord Stoddart I say that it is a mistake to believe that the expression of a preliminary conclusion necessarily binds the outcome.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has commented on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there was no mention of the coalition against terrorism. Rightly, the Prime Minister spent some time on the Chechnya crisis, but why is it that European leaders cannot produce regular statements on the coalition against terrorism as opposed to other major concerns like Iraq?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I suppose one tries to focus on the agenda of a particular meeting. To my knowledge the discussions about the coalition against terrorism between the Prime Minister and his international colleagues continue on a weekly basis. That was not the focus of the agenda at Brussels, and the Prime Minister was reporting on the discussions at Brussels. There may be some value, but on a continuing basis I am unsure how much value there is in constant repetition from the European Union of what is well known to be the position.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, speaking as a farmer, does the noble and learned Lord appreciate that agriculture requires long-term planning which is not forthcoming from the Government? Can he be more specific? Do the Government have in mind that the present agricultural production grants will continue to 2006, plus or minus what may be decided after the Dohar discussions, and that thereafter to 2013 the grants will continue with a limited increase for the future? If not, can he spell out where they are going? It is all very well to say that the CAP will be reformed, but as no one knows what the reforms will be, agriculture is placed in an impossible position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the allowances will continue up to 2006, but beyond that, to the year 2013, as the Statement indicates, future agricultural spending will be capped. Because of the effect of the calculations on a notional inflation rate of only 1 per cent, in real terms there will be a reduction from the original proposals.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is aware that reform of the common agricultural policy is not exactly a new subject in European affairs. When I was a member of the Commission 20 years ago, we spent most of our time on two issues: first, the British budget rebate, and secondly, reform of the common agricultural policy. Does my noble and learned friend accept that, if the common agricultural policy is to be reformed, it will be carried out, not as the Conservative Opposition now

33
suggest, by a crusade—one cannot avoid observing that they were not altogether successful at achieving it in their 18 years in office—but by what Sidney Webb said in another context, "the inevitability of gradualness"?
My figures may not be totally accurate, but I recollect that 20 years ago the common agricultural policy was taking around 75 per cent of the budget of the EEC. That figure is now down to 45 per cent. I hope my noble friend agrees that the way to handle the CAP is to recognise that it is a matter of some considerable importance to other countries in the Community, and to let the Commission and the process proceed in the way that it has.
After listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I cannot help but observe that it would be wrong—I hope my noble and learned friend agrees—to leave the decision as to whether or not Saddam Hussein was in breach to Mr Blix. If anyone has to decide that it should be the Security Council because it is a matter of the most enormous importance and surely cannot be left to United Nations' officials.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Richard. I was pleased to hear his citation of the "inevitability of gradualness" in the presence of the former general secretary of the Fabian Society. My noble friend is right to say that the proportion has reduced to 45 per cent. I agree with him in his adjudication of how further reform should be taken forward. In fairness to the former general secretary of the Fabian Society, I am unsure whether she said what my noble friend Lord Richard may have heard. I did not understand the noble Baroness to say that it must be left to the inspectors; I thought she said that it should not be left to a single interested participant, aka the United States of America.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, on the reference to the president of the European Union reassuring us once again that subsidiarity would come to our aid with regard to the bureaucratisation and centralisation of the European Union—subsidiarity runs like a leitmotif through the rhetoric of the European Union it is not always apparent where one can find concrete examples of the principle in action. Are the Minister and the Government concerned about the rate at which Europe continues to centralise and the rate at which it continues to legislate? For example, last year there were over 3,600 directives and regulations. Is the Minister concerned, as I am, that the countries in line to become members of the European Union—like everyone else I am extremely happy at that prospect—may have second thoughts, in the run up to the referenda that each of them will have to hold, about the impact on their democracies, sovereignty and autonomy of the direction in which the European Union is heading? Have the Government any concrete and specific plans to give some reality to the principle of subsidiarity?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. This
34
chimes with discussions we have had in your Lordships' House and in the European Union Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, as vice-chairman. One of the working groups to which I referred presented its conclusions. The conclusion on subsidiarity, which I shall paraphrase because of time, was the necessity of an agreement, as the noble Lord implied, on how to improve the enforcement of subsidiarity, not least through an early warning mechanism involving national parliaments. I know that that is a cause dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I hope it is some reassurance.

Enterprise Bill
4.28 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed. Clause 17 [Monetary claims]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) In section 46(2) of the 1998 Act, there is inserted after paragraph (h)—

"(i) to issue a notice under section 26 requiring the production of specified documents or information;

(j) to investigate premises without a warrant under section 27;

(k) to investigate premises with a warrant under section 28;

(l) not to investigate a complaint under Chapter I or II:

(m) not to grant interim measures under section 35.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 was tabled both at Committee and Report stages. None of the measures stipulated in the amendment is capable of being appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, but each has significant effects for the party concerned and, at present, can be challenged only by judicial review. In my submission, it is entirely consistent with the Government's wish to have competition matters dealt with by bodies versed in competition law that the decisions listed above should go to the CAT and not to the courts.
In Committee, on 18th July 2002, at col 1429 of Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that the Government did not propose to add any category of new appealable decisions, with the exception of the category covered by paragraph (m),
"not to grant interim measures under section 35".
The noble Lord continued that the other proposed additions were not appropriate as they would extend the category of appealable decisions to intermediate or investigatory steps taken by the OFT. The noble Lord further stated that parties at the stage of intermediary investigatory steps could still use judicial review which carries with it the opportunity for interim measures.
As I suspect the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is by now aware, our view is that that approach is inconsistent. The Government have created a body with competition expertise and it is only sensible, therefore, that the body deals with all aspects of the OFT's handling of investigations.

35
In response to the amendment on Report in your Lordships' House, on 15th October 2002, reported at cols. 750 and 751 of Hansard, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, argued that granting a right of appeal on interim investigatory steps would increase the length of the OFT's investigation and generally slow down the whole process in a detrimental manner. In relation to the specific proposal concerning paragraph (1)—the proposal not to investigate a complaint—the noble Lord said that the OFT needed to have a discretion to deploy its resources appropriately.
We do not disagree with those observations. Our case is based on identifying the most efficient body to deal with those complaints. The Government recognised that those steps listed in the amendment might be reviewed under judicial review. That is a very time-consuming process. Our proposal is that the Competition Appeal Tribunal is better placed to ensure that the OFT's procedures are effectively and efficiently carried out with proper respect for due process and the rights of defence. The OFT, for example, might adopt a policy, as has the European Community Commission in the Automec case, not to investigate minor infringements. If it does, the CAT is better placed to consider whether a decision, in any case, is in accordance with that policy.
I note that Amendment No. 43 is grouped with the amendment, and I should like also to speak to that. Under the Competition Act 1998, a person who has applied to the OFT for a decision that an agreement or practice does not infringe Chapter 1 or 2, or is entitled to an exemption under Section 9, may apply to the High Court for directions if there has been undue delay on the part of the OFT to determine an application for a decision.
There is no similar procedure available to be used by a complainant who believes that there is undue delay in the handling of his complaint by the OFT. This clause is intended to remedy that. This clause also gives the jurisdiction to the CAT because it is believed that this is the appropriate body to regulate the activities of the OFT, both in terms of substance and procedure.
I moved a similar amendment on Report, on 15th October 2002, at cols. 746 and 747 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, considered that the amendment would restrict the OFT's ability to prioritise its caseload and would hamper the investigation with alleged serious breaches of the Act. He indicated that, on occasions, the OFT is dependent on further information from third parties in order to progress an investigation.
With great respect to the noble Lord, that does not deal with the point. The Competition Act enables a party who has applied for a decision for an exemption to apply to the High Court if there has been a delay by the OFT in handling that decision. In dealing with decisions, the OFT will also have to take into account views and information received from third parties. It is not consistent, therefore, to say that there should not be any remedy or relief in complaints cases.
36
Clearly, if a complainant has erred in making an application, the Competition Appeal Tribunal would no doubt make that clear and potentially award costs against the complainant. That would send a signal to those who might otherwise make an ill-founded application. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 would add to the list of decisions by the OFT that could be appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the 1998 Competition Act. The amendment refers again to new Section 46(2) but it should refer—as it should have done on the previous occasion—to new Section 46(3).
New Section 46(3) lists a number of decisions of the OFT that can be subject to a full appeal to the tribunal and further decisions may be added by regulations under new Section 46(3). Strictly speaking, it is not necessary, therefore, to add these further rights of appeal on the face of the Bill.
The right of appeal at paragraph (m) in the amendment is already available under new Section 46(3) and it is not necessary to grant it again. I apologise that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury inadvertently misled the House when he stated last week that we had already agreed to add this further right of appeal to new Section 46(3) and to new Section 47. He meant to say only that such a right of appeal on interim measures was to be granted to third parties under new Section 47. It is already available to parties under investigation.
I turn to the remainder of the proposals. I wonder whether the repercussions of adding these further rights of appeal have been thought through. The proposal at paragraph (1) of the amendment would provide a right of appeal against an OFT decision not to investigate a complaint under Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 for a party to an agreement. I am not clear why a party to an agreement would wish for such a right of appeal. Surely an OFT decision of this kind would favour the party to the agreement.
I wonder whether it was intended to add a third party right of appeal which could be dealt with under Section 47. The noble Lord indicates that that is not so. That removes that doubt in my mind. Complaints are the main way in which the OFT uncovers anticompetitive behaviour and give rise to some 1,300 cases a year. Many are initiated as a result of multiple complaints which can number in the thousands. Of those 1,300 cases, only 5 per cent provide reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of the Competition Act prohibitions which would lead to OFT's more formal powers of investigation being used. It would be highly wasteful of the resources of both the OFT and the Competition Appeal Tribunal if we were to provide a right of appeal to every complainant, especially in view of the fact that many complaints either do not give rise to competition concerns or do not contain enough evidence to warrant further investigation. However, it is the 95 per cent who would be appealing.

37
I hope that that serves to demonstrate that the OFT does not initiate use of its formal powers unless it has carefully considered the information before it and believes that there may be a case to be answered which warrants further investigation. The first step is almost always to ask for further information under Section 26 and the OFT is always conscious of the balance between placing a burden on business and the legitimate needs of competition law enforcement. In some cases, a request under Section 26 can bring the anti-competitive conduct to an end and the OFT will not need to take any further administrative action.
In other cases, the use of further investigative powers will be necessary. Cases in which the OFT deploys its powers to enter premises almost always run through to a final infringement decision. Where an investigation is undertaken under a warrant, the judge issuing the warrant must be satisfied that stringent criteria are met before issuing the warrant. The OFT's investigative powers, which were extensively debated before they were granted during the passage of the Competition Act, are not used indiscriminately or without good reason. The OFT uses them carefully where it believes that there may be an infringement of the Competition Act. The system also has the appropriate checks and balances and there is a further check available to parties under investigation before a formal infringement decision is issued. OFT is required to notify the relevant parties of its intended decision and there is then ample opportunity for those parties to make oral or written representations, which the OFT will take into account in reaching its final decision.
I am still convinced that the remaining proposals in the amendment—that is, those in sub-paragraphs (i) to (1)—should not be taken forward. I cannot see that adding further rights of appeal to intermediate steps in the OFT's investigative procedures on cases where the OFT believes that the test of reasonable suspicion has been reached would produce an efficient and effective system that balanced the interests of all parties. Those are not substantive decisions of the OFT and we would be creating further barriers to the effective enforcement of competition law.
Amendment No. 43 would provide persons who had submitted material to the Office of Fair Trading, alleging an infringement of the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998, to seek a direction from the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the OFT's investigation of the alleged infringement is determined without any unnecessary further delay, where the court is satisfied that there has been undue delay on the part of the OFT.
I have already explained that the majority of complaints received by the OFT are not progressed either because they do not give rise to competition concerns or because they do not contain sufficient information. The amendment does not distinguish between those complaints and other complaints that give rise to concerns and which lead to further investigation. The amendment would require the Competition Appeal Tribunal to determine whether there had been undue delay on the part of the OFT in
38
investigating those allegations. In my view, the CAT is not the appropriate body. At the earliest opportunity, we intend to bring into force paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to the Competition Act, which would provide for an applicant aggrieved by the failure of the OFT to determine a notification under the Competition Act to apply to the courts seeking a direction requiring OFT to determine the application without unnecessary further delay. Those provisions were not to be commenced until the 1998 Act had bedded down. In view of that model in the Competition Act, it would not be appropriate to give a power to the CAT when a similar power has been granted to the courts. The amendment is to that extent defective.
Setting aside any deficiencies in drafting—one cannot have deficiencies in drafting at Third Reading in the second Chamber—I am firmly of the view that that amendment is not desirable. As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said, in order to ensure that the most serious and harmful cases are dealt with effectively, the OFT needs to have the discretion to deploy its resources where they are most needed. If it is unable to judge the degree of priority that should be placed on individual complaints independent of external pressures, its ability to prioritise its caseload would he marred and investigation of serious breaches of the Act would be hampered.
As my noble friend said, many elements of an investigation are outside the control of the OFT, for example, where the OFT is dependent on further information from third parties. That can affect the time that it takes the OFT to gather the material necessary to further an investigation but it would not be assisted by that amendment. In other words, I cannot support the amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving such a full explanation of his reasons for not supporting the amendments; that is much appreciated on these Benches.
I could reply in detail to the noble Lord's comments; these points have been well rehearsed by now in your Lordships' House. The fundamental deficiency with those points is rather like the fundamental deficiency of the noble Lord's approach to Amendment No. 1, on referring competition cases to the specialised tribunal. In the Competition Act 1998 and in the Bill, the Government have created a specialised body to deal with the judicial issues that arise out of anticompetitive practices. I remain puzzled about why the Government, having created that institution, persist in not allowing it to deal with all of the judicial issues that arise out of competition investigations and competition disputes. That appears to be wholly irrational.
I should very much like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment but we have already voted on Amendment No. 1. If we voted on every amendment about which I feel strongly, we should be here all night. I therefore hope that, after mature

39
consideration, the Government will amend the Bill along the lines suggested in the amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Findings of infringements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 11, line 3, leave out "In any" and insert "This section applies to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, 9 to 17, 21 to 24, 31, 45, 54 to 58 and 74.
These government amendments are technical and improving amendments which were identified following a final read through the Bill. We wrote to those who took part in these debates on what the amendments involve. They do not raise any issues of great substance but we believe that they are well worth making. They would improve the quality and internal consistency of the Bill as well as provide some additional future flexibility to deal with highly technical areas of the Bill. I shall focus my remarks on the more noteworthy of the amendments.
Clause 19 adds new Section 58A to the Competition Act 1998 to provide that infringement findings—for example, an OFT decision that the Chapter I prohibition has been breached—will be binding on the courts when the courts are considering damages claims. Amendment No. 7 clarifies that the new section does not apply in relation to infringement decisions that were made before the commencement of the section.
Amendment No. 17 to Clause 106 ensures the continued viability of the system by which the OFT offers confidential advice to parties considering a merger. Clause 106(1) currently requires the OFT to publish reasons for its decisions to refer or not to refer a merger. Clause 32(2)(b) states that the OFT may decide not to make a reference if the merger arrangements are not sufficiently advanced to justify it. The OFT would rely on that provision to avoid referring a merger in contemplation about which the parties had approached it for confidential advice. However, as the Bill stands, that would be a decision that the OFT is required to publish, which would undermine the confidentiality of the system. The amendment will ensure that the OFT will not be required to publish any decision not to refer where the grounds are those in Clause 32(2)(b).
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are minor amendments to Clause 120. They are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State has a similar power for determining turnover for the purpose of merger fee payments as is available for the jurisdictional turnover test in Clause 27. Amendment No. 9 deletes Clause 33 and replaces it with a power for the Secretary of State to make provision for the effective operation of Clauses 26 and 28. Clauses 26 and 28 enable the OFT to treat a sequence of transactions stretching over a prior period of up to two years—for example, the piecemeal acquisition of shares—as occurring
40
simultaneously on the date on which the latest of them is recorded for the purpose of a reference. However, where the latest of the transactions is anticipated and there is therefore no firm date for the last transaction, a notional date is required from which to work back the permitted two years. Clause 33 supplies that notional date by saying that Clauses 26 and 28 will apply as if the anticipated transaction had occurred immediately before the date of the reference. However, we now believe that treating all the transactions as though they had taken place on that date sits uncomfortably with Clause 32 and related provisions, which are formulated on the basis that the merger is anticipated.
This is a highly technical area where we believe that a power to make regulations and adjustments to accommodate the rare hybrid cases that are a mixture of completed and anticipated transactions is preferable to setting out the detail on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 24 makes the exercise of that new power subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
Amendment No. 58 is concerned with the special regime for water mergers. It is consequential to the mass of amendments made on Report to the general merger regime. Where a merger case is handled initially in Brussels but falls subsequently to the domestic regime, it will ensure that the domestic authorities are not time-barred from considering those cases. This latest amendment ensures that the power provided in Schedule 6 to adapt by regulations the general mergers regime for the purposes of the water regime is wide enough to allow for the extension of the four-month timetable in the circumstances where ECMR proceedings have delayed the domestic consideration of a water merger. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7:
Page 11, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
"(1A) In such proceedings, the court is bound by a decision mentioned in subsection (2) once any period specified in subsection (3) which relates to the decision has elapsed."
Page 11, line 16, after "Tribunal" insert "(on an appeal from a decision of the OFT)""
Page 11, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) The periods mentioned in subsection (1A) are—

(a) in the case of a decision of the OFT, the period during which an appeal may be made to the Tribunal under section 46 or 47 or the EC Competition Law (Articles 84 and 85) Enforcement Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/2916);

(b) in the case of a decision of the Tribunal mentioned in subsection (2)(c), the period during which a further appeal may be made under section 49 or under those Regulations;

(c) in the case of any decision which is the subject of a further appeal, the period during which an appeal may be made to the House of Lords from a decision on the further appeal;

41
and, where any appeal mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is made, the period specified in that paragraph includes the period before the appeal is determined."

Page 11, line 33, at end insert—
"(1A) Section 58A does not apply in relation to decisions made before the commencement of this section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Relevant merger situations]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 21, leave out "£45 million" and insert "£100 million"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to press the Government on this amendment. When we discussed the matter on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, supplied a number of figures for consideration. At the time, I said that I wanted to reflect on the information that he had put forward and consult more widely outside this House. Those with whom I have consulted, especially the CBI—and many others involved in industry and commerce in the wider sense—have urged me further to press the Government.
In the amendment I seek to delete the sum of £45 million and insert a reference to £100 million. When we debated the matter previously the Government admitted that they were dealing essentially with an informed estimate and that their method of calculation was not fool-proof. The CBI has reflected on the information put forward by the Government and has asked me to assert on its behalf the fact that it has carried out a considerable amount of research. The confederation sampled 522 companies, covering a wide range of industries, both high-tech and traditional. and produced a ratio of UK turnover to world-wide gross assets of 1.2:1. That ratio is supported by the rule-of-thumb test that turnover should he expected to exceed gross assets. Therefore, the new turnover figure should exceed the old £70 million gross assets figure. The Government's figure of £45 million fails the rule-of-thumb test.
I must also point out to the Minister that the Government have never responded to the proposal that allowance should be made for inflation, as the threshold was last set in 1994. They have used the old figure of £70 million in calculating an equivalent number of companies that would be caught by the new turnover threshold. Surely they should at least use the indexed figure of £85 million to calculate the number of affected companies.
On the Government's figures, about 7,500 companies would be caught by the £45 million threshold. If the Government were to accept the amendment and the £100 million threshold proposed by the CBI. that number would be cut in half and the regulatory burden on business would be reduced. That would also go some way towards making this a true enterprise Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I should like to make two general points while expressing my support for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his amendment. I intended to make such observations when the previous
42
set of amendments was discussed. First, I know that I speak for my noble friend Lord Sharman, and others, on these Benches when I thank the Government for the way that they have dealt with the Bill. We have found this to be an extremely good example of your Lordships' House at its best. Indeed, that is in marked contrast to the way that another place treated the legislation.
Secondly, as the Minister will know, my noble friend and I have not intervened in debates on this issue as the Bill has passed through both the Committee and Report stages, although we have listened to the arguments. Having done so, it may come as a disappointment to the Minister to know that we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct. We shall, therefore, be supporting him in the Division Lobby is he chooses to press the amendment to a vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have approached the amendment. I respect the fact that the CBI has conducted research since we last debated the matter. The Government have undertaken a few inquiries in this respect. I acknowledge that the relationship between assets and turnover is not a straightforward one. If you are moving from an asset measure to a turnover measure—we are all agreed that that is the right approach—you must engage in a certain amount of approximation.
Our goal in selecting the level of the new turnover test is to bring within the scope of the merger regime broadly the same numbers of companies that currently qualify under the assets test. Our further research indicates that that is the case. It is not based on any rule-of-thumb relationship between assets and turnover; it is just a matter of looking at the turnover of British companies. You have to consider the situation sector by sector. Clearly, when considering property companies, assets will be very large and turnover need not be large according to whether they are disposing or acquiring. In the case of dotcom companies, the assets will probably be relatively small in relation to turnover. Indeed, for any company that is trading in high-value goods, the turnover will be high.
Whatever equivalence you make between assets and turnover, you will be excluding some companies in some sectors and including companies in other sectors that would not otherwise have been included. However, as one of the Bill's primary aims is the putting into place of an enhanced competitive regime, it would be very strange if we did what this amendment seeks to achieve and relaxed the regime for merger control from the outset by a significant reduction in the number of companies covered by the legislation. Anti-competitive mergers can result in significant harm to consumers and to the economy at large. That is the fundamental point. The OFT should be able to look at mergers that could give rise to such concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the question of indexing. I am not persuaded that this is a key point. When thresholds are revised, they are obviously intended to last for a period of time. They are not

43
intended just to fit the year in which the adjustment is made. For example, the adjustment to the assets figure prior to 1994 was made in 1984—a 10-year interval. We believe that the prudent approach is to make the transition from an assets to a turnover test, and then to keep that under review. I am perfectly prepared to say not only that there is a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the threshold is kept under review, but also to make a specific commitment that the Government will review the turnover threshold within three years of the commencement of the new regime. However, if change is recommended before that time, we would consider the case for an earlier revision. I trust, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I have no wish to compare the Minister to Don Quixote, but I believe that he is being rather quixotically chivalrous in asserting the importance of inflexible approximation. That is, indeed, what he tried to put forward. Surely, it is important to start off with the right figure. However much one commits to review the figure, the important principle is to ensure that the figure that appears initially in the Bill is correct. That is why I want to press the amendment and test the opinion of the House.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (N0. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dholakia, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Attlee, E.

Elles, B.

Avebury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Barker, B.

Elton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Biffen, L.

Fearn, L.

Blake, L.

Fowler, L.

Blaker, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Freeman, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Geraint, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Butterworth, L.

Goodhart, L.

Byford, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hooper, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Croham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Jellicoe, E.

44

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Jopling, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Kingsland, L.

Prior, L.

Laird, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Razzall, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Reay, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rennard, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Renton, L.

Lucas, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Luke, L.

Roper, L.

Lyell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McNally, L.

Seccombe. B. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Sharples, B.

Marsh, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Monson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Moynihan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Naseby, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Noakes, B.

Waddington, L.

Northesk, E.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Northover, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Walmsley, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gavron, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Amos, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Andrews, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goudie, B.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bhatia, L.

Harrison, L.

Blackstone, B.

Haskel, L.

Blease, L.

Hayman, B.

Borne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bragg, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Brennan, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brookman, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Irvine of I airg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Christopher, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Islwyn, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jordan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Judd, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Layard, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lipsey, L.

Desai, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fitt, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gale, B.

Mitchell, L.

45

Morgan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Moms of Manchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pendry, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thornton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Turnberg, L.

Prys-Davies, I,.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Richard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Whitaker, B.

Rooker, L.

Whiny, L.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provision in relation to anticipated mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 33 and insert the following new Clause—
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION IN RELATION TO ANTICIPATED MERGERS

(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate about the operation of sections 26 and 28 in relation to—

(a) references under this Part which relate to arrangements which are in progress or in contemplation; or

(b) notices under section 41(2), 58(2) or 66(2) which relate to such arrangements.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may, in particular—

(a) provide for sections 26(5) to (8) and 28 to apply with modifications in relation to such references or notices or in relation to particular descriptions of such references or notices;

(b) enable particular descriptions of events, arrangements or transactions which have already occurred—

(i) to be taken into account for the purposes of deciding whether to make such references or such references of a particular description or whether to give such notices or such notices of a particular description;

(ii) to be dealt with under such references or such references of a particular description or under such notices or such notices of a particular description."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Intervention by Secretary of State in certain public interest cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 28, line 20, after "decision" insert "made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) of section 32 or a decision"
Page 29, line 44, leave out "and 33"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Intervention by Secretary of State in special public interest cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No.12:
Page 45, line 30, leave out "and 33"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Intervention to protect legitimate interests]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 52, line 21, leave out "and 33"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Scheme for protecting legitimate interests]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 53, line 1, leave out "(read together with section 33)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Water mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 54, line 37, at end insert—
"(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) above may, in particular, make provision enabling the Secretary of State or the OFT to determine matters of a description specified in the regulations (including any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) above)."
Page 55, line 19, after "Act" insert "and any provision made under section 33 of that Act"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 106 [Further publicity requirements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 80, line 29, at end insert "(other than a decision made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) of section 32)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Review of decisions under Part 3]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 90, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) The Tribunal may confirm or set aside the decision which is the subject of the appeal and may—

(a) remit the matter to the OFT, the Secretary of State or the Commission as the case may be (the "original decision maker");

(b) cancel or vary any conditions or obligations imposed by the original decision maker;

(c) give any directions or take such steps as the original decision maker could have made; or

(d) make any other decision which the original decision maker could have made."

47
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the way that Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 have appeared in the Marshalled List. Looking back to Committee stage, I believe that one of these two amendments was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in a group of Liberal amendments, and the other by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. In my submission, although they refer to slightly different parts of the page in the Bill, the effect of them is similar. Therefore, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 19 or 20, as the Minister wishes.
As your Lordships are well aware by now, in contrast with appeals under the Competition Act, this Bill provides only for a form of judicial review for decisions taken on mergers. Given that the Competition Commission is to take decisions about mergers, and where it thinks necessary impose conditions, we believe that its decisions should be capable of substantive review.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, stated that in relation to merger investigations the Government continue to believe that a review based on judicial review is the right means for challenging a decision. That type of review by the court would ensure that the procedures followed by the authorities are fair and that the parties are given the opportunity to put their case. Such a review would allow the court to re-examine any decision taken by the authorities to determine whether it was reasonable.
Our view is that the Government are creating a Byzantine structure for competition issues, with some appeals going to the Competition Appeal Tribunal and others going to the High Court; the Competition Appeal Tribunal having jurisdiction over complex regulatory appeals but not mergers.
A merger will be referred to the Competition Commission if the OFT "believes" that it might lead to a substantial lessening of competition. The full analysis will be carried out by the Competition Commission, including such matters as market definition. In these circumstances, the only detailed review will be carried out by one body, in contrast to competition cases where there will be a review carried out by two separate bodies.
It is, in our submission, not sufficient for the court merely to decide if the Competition Commission has acted reasonably—in the sense that the word "reasonably" is used in judicial review proceedings. In our view, the appeal tribunal should satisfy itself that the parties, including the OFT and the Competition Commission, have correctly analysed relevant material. It may be said that, in mergers, time may not permit a full appeal; but that surely is for the parties to decide. Time considerations have not stopped significant appeals being heard by the European Courts which have shown themselves willing to hear more evidence than would normally be the case in judicial reviews.
48
Some experiences of the recent Airtours case show how important it is to have an in-depth examination by an appeal body. I refer by way of example to paragraphs 125 to 130 of the court of first instance's judgment of 6th June 2002, case T-342/1999 Airtours. In particular, the European Commission relied on what it called,
"a recent study for a major tour operator",
to show that demand growth had been low and was still to fall to zero. That statement is to be found at paragraph 125. The court of first instance found on analysis that the commission had not seen the full study, but had quoted from a one-page extract submitted by a respondent to a request for information. That emerges from paragraph 128. Moreover, the extract did not support the commission's interpretation—paragraph 29—and referred to,
"a massive increase in foreign holiday sales",
over the past 20 years. In the outcome the court of first instance held:
"It follows that the Commission construed that document without having regard to its actual wording and its overall purpose".
That conclusion is to be found in paragraph 130.
This amendment was discussed on Report. Since the decision in Airtours, the court of first instance has annulled a second EC Commission decision blocking a merger. That is case T-310/01 Schneider Electric SA. Here the court criticised the Commission's standard assessment, including its market analysis and its analysis of the so-called "portfolio power" of the proposed merged firm's brands. The court cited specific mistakes in relation to the Commission's analysis of the Danish and Italian markets.
In addition, the court criticised the Commission for a number of procedural errors. In those circumstances, we do not believe it is sufficient for the Government simply to say that the parties are entitled to a judicial review and not a form of appeal which allows a review of the substance of the decision. Time will of course be a factor; but the Competition Appeal Tribunal could adopt, as the court of first instance has done, a fast-track procedure which might be suitable for certain merger appeals. It should be noted that, although, technically, an appeal to the court of first instance is a form of judicial review, as noted above, the European courts have shown themselves willing to hear more evidence than would normally be the case in judicial reviews.
I apologise for speaking to this amendment at such length at this stage, but there have been important legal developments in recent weeks. I think your Lordships should have an opportunity to consider those. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I oppose Amendment No. 19 or Amendment No. 20, whichever it is we are discussing. One of the great merits of the merger provisions of this Enterprise Bill, and one with which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition fully agree, is that as

49
a general rule the competition authorities—the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission—will make the appropriate decisions without ministerial involvement. They will do so on the merits and, in particular, on the question of whether the merger is likely substantially to lessen competition in the appropriate market. Such a decision—first by the Office of Fair Trading and then, if it is so referred, by the Competition Commission—will require a large element of judgment and discretion. It is inappropriate for such a decision on the merits of allowing a merger to proceed or not to be made on the basis of law or precise judicial precedents.
Judicial review by the courts, for which the Bill provides, is important to ensure that bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission are accountable, that they remain within the law arid the rules of procedure laid down for them—including that the Competition Commission must give reasons—that they comply with the rules of natural justice and that everyone has had a fair opportunity to state his case. It is not appropriate to replace ministerial involvement—which we all agree should be discarded—with judicial involvement on the merits of the case. It is inappropriate for a judicial—body admittedly, as has been said, a specialized judicial body—such as the Competition Appeal Tribunal to substitute its judgment and discretion for that of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.
Although I am as interested as is the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in recent developments across the water in Brussels and Luxembourg, neither previous governments nor this one have sought to move to a fully judicial system to determine whether mergers are allowed in the interests of competition. I therefore shall not go down the same road as the noble Lord of discussing the position there. The Commission may have the same name as our Competition Commission but, in Brussels, the Commission determines the matter initially and makes the decision at first instance. In this country, two bodies have, as it were, a separate go at it—at any rate, if the Office of Fair Trading considers that there is sufficient case to go to the Competition Commission. That is not analogous with the position in Brussels and Luxembourg.
It is highly appropriate that the Government should provide that the Competition Appeal Tribunal must ensure that those bodies act according to law, proper procedure and so on, but that the merits should be left to the Competition Commission.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the Opposition's approach to the issue here in Part 3 on mergers and in Part 4 on market investigations. The same criteria applied when we discussed those matters previously. Yet, lo and behold, we now have Amendment No. 18, which would restrict who can go to appeal, but is balanced by amendments that would widen the grounds for appeal. Amendment No. 18 has not been moved, so we are left
50
with the proposal to widen the grounds for appeal in Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, with no restriction on who can appeal.
On Thursday, by tabling Amendment No. 29 to Part 4, the Opposition proposed the restriction on who can go to appeal but no amendment to widen the grounds for appeal. Amendment No. 30 was then tabled at the last minute, so we now have provisions that seem to be in line with what was argued previously, but not with what has been argued today. So something strange is going on that is not entirely clear to me.
We listened carefully to what was said in Committee, on Report and today. We share the desire to give parties the tools that they need to challenge decisions made by the competition authorities and to have as much legal certainty as is practicable. We are just as keen that whatever review mechanism we introduce should be effective in holding the competition authorities to account. We have been prepared to consider whether we can provide greater legal certainty.
We are consulting on how long parties should have to bring an action. One starting point was three months, but we are now seeking views on whether that should be just one month in the case of a merger decision. We have not come to a final view but we are consulting and demonstrating willingness to modify the review mechanism in the light of concerns expressed in the House and by the business and legal communities.
We are puzzled by Amendment No. 20, which seems to mix judicial review with the characteristics of a full appeal by leaving subsection (4) untouched. We cannot see how that would work technically. Judicial review grounds focus on whether a decision is reasonable and whether the procedure followed was fair. In most cases, that would not provide the tribunal with the material that it would need to substitute the decisions of the original decision-maker.
However, even at Third Reading, I shall not concentrate too much on technical difficulties. I think that it is common ground that full appeal could be wider in scope than judicial review. We must ensure that parties have access to the justice that they need to protect their rights and that the competition authorities can be held to account for their actions.
The intellectual argument for judicial review is strong and compelling. First, decisions by the competition authorities in merger cases do not lend themselves to full rehearing. Such decisions are not right or wrong; they are reasonable or unreasonable. That is what must be assessed. A full rehearing would not necessarily lead to a more just outcome; it would just substitute one set of views for another. Secondly, judicial review-type appeals will ensure that parties' rights are protected. They will pick up any material procedural irregularities or material errors of fact that have led to an unfair process or conclusion.
Finally, this approach to appeals is based on an effective division of responsibilities between the competition authorities and the tribunal. The tribunal will become quick and expert in policing its decisions,

51
ensuring that the process is fair and the outcome reasonable. The actual taking of the complex case-by-case decisions will remain with the competition authorities, ensuring that they take greater responsibility for decisions and leading to greater consistency in decision-making.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland referred to the Airtours case at the court of first instance. But that was closer to a judicial review. It did not carry out a full appeal on the merits. The court may have gone into more detail than would the UK courts, but it considered similar issues: errors of law; fairness of procedures; and reasonableness of decision. That is what a competition appeal tribunal would do.
Similarly, the Schneider-Legrand case, to which the noble Lord referred, overturned the decision to prohibit the merger but again on comparable grounds to that of judicial review in this country. The court found errors, omissions and contradictions in the Commission's economic reasoning and that the procedure followed was flawed because there was a discrepancy between the initial statement of objections shared with the parties and the Commission's final decision. That left Schneider with no opportunity to propose appropriate corrective measures. Those are judicial review considerations, not what the amendments would achieve. As a result, Schneider may acquire Legrand by correcting what was a faulty decision—in what, for the court of first instance, is a relatively short time.
I can leave out what I was going to say about limiting the number of people who can appeal; that amendment has not been moved. However, I hope that it is clear that the analogies with Europe, the requirements for consistency and the extent of judicial review coverage mean that it would be a serious mistake to approve the amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. In a way, his reaction to the amendment is consistent with his reaction to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Having created a specialised competition tribunal, the noble Lord is reluctant to give it any work to do. That is, perhaps, an exaggeration; but he is reluctant to give it all the work that taking the trouble to set it up merits.
If judicial review of a merger decision in the United Kingdom amounted to the same kind of review as that given to merger cases by the court of first instance in Luxembourg, I would reflect again on the wisdom of the amendment. However, our experience of commercial and competition judicial review in the United Kingdom leads to the ineluctable conclusion that judicial review—indeed, judicial review of commercial matters generally—is significantly less capable of investigating the kind of details that the court of first instance would investigate in a similar situation. That is because the judges have chosen not to trespass on the territory that has become so familiar to the court of first instance.
52
I shall not press the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, the noble Lord will reconsider what he said—so that he can amend that part of the Bill accordingly.
As always, I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. His experience of such matters is unsurpassed in your Lordships' House. I venture to take issue with the noble Lord to the extent that I believe that the United Kingdom has reached the stage at which it would be foolish for us to remain too far behind developments on competition matters in the European Community. It is clear that they are becoming more judicialised—for better or for worse—and we must also go down that path.
Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 120 [Fees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 92, line 3, leave out "(determined in accordance with the order)".
Page 92, line 7, at end insert—
"(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(c)(ii) the turnover of an enterprise shall be determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order under this section.
(4B) Provision made by virtue of subsection (4A) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) as to the amounts which are, or which are not, to be treated as comprising an enterprise's turnover;

(b) as to the date or dates by reference to which an enterprise's turnover is to be determined;

(c) restricting the turnover to be taken into consideration to turnover which has a connection of a particular description with the United Kingdom.

(4C) An order under this section may, in particular, in connection with provisions of the kind mentioned in subsection (4A) make provision enabling the Secretary of State or the OFT to determine matters of a description specified in the order (including any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4B))."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 123 [Orders and regulations under Part 3]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 93, line 27, after "section" insert "33 or"
Page 93, line 39, after "section" insert "33,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Power of OFT to make references]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 100, line 28, after "competition" insert "to an appreciable extent"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may assist the House if I indicate that, in moving Amendment No. 25, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Unless other noble Lords press the point, it is not necessary to have a separate debate on those amendments, as they seek the same effect.

53
The amendment would add a degree of materiality in deciding whether to open what are potentially lengthy and costly investigations. The wording of the amendment is consistent with the Competition Act 1998 and with European competition law. I must admit that borrowed that language, so that the clause would be consistent with the Act and EC competition law, both of which require an effect on competition to be appreciable for an adverse finding to be made. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments.
So far, the Government's position has been that it is unnecessary to add the qualification because it would be unreasonable for market investigation references to be used for trivial competition policy. The OFT's draft consultation paper on market investigation references, which was published last July, does not specifically say that references will be made only if competition is distorted to an appreciable extent. If the policy is that there should be some sort of threshold in practice, the joint working party's view is that the legislation should say so. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not make a point about the fact that we are now discussing the word "appreciable", whereas we previously discussed the word "significant". There is no significant or appreciable difference between the words. The arguments that were used against the word "significant" can be used equally well against "appreciable". The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, gave us the benefit of a repetition of the arguments that were used. Those arguments are true.
Market investigations exist to investigate and, where possible, rectify potentially significant competition problems. They are not a way of launching huge data-gathering exercises on a whim. The OFT has explained in its draft guidance, which is in the Library, what factors it will take into account when considering a possible market investigation reference. It will not use those powers lightly. Only when the OFT's preliminary inquiries suggest that there are potentially significant or appreciable—whatever word we use—competition concerns will it be justified in subjecting the industry to the more rigorous scrutiny of the Competition Commission. If the OFT were to refer what appeared to be a trivial case, as the noble Lord suggested, it would find itself having to defend the reasonableness of its decision before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
What would we add by putting that in the Bill? We are concerned here with principles of economic analysis that cannot be reduced to statutory language. In ministerial statements of policy, we can explain properly how the reference powers will be operated. We can take account of materiality concerns, but we do not think that such matters can be more accurately or usefully conveyed by incorporating them into the clause. It could be said that the words "to an appreciable extent" would introduce an element of confusion. By themselves, they would not enshrine in statute all the matters that the OFT might be expected to take into account when deciding whether it had identified possible competition problems. Even if we
54
were to add explicit references to all those matters, we would still be left with the fact that the OFT was operating a discretionary power of reference and must use its judgment in each case to decide what weight to give to all the various factors.
Our approach is broadly in keeping with the Competition Act 1998, Article 81 of the EC treaty and the existing monopolies regime. None of those explicitly requires that there should be a significant, substantial or appreciable effect on competition. The question of materiality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred, has been a matter for case law and guidance, rather than the drafting of primary legislation.
As regards Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, I cannot add much to what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury said. I can deal with the comparison which the amendments raise between market investigations and the provisions in Article 81 of the EC treaty and Section 2 of the Competition Act. Those provisions prohibit anti-competitive agreements where they prevent, restrict or distort competition to an appreciable extent. That qualification exists as a result of case law and guidance rather than being explicit on the face of the legislation concerned. There are reasons—I could go into them in detail but I will not—why it would be inappropriate to put a similar qualification into the clause.
Conformity with the Competition Act and Article 81 does not justify the amendments, nor dot they have anything to commend them. I am sorry to be negative about the matter but we have debated it on a number of occasions and the argument for the amendment is no stronger.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister has made a significant concession, which has moved me to an appreciable extent. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 101, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) In this Part the words "prevents, restricts and distorts competition" are to be given the same meaning as the equivalent words in the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 seeks to add a subsection to Clause 130 to make clear what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, conceded in Committee when I moved Amendments Nos. 95, 102 and 105 to what were then Clauses 126 and 129.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a facial gesture when I said that the noble Lord conceded the point, but it will become clearer why we have tabled the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will allow me to intervene. I become suspicious when people talk of concessions. I made no concessions to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt,

55
and I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury made any concessions to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it will become clear what I mean. The amendments tabled in Committee were designed to clarify that the making of any market reference in relation to the legal profession should take into account the special public interest considerations relevant to the supply of legal services. They were, as proposed in the amendments, to be able to take account of the interest of the sound administration of justice, the interests of the consumers of justice and of those lacking the same. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, recognised the importance of the issues raised and said:
"The sound administration of justice and the promotion of access to justice are matters of the utmost concern to this Government".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 818.]
He also recognised that the rules of the legal profession would be more appropriately dealt with under the Competition Act 1998 rather than by way of a market reference under the Bill. He nevertheless accepted that such rules were capable of being subject to a market reference under the provisions of the Bill—now in Clause 130—but concluded that the amendment was unnecessary on the grounds that the sound administration of justice and access to justice were capable of being addressed under the customer benefit provisions of the Bill. That is why I said that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, conceded the points of the amendments moved in Committee.
However, both the Law Society and the Bar Council, which are taking a direct and close interest in the amendment, regard it as undesirable for such issues to be addressed only in that context. Under the scheme of the Bill, customer benefits fall to be considered in the context of remedies once an adverse effect on competition has been identified. Clause 130(2) provides that an adverse effect on competition arises if any feature of the market prevents, restricts or distorts competition.
As regards professional legal rules, these may well restrict competition while having effects that are purely beneficial, as the European Court of Justice found in the Wouters case (C-309/99). The effect of such rules should not be treated, therefore, as "adverse effects on competition", as they apparently would be in the light of Clause 130. We believe that the key words,
"prevents, restricts or distorts competition",
in Part 4 of the Bill should be interpreted in the same way as the equivalent words are interpreted in the Competition Act and under Articles 81 or 85 of the EU treaty. Then it would be clear that in circumstances such as those of the Wouters case, which was a partnership between lawyers and accountants, rules reasonably considered necessary for the proper practice of the legal profession were not to be treated as preventing, restricting or distorting competition.
56
We also believe that the Bill should contain provisions that make it explicit that this is the intended basis of interpretation, just as the Competition Act in Section 60 makes clear that it is to be interpreted consistently with the corresponding provisions of Community law. Section 60 states:
"At any time when the court"—
that is to say, the English court—
"determines a question arising under this Part, it must act … with a view to securing that there is no inconsistency between—

(a) the principles applied, and decision reached, by the [English] court in determining the question; and

(b) the principles laid down by the Treaty and the European Court".

However, both the Law Society and the Bar Council strongly believe that the presence on the face of this mammoth Bill of an explicit provision such as that in the amendment would give a great deal of clarity. It would also avoid the prospect of different interpretations being used with regard to the words concerned. Above all, especially given the Government's repeated commitment to clarity of drafting and accessibility, it will make it abundantly clear on the face of the Bill that there should be a read-across to the relevant Euro law and the Competition Act 1998.
The amendment is wholeheartedly supported by the two professional bodies not out of self interest but because it should make the Bill, which is difficult enough, more comprehensible even to lawyers. It has the merit, which I hope the Government will see, that whereas in Committee the three amendments referred specifically to the legal profession, Amendment No. 26 does not. It applies to any body coming before the OFT or the Competition Commission and there avoids that criticism. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I support the amendment. At the Report stage, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, a debate took place which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, led on the balance to be struck between the interests of competition as an economic principle and the interests of the community to have quality of justice. The one should not be invoked at the cost of the other.
During the debate, as I read it, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, in a clear and forthright manner, accepted the strength of the argument that we should be careful not to damage the quality of justice by remorseless pursuance of market principles of competition. If to describe that as a concession is to demean the quality of his agreement, I will not use the word "concession". It was plain to be read as no doubt it was plainly said.
But the important issue is this. If a profession such as the law—or indeed any profession—wants to give quality of service to the public, there are certain features of that task which self-evidently cost money and which must be paid for through the fees that people charge. The examples are obvious. The desire for people to be properly qualified by continuous professional development and education must be in

57
the public interest. The need to regulate by discipline those who breach the standards the public would expect to be observed has to be paid for. Within my own profession—the Bar—the fact that we are now debating a levy against existing barristers which will be used to allow people from poorer backgrounds to become barristers is surely an acceptable expense within that profession. It meets a good public objective.
If any of those practices, which all involve cost, are to be regarded as necessary, they should be taken into account if and when any questions of competitive practices arise within the legal or any other profession. That was recognised in the Competition Act 1998, where the prohibition under Section 2 against anticompetitive practices was coupled with an exception in Schedule 4 for all the main professions, the structure of the Act meaning that those professions could, if they were able to establish a public interest, justify practices which might at first sight appear to be anticompetitive.
That was recognised in that Act; that Act sought to be compatible with our European treaty obligations; and, as I understood the debate on Report, my noble friend the Minister made clear that should competition practices in the law or any other profession be investigated, it was most likely to be done under that Act. If that is correct, the assurance which all professions would seek is that the present Bill should not provide some other route for investigation of professional practice if the Competition Act already fulfils that requirement.
If there is some further area of competition principle which this Bill deals with but the Competition Act does not, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will make that clear. If there is no such extra dimension, I am sure that he will make it equally clear that we fall to be dealt with under the other Act and that if and when the Bill and the Act ever came to be considered, they would each be given the same meaning. All we seek on behalf of the professions is legislative consistency and sense, an objective with which I have no doubt my noble friend the Minister will agree. I am sure that he will show an equal measure of clarity and forthrightness in his acceptance of our arguments as did his noble friend the Minister on the previous occasion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment: is more subtle than the ones put forward in Committee and on Report. It is particularly subtle in that although it is evidently concerned with the legal profession it does not actually say so. I admire that in a way.
There are two levels to the amendment. At a simple level, the amendment proposes that references to the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are to be interpreted in the same way as the same references in the Competition Act. Our only objection to that at a simple level is that it is superfluous. The formulation "prevent, restrict or distort" has no
58
special meaning here which it does not have in the Competition Act, the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act or in Article 81(1) of the treaty.
The OFT, in its draft guidance on market investigation references, notes that,
"EC case law and the past practice of the CC both indicate that the phrase should be interpreted broadly to encompass any reduction or dampening of actual or potential competition".
In our view, references to the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition already are to be given the same meaning as references to those concepts in the Competition Act because in both contexts the words concerned are used in the ordinary and natural meanings.
I could stop there, but to do justice to the amendment I have to refer to the question of legal professional rules because that is what the supporting speeches were about. Broadly speaking, the rules governing the provision of legal services in the United Kingdom are of two kinds: those made by statute and those made by the Bar Council and the Law Society. Rules made by statute are not the concern of this amendment. They do not fall within the Competition Act prohibitions or their EC equivalents and it is not within the power of the Competition Commission to change them in any way. Any action to modify such rules would be taken by the Government and Parliament.
Legal professional rules made by a body such as the Bar Council are likely in many cases to be considered to be decisions of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC treaty. I understand that the Bar Council has agreed that that is the case. If the rules restrict competition to an appreciable extent and have an effect on trade between member states of the European Union, they may be prohibited under Article 81. There are a number of ways in which they may escape being prohibited, but the important thing to note is that it will be impossible for the Competition Commission, following a market investigation, to use its powers under Clause 160 to prohibit any rule which falls within the ambit of Article 81 but is not prohibited by it. This is because of the provisions of the draft new regulation for the application of Articles 81 and 82, which will implement the so-called "modernisation" of European Community competition law. We expect this to come into force before any investigations under Part 4 have been concluded.
The new regulation is expected to provide that national competition authorities must always apply Articles 81 and 82 where they are applicable and may only apply national competition law in such cases if the result of the national law proceedings is compatible with the result under Community law. So a professional rule which falls under Article 81(1) but would not, for whatever reason, have been prohibited under Article 81, will not be capable of being prohibited as a result of a market investigation. On the other hand, if a professional rule is prohibited under Article 81, no provision of national competition law can save it.

59
The only situation in which the Competition Commission will be empowered to take remedial enforcement action in respect of a professional rule is where that rule is not made by statute and is not a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1). Given the case law of what constitutes an association of undertakings, it may be that no legal professional rules at all fall into this category. However, in case there should be any such rules, I shall review the possible outcomes of the Competition Commission's analysis of them under Part 4.
In the normal way, assuming no public interest intervention, there are essentially four possible outcomes. The first is that the Competition Commission may find that the rule in question does not prevent, restrict or distort competition at all. The second is that the commission may find that a rule has both adverse and beneficial effects for competition. Having identified the adverse effect on competition, the commission would be bound to consider what could be done to remedy it. If the pro-competitive effects of the rule outweigh its restrictive effect, and if the rule could not be modified in such a way as to preserve its pro-competitive consequences while removing its restrictive effect on competition, then it would not be reasonable to seek to change it. On the other hand, if it were possible to modify a rule in that way, then it would be reasonable.
A third possible outcome is that the Competition Commission is certain that a rule has, overall, an adverse effect but decides not to take action to remedy that adverse effect because the rule concerned also has positive consequences, not in terms of competition but because it gives rise to relevant customer benefits—a point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and my noble friend Lord Brennan—within the meaning of Part 4. These benefits would consist of services being provided, whether generally or to particular groups of customers, at a lower price—a point that was not made—to a higher professional standard, more innovatively or in a way which gives customers greater choice. Given the circumstances of the legal profession, and the kind of rules that might be under investigation, the concept of "customer benefits" may be found to be a more permissive one than the Article 81(3) exemption criteria were found to be in the Wouters case. That case related to rules of the Dutch Bar. I do not think that we can read across directly to the rules of the Bar Council.
Finally, the Competition Commission may simply decide that the rule restricts competition, that it has no redeeming features in terms of distinct pro-competitive effects, and that it either gives rise to no relevant customer benefits or that those that it does produce are not such as to outweigh the adverse effect that it has on competition. It will then be for the commission to consider what steps it is reasonable and practicable to take to remedy, mitigate or prevent the adverse effect on competition and any detrimental effects on customers.
60
Of the four possible outcomes, three are likely to leave the hypothetical professional rule intact, while only one is likely to threaten it. If the supporters of this amendment are correct in their assessment of the value of legal professional rules—it is a wider subject than I want to enter into now—this last outcome is all but inconceivable. In any event, we do not think that the likelihood of any of the above outcomes would be affected one way or the other by making this amendment.
I must apologise for the length of my response, but when dealing with lawyers we have to go into a certain amount of detail.
To summarise, the words,
"prevents, restricts and distorts competition",
have no special meaning here or in the Competition Act. The legal professional rules made by statute fall outside competition law altogether. The fate of rules which constitute decisions of associations of undertakings will be decided not by the Competition Commission but in accordance with Article 81. Any rules which do not fall into either of these two categories will be subject to remedies by the Competition Commission following a market investigation only if the Competition Commission determines that they do not in fact bring the benefits which their supporters claim for them. All of this would still be the case were the amendment to be accepted, and it would add nothing to the Bill. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
6 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I should express considerable gratitude to the Minister for his detailed response. It will cause a little reading late into the night and, heaven knows, might even induce a little sleep. It was an important speech. Clarity, so far as one can have it in this sphere, is very important.
The crucial point, as the Minister twice made clear, is that if this amendment were on the face of the Bill it would not change the Bill's effect. He refuses to accept the amendment solely because it is unnecessary; it is superfluous. That was precisely the position taken on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville. I apologise for referring earlier to the Committee stage; we discussed this matter on Report. That, at least, has been made abundantly clear by the exchanges that we have had in this House and that will be valuable and important.
The Minister made reference to Wouters, saying that the case related to the Dutch Bar and that there is no read across. In a literal sense, no, there is not; but the ratio of the decision is directly relevant to the interpretation of this Bill and of the Competition Act. It was to make clear that and similar points that we wanted this provision on the face of the Bill. It would have helped in its future interpretation. However, in the circumstances, I do not think that there is any question of dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

61
Clause 133 [Questions to be decided on market investigation references]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 178 [Review of decisions under Part 4]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 135, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) For this purpose "any person aggrieved" shall mean any person who is a subject of the reference or possible reference and who is directly affected by the decision."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30.
Although I am moving Amendment No. 29, it has been spoken to sufficiently both in Committee and on Report for me to remain silent on it at Third Reading. I misled the Minister with respect to the equivalent amendment under Part 3 of the Bill. I had meant to move it but to say that I should not speak to it for the same reasons as I shall not speak to it in relation to market investigations.
The Minister is aware that the intention of Amendment No. 30 is to provide for a substantive appeal on the merits from decisions of the Competition Commission rather than the more limited form of judicial review proposed in the Bill. In contrast with appeals under the Competition Act, this Bill provides only for a form of judicial review for decisions taken under the new market investigation powers.
This amendment has some similarities to the amendment that we tabled to Part 3 of the Bill in respect of mergers. However, in my submission, it is of even greater importance. The degree of initial consideration given to potential market investigation is much less than the degree of consideration given at an initial stage to proposed mergers.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, stated that, as with mergers, the Government continued to believe that a review based on judicial review was the right means of challenging decisions taken on market investigations. As with mergers, discretion is given to the authorities and I accept that in the Alconbury case suggests that, to a limited extent, material error could be grounds for intervention in judicial review cases. These arguments are to be found at col. 1528 of Hansard for 18th July.
However, in our view, the effect of the Bill as drafted is that in these cases, there will be only one examination—by the Compeitition Commission—with no other body empowered to check and confirm the facts as found or the conclusions drawn by it. The Office of Fair Trading will not have carried out any detailed review before making the reference to the commission: this is made clear by the draft guidelines on market investigation references published in July 2002. Under Clause 126, there is a relatively low threshold for making market investigation references: the OFT must have "reasonable grounds for suspecting"' that competition is prevented, restricted or distorted in some markets in the UK. In paragraph 3.7 of the draft guidelines the OFT states that it,
"will not attempt to make more than a preliminary analysis",
62
before making a reference. This is borne out by paragraphs 2.11 and 2.19.
As I have noted, the route taken by the OFT will have a fundamental impact on the rights of the parties concerned and, in particular, on their right of appeal. There is no logic in creating an expert competition appeal tribunal if significant competition cases are required to be heard by the High Court under judicial review—a refrain that the Minister has heard on more than one occasion during today's debates. Moreover, as I have noted in connection with mergers, we very much doubt that judicial review will give the courts sufficient jurisdiction to ensure that the evidence has been correctly analysed and the appropriate conclusions drawn.
The Minister's reaction on Report did not change. It was, in substance, the same as that in relation to merger references. Yet the arguments are even stronger in relation to market investigations than they are in relation to mergers, for two reasons. First, although no fine would be imposed, should the outcome of a review be adverse to a particular company the remedies which may be available are extensive and include divestment of a business. Secondly, in some cases, the OFT will have the choice between a Chapter 2 investigation and a market investigation with, as already observed, significant differences in relation to the rights of the parties concerned and in particular their right of appeal.
Moreover, as in the case of mergers, judicial review will not necessarily offer redress against areas in relation to, say, market definition, degree of competitiveness in a market and the many other aspects involved in an investigation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nine-tenths of what I could say now I said on the earlier amendments on mergers. The arguments for judicial review as opposed to a total rehearing are unchanged, and it would be unfair of me to subject the House to them again.
I ought to refer to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised today and in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Sainsbury; that is to say, the choice that the OFT might have between a market investigation and a Competition Act 1998 decision. I do not think that the noble Lord used the word bias, but he suggested that the OFT might be tempted to use one method rather than another because of the nature of the appeal proceedings. I think I understood the noble Lord correctly on that matter.
When the noble Lord raised the matter in Committee, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury sought to reassure him that no such bias would arise because the two different types of appeal were appropriate to two different types of decision. My noble friend wrote to the noble Lord on the 30th September with a copy of the guidelines that the OFT intends to publish on when it would pursue a market investigation and when a Competition Act decision. The clear message from the OFT is that it will always consider action under the Competition Act first, and that no account will be

63
taken of the relevant appeal mechanism. I hoped that that would satisfy the request for objective guidelines and that the noble Lord would be prepared—I think he used these words himself—to move away from this amendment.
I do not expect the noble Lord to be satisfied with the judicial review arguments in the more general sense, but we have had that argument and passed beyond that stage. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I think I made it clear in my initial observations that I regard the case against judicial review in market investigations to be even stronger than in the case of mergers.
That is partly for the reason on which the Minister has reassured me, for which I thank him. But, more importantly, it is also because the initial stage of the investigation of a potential market distortion is, in my submission, little short of derisory. There is only one real bite at the cherry, and that is insufficient.
Given the approach of the courts to commercial judicial review, I have little hope that the kind of review that will be offered to a complainant will look properly at the substance of the decision taken. It is important that the substance of decisions is looked at carefully. Quite apart from the issue of fairness, it will keep the investigator on his toes. For that reason, although I did not call a vote on mergers, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fowler, L.

Attlee, E.

Geddes, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Glentoran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V.

Biffen, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Blaker, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Colwyn, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kingsland, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Elles, B.

Lyell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Elton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Marlesford, L.

64

Masham of Ilton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Reay, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Rees, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Renton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Noakes, B.

Sharples, B.

Northbrook, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Northesk, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tugendhat,L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Waddington, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jordan, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bhatia, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borne, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brennan, L.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Radice, L.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rooker, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L. Sheldon, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B. Gavron, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gregson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grenfell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hogg of Curnbernauld, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Winston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 180 [Orders under Part 4]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 136, line 38, at end insert—
"(8A) If, apart from this subsection, an order made by the Secretary of State under section 152(3) would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 187 [Cartel offence]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 143, line 8, at end insert—
"(1A) "Dishonestly agrees" means, for the purposes of subsection (1), making an agreement knowing that it has one or more of the consequences set out in subsections (2) to (6) in breach of the prohibition contained in section 2 of the 1998 Act (the prohibition) and not meeting the criteria in section 9 of the 1998 Act (the criteria for individual and block exemptions), with the dishonest intention of causing detriment to consumers or customers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have debated the issue previously. I do not propose to set out the arguments in detail again. I shall merely say that there should be a clear definition of what constitutes a dishonest agreement.
Although we have attempted to define "dishonestly agrees" in the amendment, I hope the Minister understands that our prime purpose is to say that there ought to be a proper definition. If the Government can find a better one than ours, we should be very pleased to hear from them.
Clause 187 sets out the cartel offence. I can imagine defence counsel arguing that an agreement cannot be dishonest if it is exempted under UK competition law. That is a further reason why we need to provide a clear boundary for the criminal conduct. In doing so, surely the best way forward is to have linkage to the Competition Act in the definition.
In keeping with the principles of better regulation, the new offence should be set out in the clearest possible terms so that those affected can readily understand what they need to do, or not to do, to avoid committing a criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for—if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will allow me to steal the word—the telegraphic way in which he introduced the amendment. I do not want to go over the ground again.
The definition in the amendment is not workable. In fact. it is worse than unworkable, because the offence would be effectively unprosecutable. The definition includes a requirement to prove knowledge of a breach of the Competition Act 1998. It would be extremely
66
difficult, if not impossible, for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant who had concluded a cartel agreement did so knowing that he was breaching particular sections of the Competition Act 1998. Our objective of creating real deterrence against cartels would be undermined. I am utterly unconvinced by that part of the wording of the amendment.
I am also unconvinced because, just like the previous amendment on the subject, it includes the word "dishonest". In other words, it is circular. Trying to define dishonesty with the phrase,
"with the dishonest intention of causing detriment",
takes us to a chicken and egg situation. I cannot see how we can get out of that. That is not just a debating point. It would be a debating point in Committee or on Report, but this is Third Reading. The provisions have got to be right now and this is wrong.
There is a perfectly good definition in case law—the Ghosh test meaning of dishonesty. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did not go into any detail on that, I shall not do so either. It is all on the record. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, dealt with the Minister's point about the Ghosh case in the last debate, so I did not want to repeat that.
I greatly regret that the Minister is still unwilling to move on providing a proper definition in statute law. He relies solely on the definition in case law, which is not adequate. However, in the circumstances, as he is not willing to move, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 188 [Cartel offence: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 189 [Cartel offence: penalty and prosecution]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 35, I must tell the House that if it were to be agreed to, I could not call Amendment No. 36 owing to pre-emption.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 144, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, proceedings for an offence under section 183 may be instituted only by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office with the consent of the OFT."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I intend also to speak to the amendments in the group beginning with Amendment No. 33 and the group beginning with Amendment No. 35. As the Minister may be aware, the Public Bill Office drew to my attention the infelicities of some of the amendments in these groups. On mature reflection, I must say that I agree with the Public Bill Office. I am

67
therefore very happy not to move or speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 37 and 38. However, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 40.
This matter has been well rehearsed in Committee and on Report. The issue is the degree to which the OFT should become involved in criminal investigations. In the Government's response—of December 2001—to consultation, it was stated that they had decided that the SFO should be the lead prosecutor. The Minister is well aware that we agree with that. In our submission, however—and I believe that this view is shared by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches—the Bill does not reflect the Government's statement as it gives equal powers to the OFT and the SFO and also gives the OFT extensive criminal investigation powers.
The powers of the OFT to investigate civil infringements committed by companies under the Competition Act 1998 are very different from the criminal powers under this Bill. The rights of defence differ as well as the procedures. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has heard me say before, giving the OFT both sets of powers will lead to confusion, particularly as most criminal investigations are likely to stem from an initial investigation under the Competition Act. We question whether the checks and balances within, and the experience of, the OFT are sufficient to prevent confusion of the two roles.
Moreover, we do not accept the Government's view as stated in another place that an individual's trial would not be prejudiced by an adverse finding in respect of substantially the same matter against his employer company by, say, the Commission in Brussels under Article 81.
Nor do we think it appropriate that the chairman of the OFT, who has no experience of criminal investigations and prosecutions, should authorise surveillance on application by one of his officials under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Instead, if the OFT is to have surveillance powers, application should be made to an independent judicial authority such as the Attorney General or a High Court judge.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated that the SFO and the OFT would work together in both cartel investigations and also decisions to prosecute. However, the noble Lord went on to say that it will be the SFO who will undertake any prosecution in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government no doubt believe that this method will link the SFO's expertise in criminal prosecutions with the OFT's expertise in competition investigation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was anxious to underline that the Government do not expect a large number of prosecutions. He said that on 18th July 2002 at col. 1542 of the Official Report.
I moved this amendment again on 15th October 2002 on Report. Although the Government stated in Committee that they did not envisage that the OFT
68
would take on the role of prosecutor unless there was a change of circumstances in the future, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"The OFT would have to take time to develop the necessary capability and resource before it could take on a prosecution role".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 841.]
That implies that it is intended that the OFT will in due course become a prosecutor.
Although it was argued that the OFT could have, in effect, Chinese walls to separate the investigatory from the prosecutorial function, it is a fundamental principle that distinctions in roles are transparent and capable of being understood by those affected by them. Given that the internal structure of the OFT can be changed at the instance of the management of the OFT, there is no guarantee for individuals that the internal divisions will be maintained, or maintained at an appropriate level.
As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, pointed out (at col. 840 of the Official Report of 15th October 2002) the Government have resisted some amendments on the ground that they cover eventualities that might not arise. Here, the Government are specifically catering for a situation which they say is unlikely to arise.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for returning to this matter, but we feel that there is a real risk of confusion of powers. It is crucial on an issue affecting the fundamental rights of the citizen that the Government ensure that the procedures laid down in the Bill are as fair as they possibly can be. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not entirely clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said at the beginning whether he is speaking only to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 or speaking also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which are concerned with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. If it is the latter, I should reply to all four amendments.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I dealt with the group beginning with Amendment No. 33 and then spoke to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 39 and 40. I thought that I had made that clear. I said that I would speak to both groups because I noted that the group beginning with Amendment No. 33 includes Amendments Nos. 37 to 41. I think that that is consistent with what I said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the misunderstanding was my fault. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 and then go on to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
As has been said, Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are similar if not identical to earlier ones which have been identified. The core of the accusation, if I may put it that way, is that it is inappropriate for the Office of Fair Trading to have concurrent investigation and prosecution powers with the Serious Fraud Office. The Bill provides for the SFO and the OFT to prosecute the new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

69
but the expectation of the Government, the SFO and the OFT is that the SFO will carry out all prosecutions initially. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has correctly quoted me as saying something like that on Report. The SFO has the necessary resources and experience for the criminal prosecution of this type of case, having prosecuted other white-collar crime such as insider dealing for many years.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 seek to amend the arrangements for the prosecution of the new offence. The effect is the same in both cases. I presume that the reference in Amendment No. 35 to Clause 183 should be to 187 under the new numbering. Both amendments would make the SFO the sole prosecutor, but subject its prosecutorial role to the consent of the OFT. On the latter point, it would be neither workable nor appropriate to give the prosecution role to the SFO but to deny it the discretion to take the final decision on which cases to prosecute. Of course, the SFO will work closely with the OFT on cartel cases which look likely to lead to criminal prosecution, but the final decision will rightly be theirs.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, cast doubt on the kind of conflict that he claims might exist within the Office of Fair Trading as between its different responsibilities. The Director-General of Fair Trading commissioned an independent review to consider changes to OFT procedures required by the introduction of criminal sanction for cartels. That review was conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond, the former Treasury Solicitor, and Roy Penrose, Queen's Police Medal. They concluded that if the OFT were to prosecute,
"it would [also] be possible to ensure, by creating suitable internal structures, the separation of the investigatory from the prosecutorial function, thus complying with what has become known as 'the Phillips principle' ie: that those taking the legal decision to prosecute should be seen to be separate from and independent of the investigators".
That is not just their opinion. They talked to officials from Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, both of which have investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Therefore, I cannot accept that part of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
As I have said, the OFT role initially will be solely as investigator. However, the Bill allows the flexibility for the OFT to take on a prosecutorial role at some time in the future, if that becomes appropriate. That might be the case if the number of cartel prosecutions created a conflict with other SFO priorities, although I should emphasise that we do not expect a large number of prosecutions. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reflected correctly what I said on Report. Before it could take on a prosecution role, the OFT would have to develop the necessary capability and resource. None of this is a new element of government policy—we said all this in our response to consultation in December 2001. We said that the SFO should be the,
"lead prosecutor in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the OFT as an additional named prosecutor".
The clause as it stands is consistent with this policy. I hope that Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 will therefore not be pressed.
70
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. I could respond also to Amendment No. 41. These amendments concern powers of investigation. They would simply take out certain clauses. They would remove the power for the OFT to investigate the offence; the power to seek documents under notice; and any powers given to authorised persons. Some of the powers remain, but they are meaningless in the light of the proposed amendments. These powers are necessary to investigate the offence by the most appropriate investigatory body for such an offence—the Office of Fair Trading. These clauses authorise the OFT to investigate cartel offences and exercise important powers of investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under Clause 187 has been committed. The powers are intended to be tough and effective yet provide safeguards for those being investigated. They are broadly modelled on investigatory powers conferred on the Serious Fraud Office by the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The SFO is the intended prosecutor for this offence and may at a later stage of an investigation carry out some follow-up or additional investigation. For that reason it is necessary to align the OFT investigatory powers with those given to the SFO. The investigatory powers are restricted to this offence only; that is, cartels. The OFT will continue to investigate infringements of Chapters 1 and 2 of the Competition Act 1998 using powers specifically granted under that Act. Those powers are intended to facilitate civil investigations against undertakings.
The OFT can carry out an investigation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under Clause 187 has been committed. The powers of investigation cannot be used unless that threshold is met. Whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend on the information available. To remove those powers would make an investigation impossible and would render the new offence meaningless. For the new offence to carry a deterrent effect and to eliminate existing and future cartels appropriate powers of investigation are necessary. Those powers need to be accompanied by appropriate safeguards and also provide for the power to hold those responsible who obstruct justice and fail to comply with an investigation. The clauses provide the necessary powers of investigation, adequate safeguard and appropriate offences.
I did not say this when I referred to the definition of "dishonesty" earlier, but, frankly, if we had agreed to the definition of "dishonesty" proposed in the earlier amendments, we would have taken the heart out of the cartel provisions in Part 6 of the Bill. If we take away the investigatory powers provided in the Bill by removing the clauses we are discussing, we effectively take the heart out of the cartel part of the Bill. It is impossible to conceive how we could have an effective regime against hard-core cartels of the kind which are targeted in this part of the Bill unless we have the parts of the Bill which would be removed by these amendments.

71
My understanding has always been that both opposition parties supported the criminalisation of cartels. However, that is not shown in the amendments we are discussing. If the House were to accept them, we would lose this important part of the Bill and this important protection for the consumers of this country.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I have heard large parts of it before but that is not his fault. He has had to listen to large parts of my submissions on this subject as well.
If it were the intention of the Opposition to achieve the effect with respect to investigative powers that the Minister suggests, I would wholly agree with his conclusions about our inconsistency. But the Minister knows very well that that is not the purpose of these amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to make it absolutely clear that where criminal prosecutors are concerned, it is the SFO that is the responsible body and not the OFT.
The reason for that is as follows: to seek to give coterminous responsibilities, or to blend the two in some way or other, would give, in the case of a criminal prosecution, an unfair advantage to the prosecutor, and place the potential defendant at a serious disadvantage. These difficulties could be overcome in the ways that the Opposition have suggested in the course of the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. The Minister has to see our amendments in that context. They are certainly not wrecking amendments. Of course, we accept that the SFO would have to have full investigative powers in circumstances where it proposed to undertake a criminal prosecution.
However, the Minister is sticking by his guns. I am not, on balance, inclined to take the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Extradition]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 191 [Investigation of offences under section 187]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 192 [Powers when conducting an investigation]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 194 [Exercise of powers by authorised person]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 198 [Surveillance powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Clause 203 [Disqualification]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 208 [Reform of community competition law]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 158, line 3, leave out "or transitional" and insert " transitory, transitional or saving"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 242 [Overseas disclosures]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 252 [Liquidator's powers]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 187, line 6, at end insert—
"3B. Power to bring or defend any action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company"
(2) Paragraph 4 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for returning to this matter. On Report he will have heard me say that I would not return to it; but on reading Hansard I noted that the Minister drew my attention to the Lewis case. As soon as I reflected on the point, I realised that there had been some misunderstanding between the noble Lord and myself about the basis upon which the amendment was tabled on Report. Therefore, I return to it now.
On Report, I proposed an amendment that would have had the effect that a liquidator would need the sanction of the court, or the liquidation committee, to take legal proceedings under Sections 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a compulsory liquidation; but that there would be no such need in a creditors' voluntary liquidation.
The reason behind that amendment was that Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 presently provides that a liquidator has power to bring or to defend any action or other legal proceedings in the name of, and on behalf of, a company and must seek the sanction for doing so in a compulsory liquidation, but not in a voluntary liquidation. My view was that proceedings under Sections 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423 of the Insolvency Act should be treated in exactly the same way.
The clause, as presently drafted, makes the distinction between proceedings in the name of, and on behalf of, the company, on the one hand, and proceedings under Sections 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423, in the name of the liquidator, on the other. The former do not require any sanction in a voluntary liquidation; but the latter would require sanction in a voluntary liquidation. I can see no rationale whatever for the distinction. Therefore, I have tabled an amendment putting all such proceedings on an equal footing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, attempted to answer my amendment but, through no fault of his own, and doubtless because of the inept way in which I put the point, he missed the point. He thought that my amendment was connected with the Lewis case, otherwise known as Floor Fourteen. Although that case has some relevance to this clause and to my amendment, it is more concerned with the costs and

73
expenses of proceedings under the various sections rather than the actual power to proceed. However, in answering me on Report, the Minister said:
"We would not want any"
funds for unsecured creditors,
"to be used by the liquidator in pursuing legal action unless the creditors approve. After all, it is a commercial decision for the creditors to choose between, say, a five pence in the pound dividend payable now, or whether to allow the liquidator to pursue a claim which may result in a 50 pence in the pound dividend at a later stage".—[Official Report, 21/10/02; col. 1131.]
I have thought carefully about what the noble Lord said. His arguments are compelling not just as regards proceedings under Sections 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423, but also about proceedings in the name of the company. The same point applies to both kinds of proceedings. Funds should not be used by the liquidator in pursuing legal action, be it under the relevant sections or in the name of the company, unless the creditors approve. That is a commercial decision for the creditors in both cases.
Therefore, on this occasion, I have tabled a different amendment. This shows the value of debate. The effect of my amendment is to put proceedings in the name of the company on exactly the same footing as proceedings under these various sections. In all such proceedings, the liquidator will need the sanction of the court or of the liquidation committee in a compulsory liquidation; and the sanction of the court, the liquidation committee or the company's creditors in a voluntary liquidation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabling an amendment when he said he would not. That is his privilege. Unless I misunderstand him totally, I am puzzled to find him tabling an amendment that is the exact reversal of that tabled on Report. I want to ensure that I understand him correctly.
The present position is that liquidators in compulsory liquidations need the sanction of court or creditors prior to defending or bringing actions in the name of or on behalf of the company. The previous amendments were tabled to amend this section and to make all antecedent recoveries pursuable by voluntary liquidator without sanction as is the situation with bringing and defending all other legal actions at present.
This amendment would mean that liquidators in voluntary liquidation must also obtain sanction for such actions. We have provided that for antecedent recovery action in respect of fraudulent or wrongful trading, preferences, transactions at under value and transactions defrauding creditors, and those actions are not in the name of or on behalf of the company, in all liquidations sanction will be required.
We have heard no evidence from insolvency practitioners or creditors or other interested parties that they feel that there is a problem with not having to have sanction to bring or to defend legal proceedings in the name of the company. As things stand in the Bill a voluntary liquidator will have to have sanction to pursue proceedings where they are
74
seeking to restore the company to the position it would be in if some kind of wrongdoing had not taken place, but not to bring or to defend other legal action. Other legal proceedings are not analogous to the legal actions that the Bill proposes should require sanction.
The reason that sanction should be sought by a voluntary liquidator regarding an antecedent recovery action—for example, seeking to impugn a prior transaction as a transaction at an undervalue—is that this is an action that seeks to restore the company back to the position it should be in, and this is a decision which may use up available funds. The creditors should have the power to decide whether they wish to pursue the action in the hope of receiving a larger dividend than they would receive if no remedy was sought.
I caught a glimmer of that in what otherwise was to me a rather confusing speech. I am sure that when I read it the pure, pristine logic will become apparent. I do not believe that this change is any more desirable than that proposed on Report.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding so sportingly to an amendment that has first appeared at Third Reading. It would be churlish of me, having given the Minister an initial glance, to press the matter to a vote. This may be a matter to return to in the course of fresh legislation somewhere down the road. Meanwhile. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 255 [Duration of. bankruptcy]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 188, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unless any noble Lord has an objection, in moving Amendment No. 48, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53. The amendments relate to the significant worries which have been raised by these Benches about the bankruptcy provisions.
A similar amendment to Amendment No. 48 was tabled in Committee and was the subject of extensive debate on Report. It is disappointing that the Government have not listened to the widespread and real worries raised in connection with the current provision in the Bill which would effectively allow a bankrupt to be discharged within months or, as I understand an official in the noble Lord's department estimated, eight weeks of his bankruptcy.
On Report, we had an extensive debate over the compelling research published by the Centre for Economic and Business Research which predicted that there could be an increase in the number of bankruptcies of over 50 per cent as a result of the proposed changes in legislation. The Minister was not sympathetic to that view. One of the Government's main arguments in favour of a much reduced bankruptcy period is that it would be countered by the introduction of a tougher regime of bankruptcy

75
restriction orders designed to apply to those whose conduct has been irresponsible, reckless or otherwise culpable. However, it appears that the criteria listed as grounds for making such restriction orders set out in Schedule 20 are aimed almost exclusively at business bankrupts. It is difficult to understand how they could apply to consumers. It is clear that in the Government's attempt, which we support, to encourage a more entrepreneurial business culture, they have given virtually no consideration to how those reforms will impact on consumers and will be perceived, in particular by those consumers who abuse the system.
There is a clear risk that many, in particular those with little to lose from bankruptcy, will see the possibility of getting out of bankruptcy in a matter of months or weeks as an easy option. That will surely appeal to many consumers struggling with credit card debts. There is still a question mark over student loans. The position has not been properly clarified. Many of those consumers have few assets and would find it relatively painless and appealing to give up the struggle to repay debt and be free to start again within a few weeks. Those actions will come at a huge cost to both the borrowing and lending communities.
The Minister's response was to ask: if we believe that, why are we not coming forward with stronger amendments? On reflection, perhaps we should have gone further. But that is not an argument for rejecting this group of amendments. They preserve the spirit and aims of the Bill but seek to limit abuse and the negative effects that will surely follow if the Government do not move.
In Amendment No. 53, as a last resort we have now said to the Government "If you believe so much in what you set out in the legislation, then you should at least have a proper investigation". One of the criticisms put forward by the Minister of the compelling research published by the Centre for Economic and Business Research—I understand that the Minister's officials have had further discussions over that research—was that they were not persuaded by it. But the Government have not had independent research of their own. They are proceeding with this important legislation when there has been little consultation over the effect of this part of the Bill and little research—none by the Government—into its effects.
New Section 289 is contradictory. It imposes on the Official Receiver a duty to carry out an investigation of the bankrupt's affairs. However, in subsection (2) it permits the Official Receiver to decide for himself that it is not necessary to comply with that duty.
Instead of firing slings and arrows of outrageous insults across the Chamber, perhaps the answer is for the Minister to say, "Yes, support us on this because we believe that we are right. But we shall have a full and independent investigation"—as is proposed in Amendment No. 53—"a rolling study of the effects of the personal insolvency aspects of the legislation following the third anniversary of this Act coming into
76
force". That is surely a reasonable approach. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support the amendment and Amendment No. 53. At Second Reading, I said that I was amazed by the contents and philosophy underlying this mammoth Bill. I conjectured that had it been brought forward in the latter days of the former Conservative administration, those Benches which are now the Government Benches would have been in uproar.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, properly and fairly describes some of the defects of the bankruptcy provisions. Perhaps I may briefly allude to my 26-year stint as the "legal eagle" on the Jimmy Young Show. Nothing so enrages the so-called ordinary citizen as some of the effects of bankruptcies and liquidations. The circumstances often cause a local scandal. I would not have reduced the discharge period to a year.
Amendment No. 48 seeks to exclude subsection (2) of new Section 279. That could work in a bizarre way. The Official Receiver can file with the court a notice saying that his investigation is unnecessary or has been concluded. In that event, the bankrupt is discharged when the notice is served. That seems an extraordinarily advantageous arrangement. How quickly the investigation is dealt with will depend on how many clerks serve in the Official Receiver's office. How quickly or slowly the bureaucrats move on the matter seems an inadequate basis on which to determine the period during which a person is bankrupt. It gives an advantage to bankrupts whose affairs are simple. There may be a single creditor. For example, Nick Leeson has a single creditor for £670 million called Barings Bank. Mr Young had a single creditor for about £700 million: Morgan Grenfell. The conduct of his affairs could be dealt with quickly, perhaps within a fortnight, with a notice saying, "Over and done with", and he is free. It is a hopelessly inadequate method of dealing with a section of our law which has an element of public disapprobation attached to it.
When fundamentally changing such a basic aspect of business and personal life, at the very least it must make good sense to set up a commission, as anticipated in Amendment No. 53. I hope that the Government believe that there is good sense in doing so. It will be an opportunity for us all to take stock of the changes in a more informed way. I hope that the Government will accept that proposal and the other amendments in the group.
Finally, the Bill's changes in law as a whole are designed to make our entrepreneurial culture even more entrepreneurial. I begin to wonder whether Mr Meacher—and, I understand, Mr Bercow—in the other place may be more in tune with public concern about not the lack of entrepreneurialism but the

77
decline in probity, trust, honesty and public confidence in our life. All of the amendments would tilt the scales back a little in that direction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall attempt to deal with this rather disparate group of amendments. I do not object to them being grouped together; do not get me wrong.
Amendment No. 48 seeks to remove the provision that will allow bankrupts to be discharged within one year after the date of bankruptcy where the official receiver has concluded that further investigation of the conduct and affairs of the bankrupt is unnecessary. We have heard suggestions from the Opposition—we heard them again today—and representatives from the credit industry that the early discharge provisions will lead to an increase in the number of bankruptcies. That was referred to—not at length—by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he moved the amendment. He mentioned the CEBR research. I shall say a little about that later.
Other countries that have reduced their discharge periods are often cited as examples of what will happen. We took those accusations very seriously because if it had been true—if the Opposition had been convinced that there would be anything like a 50 per cent increase in the number of bankruptcies as a result of the provisions of the Bill—the Opposition would have wished, I should have thought, to oppose very many more of the provisions on bankruptcy than they have done. The same is also true of us. If we thought for a split second that there would be anything like a 50 per cent increase in bankruptcies as a result of the Bill, we should not have put forward this legislation. That is not an intended, expected or even possible result; it is certainly not likely. When the matter was raised for the first time—on Report last week—we took it very seriously. We had further meetings with representatives of lending organisations, including the Maryland Bank of North America, which commissioned the research that has been quoted. We have not in any way neglected the arguments that were advanced.
Some people said during the passage of the Bill and in the press—the Financial Times has reported this view on a number of occasions in the past few days—that the Government's desire to reduce the stigma of bankruptcy will be seen as making bankruptcy a soft option or a rogues' charter. I am not sure who used that phrase; was it the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? I have no hesitation in repeating the Government's position, which we have put most strenuously here and in the other place. Even after the Bill is implemented bankruptcy will not be a soft option. We want to reduce the stigma of bankruptcy for those who have failed through no fault of their own, but in so doing we would not want to relieve them of the consequences of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy and its consequences are the option of last resort for almost everybody and they should remain so.
Let me repeat the consequences on somebody who becomes bankrupt: I refer to both business and consumer bankrupts. They lose their assets. Any assets
78
that the bankrupt has at the date of the bankruptcy order will vest in the trustee, whether or not they are disclosed to the trustee. They remain vested in the trustee even after discharge. They lose a large part of their surplus future income. The official receiver or trustee will ensure that where bankrupts have surplus income beyond that which is needed to meet their and their families' reasonable domestic needs, they will be expected to make contributions towards their debts for three years, notwithstanding discharge. That is why I resist the emphasis that has been placed, today and last week, on the period of discharge. Discharge is not the only consideration.
The Bill will introduce income payments agreements as an out-of-court route to secure such payments where the bankrupt consents. If the bankrupt does not consent, an income payments order can be sought. Their credit records are severely affected. Details of the bankruptcy will continue to be advertised in newspapers and the London Gazette. Details of the bankruptcy order, and any subsequent bankruptcy restrictions order, will be recorded on the publicly available individual insolvency register and will also be reflected on the bankrupt's credit record. That will severely affect their ability to obtain credit in the future. When one thinks of how difficult it is for someone who has had a Crown Court judgment against them to obtain credit, imagine how much more difficult it will be for anyone who has been bankrupt, even if the discharge is of a year or less than a year.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the difference between the theory, which he has perfectly correctly read out, and the practice on the ground, in terms of disabilities and so on, is very wide indeed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. I had not finished my response.
Bankrupts risk losing their home. If a bankrupt owns or jointly owns an interest in a property, that interest falls within the bankruptcy estate and the trustee will seek to realise any equity. That can be done up to three years after the bankruptcy, irrespective of discharge. The bankruptcy will also make it very difficult to obtain a mortgage in the future. They could lose their job. The very fact that they are made bankrupt could lead to their dismissal; for example, being bankrupt can lead to one's being excluded from this House.
I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said about the differences between the theory and what is on the ground. He did not present relevant arguments; but we cannot have that debate across the Chamber now. However, if I accept, for the sake of argument, what he said, that still has nothing to do with the period before discharge. That is the position.
I have been describing the position under current law, and it will not change. We are also retaining the current low exemption levels for assets and ensuring that in a bankruptcy or an individual voluntary

79
arrangement, all of a debtor's assets can be taken into account, including future income. In fact, by introducing income payments agreements, we are providing an out-of-court route that will be quicker and more easily varied than the current system. An individual can enter into an individual voluntary arrangement only with the agreement of the creditors.
We are strengthening the bankruptcy regime to deal with the irresponsible or reckless by introducing the bankruptcy restrictions order regime. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the grounds listed in Schedule 20 for a bankruptcy restriction order, which he says are geared towards business, are not exhaustive; they mean that the courts can consider any misconduct. There are also grounds that could be used by consumers. Subparagraphs (h), (i), (j) and (m) could equally apply to consumers.
If the culpable are under any illusions that they will be able to use bankruptcy as a way to get in, get rid of their debts, and get out, they are mistaken. As I said, bankruptcy restrictions orders will impact on consumer and business bankrupts. The bankruptcy restrictions order regime will mean that instead of experiencing the effects of bankruptcy for three years, as is now the case, they could potentially experience most of those effects for up to 15 years. Those effects will include being unable to incur credit over the prescribed amount—it is currently £250—without disclosing their status and being unable to act as a director of a limited company. The fact of their bankruptcy restrictions order will be recorded on a freely available public register. That will no doubt be reflected on their credit record. Under those circumstances, can anyone seriously believe that bankruptcy is a soft option and that there will be a significant increase in the number of bankruptcies as a result of the changes?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the CEBR research. I do not want to give a full response but I stress that we took that criticism very seriously. Last week, we commissioned independent research into the significant part; that is, section 6 of the CEBR research. We commissioned it from Professor John Van Reenen of the department of economics at University College, London. The professor concluded that,
"the econometric work contained in Section 6 is so seriously flawed that it should not in any way be relied upon to judge the impact of the Enterprise Bill on personal bankruptcies".
I could continue on that theme, but I shall not do so because I believe the point has now been fairly made.
We have heard about the potential cost to the credit industry. We have listened most carefully to what has been said and have considered the wide range of factors that impact on a debtor's decision to enter bankruptcy. In particular, we have listened to the concerns expressed over early discharge. We have taken account of the views expressed both during the consultation and the parliamentary process. We have made changes to the proposed discharge period from the original six months to 12 months. We were only too
80
willing to accept sensible suggestions to improve the bankruptcy proceedings provisions. We did so by way of government amendments.
I repeat: we do not expect all bankrupts to be discharged before the automatic 12-month period. It will happen only in those cases where the bankrupt was not at fault, where he has co-operated with the Official Receiver, where he poses no risk to the public or commercial community, and where all the investigative and administrative matters have been completed. Further, creditors will have the opportunity to object to such early discharge; indeed, we are committed to talking to interested parties on the draft rules. All this serves to convince us that the measures we propose to reduce the discharge period are more than balanced by our proposals for dealing with culpable bankrupts and for ensuring that those who can pay, do pay.
I am sorry that I have taken so long with my response, but clearly we are discussing one of the most important matters associated with this Bill. I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 53. I wish to comment on the way in which we propose to evaluate, monitor, and report on our proceedings. I have sympathy with the concept that new legislation should be monitored and evaluated. In fact, for many years I earned my living by doing just that for government. The Government have a manifesto commitment to more systematic reviews of major pieces of legislation. We are currently considering how best to achieve that aim.
As part of that process, we are committed to reviewing the Enterprise Bill not after three years, as Amendment No. 53 suggests, but within three years of implementation. In paragraph 11.2 of the regulatory impact assessment, we made it clear that the effectiveness of the new legislation will be monitored after it has been in force for a period of three years. I improved on that a short time ago by saying that that would be "within" three years of the Bill's implementation.
Therefore, without any hesitation, I can give the House a commitment that the substance of Amendment No. 53 can and will be implemented without any need for the matter to be on the face of the Bill. Indeed, it could not be on the face of the Bill in the form set out in Amendment No. 53. I am not at all sure that a "rolling study" is the correct definition of what needs to be done. Similarly, I am not at all sure that the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (c)—with an "and" in between them—are the only considerations that apply. I do not know whether much of the amendment's wording would be appropriate. However, I am sure that we can carry out a review within a period that is no worse than the time-scale proposed in the amendment. That review will cover the points that I know the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to cover in Amendment No. 53. With that assurance, I hope that none of these amendments will be pursued.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I take note of the Minister's response to these amendments, especially the commitment that he would like to make about the commissioning of further research. There is widespread concern, which I recognise the noble Lord does not share, about the effects of these provisions—the lack of independent research, and the lack of any real consideration of the effect on consumer bankruptcies.
I note that the Minister has some contextual concerns about the amendment, but it is perfectly possible for him to seek to amend the proposed new clause in the other place should be choose to press his concern about the wording. However, such is the level of concern that I feel I must press Amendment No. 53. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 257 [Investigation by official receiver]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 271, insert the following new clause—
"COMMISSION OF BODY TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF ACT

(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a reputable and appropriate qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effects of the personal insolvency aspects of this Act in sections 255 to 271 and Schedules 19 to 23 on—

(a) numbers of personal bankrupts;

(b) cost to unsecured lenders; and

(c) effect on lending rates and on access to credit.

(2) Following the third anniversary of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall arrange for an annual report of the findings of the study commissioned in accordance with subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
7.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Geddes, L.

Attlee, E.

Glentoran, L.

Barker, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Byford, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hooson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

King of Bridgwater, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kingsland, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Falkland, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Fearn, L.

Liverpool, E.

82

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Plumb, L.

Luke, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lyell, L.

Razzall, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Renfrew of Kairnsthorn, L.

Rennard, L.

Maddock, B.

Renton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Roper, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Moynihan, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Newby, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Noakes, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Waddington, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Islwyn, L.

Barnett, L.

Jordan, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bhatia, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blease, L.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Christopher, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pendry, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Radice, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Elder, L.

Richard, L. Sawyer, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Simon, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gale, B. Gavron, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turnberg, L.

Goudie, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grenfell, L.

Whitaker, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Haskel, L.

Hayman, B.

Winston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.35 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Tribunal: procedure]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 54 to 56:
Page 211, line 30, leave out from second "the" to end of line and insert "direction may be enforced as if it"
Page 214, line 3, at end insert "or
"(ii) such recovery or inspection of documents as might be ordered by a sheriff;"
Page 214, line 20, leave out from "than" to "of' in line 21 and insert "proceedings under section 47A or 47B"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Proceedings under Part 1 of the 1998 Act]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 57:
Page 217, line 8, after "or" insert "as to".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 220, line 31, at end insert—
"(2) This paragraph is without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to provide in regulations made under paragraph 1 above for extensions of the four month period; and, if any such provision is made in such regulations, the provision which is to be made in regulations under paragraph 1 above by virtue of subparagraph (1) above or paragraph 6 below may be adjusted accordingly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Schedule BI to Insolvency Act 1986]:
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 286, line 22, leave out "harm" and insert "prejudice"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the argument about "harm" or "prejudice". In relation to these specific amendments, on Report the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested that there was no real distinction between the terms "harm" and "prejudice" and that he preferred the word "harm" as part of his solo drive to simplify legal language.
I can only reiterate that use of the term "harm" instead of "prejudice" will cause confusion and difficulty for both practitioners and courts. If they try to interpret how to apply the word "harm" in this new context, there will be no case law whatever to guide them. Will the Minister accept that I strongly support his drive for simplified language but that, in this case, the use of the word "prejudice" is far from complicated or archaic?
I understand that the noble Lord's officials are reviewing this issue with the assistance of parliamentary counsel. Therefore, I hope that he will accept this relatively simple amendment and at least give it proper consideration. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know who told the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we are
84
reviewing the matter with parliamentary counsel. Such matters are usually treated with the utmost confidentiality. But now that he has blown the gaff, so to speak, I can tell him that we have reviewed the matter with parliamentary counsel, who do not want us to change the word "harm".
This is not a solo campaign to update legal language; it is a campaign led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I wish that he had stayed for a few minutes to support me but, in the circumstances, I shall have to do it by myself.
Of course, there are circumstances in which one has to use special words for legal purposes. But the word "prejudice" has two totally different meanings. It has one meaning in common language, such as in the term "racial prejudice" or other forms of prejudice of that kind, and it has a totally different legal meaning, as in "without prejudice". For this purpose, "harm" means the same as "prejudice".
I said it before; I say it again; and I say it in full knowledge of the consequences of the judgment in Pepper v Hart. I have been advised, and I see no reason to doubt, that there is no distinction between "harm" and "prejudice". But until we start to use this and other more up-to-date words and phrases, there will be no opportunity for case law to attach and develop. "Harm" is a commonly used word which is far more likely to be understood not only by the courts and practitioners, for whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is concerned, but by the professional advisers and, above all, by the public. I resist the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I must rise to defend the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from the strictures of the government Deputy Chief Whip, who criticised the fact that he did not stay or daily for a few moments. I know that the noble and learned Lord will have extensive further duties to perform and I believe that the noble Lord was being very unfair. Otherwise, I accept his guidance. I am very grateful for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 68 not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Schedule 2A to Insolvency Act 1986]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 316, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) it involves the grant of a security interest by a party to the arrangement to another party to the arrangement (whether as principal, agent or trustee), or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 70 was debated in Committee and on Report, and Amendments Nos. 69 and 71 are in the alternative and designed to achieve a similar aim. On Report, I had the opportunity to emphasise the great significance of this amendment for the structured finance market in the United Kingdom. The non-political, technical and, I would contend, sensible nature of the amendments makes it very difficult to understand why the Government should be so opposed to them. However,

85
the Minister suggested on Report that if a further meeting was necessary to discuss this or similar amendments with city lawyers, one could be held.
I understand that last week such a meeting was held between members of the City of London Law Society and officials within the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the scope and reasoning behind these amendments. I understand that the meeting was very helpful to all sides, with the result that progress appears to have been made. I hope that the Government can give some reassurance in response to these amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 69 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 70 by reason of preemption.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling these amendments so that I have an opportunity to explain the Government's intentions. I am also grateful to the City of London Law Society for being able to meet, at short notice, with officials to discuss the matter, as the noble Lord said.
On further clarification from the City of London Law Society it is clear that its concern lies in the fact that while paragraph 1(1)(a) currently provides an exemption for traditional capital market structures, there are in fact transactions at large in the market which utilise other structures, which will not be exempt.
We should like the opportunity to reflect further on the issues raised and to take soundings from other interested parties for example, investment bankers—who have so far remained silent. We shall need to consider whether a broader definition of a capital market arrangement would open up the possibility of "normal corporate lending" being able to mould itself into a capital market arrangement. Also we need to consider the impact of such an amendment on other legislation; specifically, the new moratorium company voluntary arrangement procedure introduced by Section 1 of the Insolvency Act 2000, which includes the same wording for this provision.
We believe that further consideration is needed on this matter and that it would not be appropriate to rush through this amendment at this late stage. We have the power in Clause 249 to make an amendment if it is deemed appropriate following the further consideration I have outlined. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that positive response and reassurance. I readily join him in thanking those who have done so much hard work in such a short time on this important issue. I accept his assurances.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and his colleagues for having sought with these Benches to try and improve the wording of the
86
Bill. Naturally we are hopeful that the amendments made in this place will not be challenged in another place. These may be my final words on the Enterprise Bill; therefore I want to thank the noble Lord. In view of the comments he has made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Schedule 20 [Schedule 4A to Insolvency Act 1986]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Schedule 24 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 340, line 43, at end insert—
"Supplementary
22 Any provision made by any of paragraphs 1 to 21 shall not apply if, and to the extent that, an order under section 275(2) makes alternative provision or provides for it not to apply."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should respond to the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I should have done so on moving an amendment in order to avoid debate. I am grateful to him and all other colleagues who have taken part in the deliberations on the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Heritage Assets
7.45 p.m.
Lord Freybergrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on classification, publication, valuation, retention and disposal of antique and heritage assets (operational and non-operational) held by government departments, and also those same items held outside the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before getting started, I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said last Thursday. He said how fortunate we are to have a Minister in the form of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He has been speaking this afternoon and has continued to do so this evening.
The recent concern over the sale of Privy Council silver on 29th October 2001 has drawn attention to the huge quantity of antiques and heritage items owned by the various government departments. Subsequent Written Questions have highlighted their lack of classification and curatorial care, along with the absence of proper and responsible procedures for selling or disposing of them.

87
Equally worrying, a new 6 per cent capital charge on every asset held by government departments is due to be levied from January 2003, which can only have the effect of encouraging departments to get rid of more valuable objects—which often means historic—for instant economic relief rather than as a properly thought-out decision. Unless this policy is reversed or these effects ameliorated, this change in accounting procedures is likely to have a destructive effect.
Since taking an interest in this subject, I have come up against a series of related problems. First, there is poor and inconsistent knowledge as to each department's assets; some possess detailed lists while others appear to have only a general idea. This inevitably raises the question of what has been disposed of already.
Secondly, for many years now there has been no curatorial input for thousands of often important works of art, raising questions about both condition and documentation. And finally, there is a lack of guidelines, both for classification which determines whether an item is subject to the capital charge or whether it can be sold—and for disposal of historic assets. Who, for example, is responsible for identifying objects to be sold? And why up until now have there been no cross-departmental guidelines on this matter? Can the Minister confirm that new guidelines are now in place, and can he explain what they are?
Although there is a cultural property unit at the DCMS, this was not, I believe, consulted when the Treasury decided to dispose of its silver. Similarly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last month announced in a Written Answer that it is disposing of,
"a small number of antique and reproduction pieces … [that] … are not considered to be historically important to the FCO".—[Official Report, 24/9/02; col. WA179.]
Those will be replaced with modern furniture, a potentially costly exercise. But who has decided that they are not historically important to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? One hopes it is not the same people who decided that the Treasury silver was not historically important because it was not of the same stature as,
"Stonehenge and Nelson's Column".
This was the Answer I was given to a Written Question on 23rd July 2002.
In fact, I believe that the DCMS's cultural property unit is the right sort of body to consult when it comes to the first stage of disposing of antique or heritage assets. It would be in a position to approach the relevant expert, who could make a transparent assessment of the object's importance in a historical context. Is such a consultation part of the new guidelines?
Since 1997, departments have been encouraged to get rid of so-called "surplus" assets to such a degree that in 1999-2000 alone some £1.3 billion was raised. I am not qualified to assess the prudence of individual sales of buildings and land, but I do know that getting rid of the historic, cultural and political assets owned by departments of state will diminish them and that
88
once lost they can never be replaced. Sometimes works of art are not important but are historically appropriate and have become part of the fabric of the building. It seems irresponsible to get rid of these things for no real reason other than to meet the criteria of an accounting manual.
The danger of imposing the capital charge is that departments may be rushed into selling assets without proper assessment. In addition, the demand by resource accounting and budgeting that every asset be valued will impose an enormous burden on departments, rather than helping to save money—the reason that the capital charge was levied in the first place.
I should explain that works of art in government departments are classified into three types. The first two are operational and non-operational heritage assets, which are recognised as having special cultural or historical associations, and are not lightly disposed of, which range from tables and chairs in everyday use—operational assets—to paintings and sculptures: non-operational assets. The third category is antiques, which are not considered to have special cultural or historical associations with the relevant departments.
Of the three types, only non-operational heritage assets can be exempt from the new charge—and only if they meet the resource accounting manual's definition of a heritage asset. The department can assert that valuing them would be too costly. But here comes the arbitrary bit; namely, how the classification is made. At present, that is in the hands of the department itself. A Written Answer revealed that,
"the entity holding the asset"—
the department—
"is solely competent to decide which are heritage assets … they are free, but not obliged, to seek expert independent advice".—[Official Report, 11/4/02; WA114.]
Worryingly, there is no consistency between departments about what constitutes a heritage asset and what is simply an antique. Items of historical value among the Privy Council silver, such as the 12 candlesticks valued at £600,000 and a set of three inkstands valued at £450,000 and made especially for the Privy Council in the reign of William of Orange, were categorised simply as antiques by the Treasury, whereas an apparently undistinguished mid-19th century oak bookcase in the Supreme Court Circuit Office, valued at £1,410, is treated as a heritage asset by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Surely, the only reason for classifying historically important works of silver as antiques would be to facilitate a sale?
The sale of the Treasury silver is still baffling. Was the Treasury trying to set a good example in realising valuable but non-operational assets? If so, why was it so secretive about the sale? By shying away from publicity, it risked selling the silver at a far lower rate than it merited. In fact, had the media not alerted us to it, would any of us have known anything about it at all?
Worryingly, in that instance, the Treasury chose as its expert advisers and valuers the saleroom that was later contracted to sell the silver. That strikes me as a

89
conflict of interest. To prevent such a fiasco ever happening again, it is imperative that a proper set of guidelines be laid down. Alas, the continuing saga of the Treasury silver confirms that something is wrong with the system. The charge will only add to the confusion.
On 12th July, it was announced that the Treasury had agreed to transfer the items concerned—the silver withdrawn from auction—to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Although the DCMS is loaning the silver to the Victoria and Albert Museum, it will still be charged £6,000 per year because the silver has not been reclassified as a non-operational heritage asset. In other words, even objects loaned to museums are now subject to the capital charge. Meanwhile, the Treasury will be required to pay £72,000 a year—6 per cent of £1.2 million—to retain the rest of its silver collection.
The only satisfactory solution would be for all heritage assets to be permanently exempt from the charge and for antiques to be exempt to allow a proper assessment to be made of what departments hold. For an inventory to have any validity, it must compiled by an independent expert. Precedents already exist in resource accounting and budget's current exemptions: no assets that have been donated are liable for the charge, nor are national museums and gallery collections nor certain other non-operational heritage assets. Exemption from the capital charge would not only remove a major incentive for departments to dispose of their heritage objects, it would bring the treatment of their works of art into line with those held in collections of national museums and galleries.
The absence of a useful cross-departmental policy on works of art is a comparatively new problem. Until the late 1980s, government buildings came under the control of the Department of the Environment, while their furnishings were looked after by Crown Suppliers. Cleaning contracts required specification on how works of art were to be treated. However, Crown Suppliers was disbanded under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the task of dealing with furnishing in departments fell to accommodation officers, who were expected to buy in outside expertise and services as required. Contracts respecting works of art should be reinstated.
Professional curators look after everything historic in the Palace of Westminster and in the Government Art Collection, but no similar provision exists to oversee the rest of the Government's heritage objects. Will the Government consider extending the remit of the Government Art Collection, where specialist expertise and inventories already exist? The Government Art Collection works across all departments and has relevant experience in tracking, conserving and maintaining works. It would be relatively straightforward to add additional applied art posts.
Until that expertise is in place, departments will remain unable to look after their assets in an appropriate way, however good their intentions. I urge the Government to put their house in order so that
90
future generations can enjoy some of the good things that previous generations of government have passed down to us.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, for initiating this short debate. I agree with every word he said. I also congratulate him, together with the National Art Collections Fund and the Silver Trust, on ensuring that that silver has been saved. There was a public outcry that has made the Government think twice, but we face great problems in future, which I shall endeavour briefly to describe.
The Privy Council silver, which the Treasury was going to sell at Bonhams, is, happily, now on longterm loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Treasury has transferred the silver to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I shall have more to say about that later. It was important 17th century silver, which is rare by any account, but which also carried the royal arms of William and Mary and Queen Anne. The silver is of heritage value and belongs to the nation, not to the Treasury. The Treasury had no business selling it without asking anyone.
Why did the Treasury want to sell? It was hoist with its own petard, because that was the result of its own accounting scheme, called resource accounting and budgeting. That means that departments must pay a capital charge of 6 per cent on every asset that they hold. That insensitive scheme requires every public asset to pay its way. No account is taken of the life-enhancing value of a work of art. Everything must he viewed in cold accounting terms.
The decision to transfer the silver to the DCMS will cost that department £6,000 a year. Departments must surely have every inducement to sell to escape that tax. What will happen if many more assets are transferred to the DCMS, which will have to pay enormous sums in tax? I understand that the Treasury retains silver that has been valued at £72,000. It will have to pay 6 per cent of that to itself, which is ridiculous.
I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is to reply; it will be like old times. However, I must ask him who is responsible for identifying objects to be sold? Who decides whether an object is of heritage value or is an antique? Objects of heritage value can, apparently, be sold, provided that they are not too valuable; antiques can be sold with impunity. Will departments call in outside experts before decisions are made? Departments lack the curatorial experience to look after the national heritage items that they own. The officials concerned may have expertise and be efficient in other directions, but they are not art experts.
One solution to the mess would be to use the in lieu system, whereby government departments could be excused tax, if the object were on loan to a museum or could be seen by the public, in the same way as private collections are treated for inheritance tax. I hope that my noble friend will let us have his views on that suggestion.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing to the attention of the House an important heritage issue. I apologise to him and to the House for arriving a little late. He kindly gave me advance sight of a draft of his speech, so I know its content.
The strange case of the Privy Council silver is one of those curiosities of government administration which it would be difficult to invent. That a government department, under Treasury instructions, should invite a well known auctioneer and saleroom to value items that are clearly a significant part of Britain's cultural and historic heritage and then set out to offer them for sale through the same saleroom, without, so far as is known, seeking the advice of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, its cultural property unit, any of the national museums or, so far as is known, of any qualified curator or heritage expert is astonishing. It brings to mind Harold Macmillan's dictum about the nation selling the family silver.
Can we please be told why the Privy Council silver. now on loan to the Victoria and Albert Museum, is subject to a 6 per cent levy, reputedly the sum of £6,000 per annum, paid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Treasury, while the Government Art Collection Fund—I think that this is correct—is not subject to such a charge? The Minister may reply that the Government Art Collection has been placed in the notional category of non-operational heritage assets. That sounds appropriate. Under the Treasury's resource accounting guidelines, that is the only category that can be exempted from the 6 per cent capital charge. However, if the objects are used to furnish ministerial offices and embassies overseas, in what sense are they less operational than the William and Mary candlesticks of the Privy Council sitting in a glass case in the Victoria and Albert Museum'? Such strange notional accounting procedures do not make sense.
Could we have an assurance that any historical items or moveable heritage items that the Government propose to sell will be considered first by the cultural property unit of the DCMS? If the items are considered important by the cultural property unit, they should he placed before an appropriate body, such as the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, on which there are experts enough to avoid such foolish mistakes.
But now, my Lords, I turn to a piece of news that seems to me to be of a graver order altogether. I learnt this month through the Council for British Archaeology that the Ministry of Defence had entered into a commercial treasure-hunting contract with an American underwater salvage company to recover and sell—yes, sell—bullion, coins and other antiquities to be raised from the late 17th-century wreck of HMS "Sussex", which lies in deep water off Gibraltar. The president of the Council for British Archaeology has stated that it contravenes UK commitments to international conventions, as well as the basic principles of the Government's heritage policy. The
92
director of the Council for British Archaeology called it a blatant piece of heritage stripping. It is clear that the matter falls within the terms of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Clearly, antiquities and valuables from HMS "Sussex" are the property of Her Majesty's Government, as the contract or agreement acknowledges. The noble Lord's Question refers explicitly to heritage assets overseas.
I found it difficult to imagine that the Government would undertake a treasure hunt involving the plundering of a historic wreck for straight commercial gain in a way that UNESCO and national governments have worked to prevent. So, I looked up the note of the agreement on the website of Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. of Tampa, Florida. The website address is www.shipwreck.net/pam. Can the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, confirm the status of the published document and place a copy in the Library? Will the noble Lord confirm that the British Government have entered into a commercial contract with Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. of Tampa, Florida, with the following sharing arrangements:
"Odyssey and the Government have agreed upon the following sharing arrangements with respect to the aggregate amount of the appraised values and/or selling prices of the artefacts, net of agreed selling expenses.
Range i $0–45 million: Government 20%; Odyssey 80%
ii $45 to 500 million: Government 50%; Odyssey 50%
iii above $500 million: Government 60%; Odyssey 40%"?
Is the noble Lord aware of Article 2, subsection 7, of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, to which the Government subscribe in principle, although they have not signed it, for various detailed reasons? It states:
"Underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited".
As the Government are on record as supporting the principles underlying that convention, can the noble Lord explain the apparent disparity? Why, before taking steps to recover heritage materials from a historic wreck, have the Government not openly and publicly discussed these matters with the heritage community? Has the Ministry of Defence or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport made any public announcement about a new underwater archaeology policy? Why did archaeologists and undersea specialists learn about it only from the protests of the Council for British Archaeology and the website of Odyssey Marine Explorations Inc of Tampa, Florida?
At a time when the historic wrecks of the world are being plundered by all kinds of piratical and shady companies, why do the Government give every appearance of behaving in the same way? How would such a procedure, practised off Gibraltar, differ from the straight looting of historic wrecks for commercial gain, against which Parliament recently legislated, when those wrecks are in British territorial waters? How could such a procedure be other than in direct contravention of the Valletta convention—the Council of Europe's European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage—which, he

93
will recall, deals with material remains, whether situated on land or under water. That convention was signed in 1992 by the UK Government and subsequently ratified.
The circumstances suggest what I dare to call maladministration of the first order, not only flying in the face of the Government's policy on care for the heritage, but seemingly contravening international law to which the Government are a party. One is puzzled as to why clause 12 of the published agreement, whose accuracy I have invited the noble Lord to confirm, states:
"The Agreement contains a confidentiality clause governing the release of information concerning the Agreement and all documents relating to its execution".
Would the Minister explain how such secrecy conforms with the principles of transparency which the Government affect to support?
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We are fortunate indeed that he is representing the Government today and I acknowledge that he has undertaken a long stint as he was representing the Government in the earlier proceedings before the House. He is exceedingly well informed about cultural matters—I dare say better informed than any other Treasury spokesman—and he knows the Treasury better than any Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He is therefore in an excellent position to unravel these mysteries for us.
One suspects that this extraordinary gaff by the Ministry of Defence comes from the same Treasury mindset which nearly led to the sale of the Privy Council silver and which now insists on those weird accounting procedures that we have been discussing. These incidents might suggest that we are in thrall to a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Is the noble Lord in a position to give an assurance that the Government will try to formulate a coherent policy on the application or, better, non-application of resource accounting and budgeting to Britain's cultural assets? Will he also seek to ensure that the Government do not give the green light to the worldwide looting of the underwater cultural heritage by undertaking what on current information looks like a commercial treasure hunt?
8.11 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing the debate. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the noble Lord introduced into this House that which had been revealed in two leading newspapers about the Privy Council silver. However, I shall not add to what has been said.
Today we are talking about part of the Treasury's balance-sheet mentality as applied to the resource accounting and budgeting procedures which were introduced when the MoD had items which needed to
94
be listed, valued and sold where appropriate. Many of the procedures, principally depreciation. do not concern us.
All such assets, whether those we are debating today or others, are contained in a weighty tome called the National Asset Register. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be familiar with it, but I saw it for the first time only today. It is dated 2001, the previous one being dated 1997. Presumably it is published every four years or so.
I first read the foreword to the 1997 register, signed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which contained the confident and breezy sentence:
"The National Asset Register is an international landmark in transparency and accountability in Government. For the first time anywhere in the world, Government and the public have a complete picture of the country's assets".
The writer of that may be needed in all kinds of areas, tourism not least. However, the tome is interesting because the relevant items are grouped under the heading "Antiques". The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has dealt with many items which are not relevant.
I randomly turned up one page of the register which came under the Chancellor's department and dealt with "Antique Assets", amounting to five lines, and "Library Legal Collection". The five lines begin:
"The Department's inventory includes around 250 items of furniture; fittings and artefacts classified as antiques. W & F C Bonhams & Sons undertook the valuation of the antiques on 31 March 2000. This valuation was based on market value".
The name of Bonhams has come up since the beginning of the story and I am not sure why. Were Bonhams appointed by some open and transparent procedure? Why not other auctioneers? Should we not be told?
Silver, pictures and items which have come into the possession of government departments, likely, we are told, to be charged annually a capital amount of 6 per cent, do not have a clearly listed provenance in the asset register. Do those in the Chancellor's department know what they have? Can they tell us accurately what the 250 items are? One thing we do know is that they are de facto owned by the nation. They are mainly items that have been commissioned over hundreds of years—for instance, the silver—for various purposes, or given as gifts by foreign governments. Where is the inventory in the departments? Should it not be available for public scrutiny? On the face of it, the whole thing is very unsatisfactory, but I dare say that the noble Lord, although he has had a heavy day, will be able to enlighten us.
The valuation idea is also curious. One can value furniture, fittings and so forth and use normal accounting procedures to depreciate them where possible, but let us take, for example, an elaborate pen made of gold and silver which has been used to sign a famous treaty; let us say the Treaty of Utrecht, which now has a great deal to do with Gibraltar. Is that listed as a gold and silver pen valued for its gold and silver and age, or is its context taken into account; its historical importance used for signing such a treaty? We do not know.

95
The problem about the whole issue is that we just do not know. And looking at the asset register, it appears that the departments of state do not know. Certainly the Treasury does not know. So how does it know that it is worth doing this exercise in the first place? What will be the cost of the 6 per cent it is about to levy on all the items valued by Bonhams? There are a number of questions to be answered.
The Government have been rightly keen on assets, treasures and so forth held by the national galleries and museums. Indeed, they have insisted that there is online and other public access. Why do we not have a system whereby some of these items, which may be of greater importance than we now realise, come under scrutiny so that they may go online and be available to public access? It is a very muddled picture.
Furthermore, I see from looking through the papers that many of these antiques in government departments, about which we know little except for an overall number in the example of the Chancellor's department, are under the care of a person, male or female, who is described as a facilities manager. I do not know what a facilities manager is; I doubt whether many noble Lords do. What does a facilities manager do? What are his or her qualifications? As we know that the keeping of many of these items has been contracted out to cleaning agencies—and I have been told that many of the silver items are cleaned with Brasso—an extraordinary lack of expertise and care appears to be given to these items about which we know so little.
The reality is that we have got ourselves into a muddle that reflects a certain casualness—which, I am afraid, occurs in British life—in relation to our history and the treasures which have emerged from it and which now lie in government departments. These departments must be in a terrible fix in regard to how they will get rid of items in order to reduce the 6 per cent capital charge. Presumably they must be thinking how they can sell them—through Bonhams presumably. That was the way the silver was intended to go until the livelier newspapers and the noble Lord spotted it. We are now promised an almost satisfactory result.
I shall not go on. The Minister will, in his usual doughty way, produce some persuasive answers. I am sure that he is sympathetic with what I say, even though he may not be allowed to say so. He takes a sharp intake of breath but, after all, the Treasury is the Brigade of Guards of government departments. It looks down the slanted peak of its cap at the lesser departments of state, such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Minister may find himself in a difficult position.
However, no one knows about the history or the importance of all these items. It is time that systems were put in place to find out what they are, where they are, how much they are worth and whether they should or should not be sold. This is an unbelievable muddle. I am sure that a situation such as this occurs in very few advanced countries in the world. It makes us look ridiculous.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I first declare an interest in that I am a dealer in watercolours—with no connection whatever to the current debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this short debate, which has allowed us to revisit this important and interesting subject. I am also grateful to the Library of your Lordships' House and to the National Art Collections Fund for their briefs, which I, too, have seen. The speeches of all noble Lords have been interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, I agree with everything that has been said so far and I shall not repeat the points that have been made.
It is quite clear that the United Kingdom Government and their various departments are in reality one vast museum—a museum with many branches, some efficient and effective, some, sadly, not. I recently read—or at least glanced through—the National Asset Register mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. To give your Lordships some idea of the size of it, here it is: it is like a telephone directory. It is said to be a thorough inventory of all the assets held by government departments on our behalf. Again paraphrasing what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, it is not at all thorough, certainly in regard to works of art. It is merely a broad assessment of quantities of objects and their overall value in some departments, with no attention to individual items.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, told us that there are three categories into which works of art are classified—heritage operational, heritage non-operational, and antiques with no discernible heritage provenance. The question of which are liable to the capital levy is quite extraordinary, and I can quite understand the urge of some departments to sell some of their assets which are subject to this charge—and to sell them quickly, too. It is quite mad. But, as is so often the case with this Government, I believe that it was a good initial idea for accounting reasons, but badly thought through and, sadly, indifferently carried out.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two questions. Is there any jewellery in the Government's assets? I believe that there must be, but where I do not know. Is there any jewellery? If there is, is it antique, heritage operational, and heritage non-operational all at the same time? It must be, if one thinks about it.
What about HMS "Victory"? She does not belong to a museum or any establishment like that; she is still commissioned in the Royal Navy. She must therefore be operational. But, at the same time, she is not suitable for launching against Iraq. Therefore, she is also non-operational. She is also, most definitely, an immensely valuable antique.
Really effective guidelines must now be laid down and real valuations of every single heritable item must be carried out by independent experts. I may be being silly, but I do not understand how items can be properly insured unless they are first valued—or perhaps they are not insured? The Minister shakes his head, so perhaps I am being silly.

97
It has been suggested that the Government Art Collection, which is properly inventoried, curated and administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, should be made the vehicle for looking after all government works of art. What does the Minister think of that suggestion, which has been made twice today? After all, it already has £31 million-worth of items to look after; or it may be that the DCMS, with its cultural property division, would be more appropriate. I understand that the Government are thinking of this.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's department, which has a small but proper inventory of 250 items. I understand that it is regularly revalued every five years. This sounds much more efficient. Presumably it is revalued for insurance purposes—but perhaps not. If they are not insured, why are they revalued? For possible sale? Why should not other departments perform in the same efficient way?
A large proportion of works of art belonging to the Government adorn public buildings. It is right and proper that this should be so as such buildings are often visited by important foreign visitors, who sometimes need to be impressed, and by at least some members of the public.
There are 11,500 items in the Government Art Collection, most of which are distributed in 471 sites across the world, but I understand that many are in storage. Perhaps an establishment should be set up where those items that are not being looked at could be accommodated in such a way that the general public could have access to them. After all, we can see what has been achieved with the Royal Collection at Buckingham Palace.
Some rather gilded cans of worms have emerged on this subject in recent years and have been re-emphasised during the debate, particularly in regard to underwater archaeology, an issue referred to by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I look forward, as always, to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has to say.
8.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It had to come because the matter of heritage assets came to public attention more than a year ago. Although the solution that was found to the problem of the Treasury silver has met with general approval, it has raised the wider issues described, very properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
I shall first set out the position in regard to the subject of the Question,
"classification, publication, valuation, retention and disposal of antique and heritage assets".
We have a good story to tell and I am pleased to have an opportunity to do so.
The Government have a clear and open policy in relation to the management of their assets, regardless of whether they are considered to be antique or
98
heritage assets. When I say "regardless", I mean when they are and when they are not; I do not mean that we do not pay regard to them. The policy applies to assets owned by departments, whether held inside or outside the United Kingdom. That is not an issue so far as concerns this debate.
In recent years, with all party support, the Government have been making an effort to ensure that assets are managed effectively. This includes knowing for the first time what assets we have, publishing a full list of assets in the National Asset Register and preparing departmental balance sheets.
Within the overall system careful consideration has been given to the management of heritage assets. The Government are very concerned to ensure that such assets are carefully looked after, and I shall go on to explain what arrangements have been made.
There are, as has been said, two kinds of heritage asset: operational, which are used by departments in delivering services and treated in the same manner as other assets used in a similar way; and non-operational heritage assets, which have been clearly identified as such and are not subject to any additional charges as a result of the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting.
I do not know how much noble Lords wish me to say about resource accounting and budgeting. I do not know whether any noble Lords who are present took an active part in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. I had the privilege of taking it through the House two and half years ago. Of all the Bills I have introduced in this House, it is the one of which I am most proud. It means that we are way ahead of other countries in the proper consideration of public finances. To over-simplify grossly. as the Treasury used to do, in old terms with cash accounting, £1 of revenue and £1 of capital, if added together, equalled £2. That would be utterly unacceptable in private business and it is now unacceptable to government. Over a period of some 10 years—this is a non-party matter—we have been moving to resource accounts rather than cash accounts. It is in the last financial year that resource accounts have come into their full application, although there are changes still to be made in the next year.
One of the implications of resource accounts is that if you are going to have capital amortised over a period of years, you have to have capital in a balance sheet, and you have to have assets valued and in a balance sheet. That is what resource accounting does, and that is what has now been applied to heritage assets.
What is a heritage asset? The term can be applied to a range of entities, from historic buildings and works of art to archaeological sites. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that it certainly can be applied to jewellery. Whether there is any jewellery is not a question that I can answer off the cuff.
It is up to each department to determine whether a particular item is a heritage asset. To do this, departments are required to apply criteria laid down in the Resource Accounting Manual— the manual

99
whereby government departments ensure that they are adhering to generally accepted accounting practice. It is the way in which private accounts are drawn up and it ensures that we have comparable accounting in the public sector.
The Resource Accounting Manual describes a heritage asset as something that is intended to be preserved in trust for future generations. That could be due to its cultural, historical or environmental associations. It goes on to point out that heritage assets typically display the following characteristics: their value in cultural, environmental or historical terms is unlikely to be fully reflected in any financial value derived from a market mechanism or price; in many cases they have restrictions or prohibitions on their sale; they are often irreplaceable and their value is likely to increase over time even if their physical condition deteriorates; their life is measured in hundreds of years; and they may require significant maintenance expenditure so that they can continue to be enjoyed by future generations.
Departments are required to review whether assets meet these criteria and this decision is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked who decides whether an item is classified as a heritage asset. I hope that what I have set out in some detail is a good answer to that question. He asked who decides whether heritage assets should be sold. It is the responsibility of the departments concerned to decide whether to sell assets. Departments are aware that they need to take into account all aspects, not merely financial ones, when deciding whether to dispose of an asset. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will advise about individual disposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the issue of publication. A full list of the Government's assets is published in the National Asset Register, which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, lifted with great difficulty and waved at us. This includes antiques, works of art and heritage assets held by departments. It also includes, where available, details of the value. Some items are grouped together in the register because it would be impracticable to list every item owned by the Government. For example, the Government Art Collection alone contains over 11,500 works.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, cast some scorn on the National Asset Register and on the claims made for it. I reject that. I am well advised that the National Asset Register is unique in providing the public with a list of the assets owned by central government. No other country in the world has access to a register of this kind. In addition, departments provide details of certain heritage assets in their balance sheet. If a heritage asset is not included on a balance sheet, a description of the asset must be included in the notes to the accounts.
The importance of the National Asset Register is not only, as I have said, as an essential element of resource accounting—proper accounting, as I would call it—in
100
the public sector, but it incidentally provides an enormously valuable source of information on the heritage assets held by government in this country.
What about valuation? Clearly, the Government Resources and Accounts Act requires that there should be valuation. It states that a department's accounts must,
"conform to generally accepted accounting practice subject to such adaptations as are necessary in the context of departmental accounts".
Financial Reporting Standard FRS I 5, "Tangible fixed assets", does not specifically single out heritage assets for differing treatment. However, the Government's Resource Accounting Manual contains specific information on the valuation of both operational and non-operational heritage assets. Operational heritage assets not only provide benefit from a heritage point of view, but are also used by departments for other activities and to deliver services. An example would be a building used both as offices and for ceremonial purposes. I guess that the Foreign Office would fall into that category. It is therefore proper that these should be valued, in line with generally accepted accounting practice, and appear on a department's balance sheets.
Non-operational assets are those which are retained only for their historical or cultural value and have no other use. It may be considered that it is not practical to value some assets. There may not be enough information, or there may be no similar items. Examples would be Stonehenge or Nelson's Column. Scorn was cast on that, but I reject that. It is still worth doing. Some assets have not been valued because it would not be practicable to do so because of the number of different items. But from 1st April 2000, departments have been required to record additions to collections on their balance sheet using the purchase price as a basis for valuation. That is best practice in the not-for-profit sector as laid down by the charities' Statement of Recommended Practice. The independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board has raised some questions about this which are being debated with the Accounting Standards Board.
I turn to retention and disposal. Government accounting requires departments to maintain a register of their assets and inventories of works of art are required to be maintained in line with advice provided by the Government Art Collection. With the introduction of full resource budgeting in 2003–04—I think I was a year in advance in what I said earlier—departments will be charged a cost of capital within their budgets to reflect the cost of holding assets. That is what caused so much disturbance among noble

101
Lords. This is line with commercial accounting practice. It provides better incentives for departments to manage their assets more effectively and dispose of those that are no longer required. However, the point is that this is not a tax. To ensure that departments are neither better nor worse off by the introduction of this non-cash charge, they were included in the full resource budgets announced in the 2002 spending review settlement. In addition, no such cover is required for non-operational heritage, as it is charged at a nil rate.
The change does not force departments to sell assets. They must only consider whether they are still needed or whether funds would be better reinvested elsewhere. The fact that heritage assets are designated as such implies that they warrant special consideration when determining how, where and if they should be kept. Departments are aware that they must take into account considerations beyond the purely financial when determining their future. I hope that that answers a point raised by almost every speaker in this debate. There is no obligation on departments to sell, and there is no financial penalty in the form of the capital charge. It is an in-and-out calculation made for the purpose of resource accounting.
Clear rules are laid down in government accounting guidelines on how assets should be disposed of and the resulting receipts accounted for. The DCMS is happy to advise departments when they are considering the retention and disposal of heritage assets other than those in the Government Art Collection. I hope that the lesson from the case of the Treasury silver is, as everyone recognised, that because nobody had to account for the items of silver, they sat in a cupboard for many years. The snuffers and other items are now on display as part of the silver collection in Room 66 of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
I will not be able to respond to all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, so I will write to him in detail. He rightly described the contents of the HMS "Sussex" agreements between the Ministry of Defence and Odyssey. It is not certain that what Odyssey has discovered is HMS "Sussex", and nothing that has been brought up confirms whether it is. Some cannon have been brought up. It is a very deep wreck—one mile deep. It cannot be accessed by divers; it is accessible only by robots at enormous expense. The wreck is in international waters, but it belongs to the Ministry of Defence, because the ship was going to India, where a ruler was to be bribed not to take part in the war of Spanish succession.
If we did not have such an agreement, what would happen? Odyssey would excavate by itself, and we would be unable to stop it unless we stationed a frigate on top of the wreck continuously. It would take the items back to its base in the United States, where it has
102
legal advice that everything would belong to it. We have legal advice that we could challenge it, but we might not win in the United States courts. As part of the agreement, Odyssey has undertaken to excavate the gold coins with great care to avoid damaging anything else. If there were no agreement, someone else could scoop everything up and destroy the ship.
What is the better, or least bad, solution? Surely we should make a deal with someone who would follow best archaeological practice. There has been no secrecy; we have consulted the British Museum, the National Maritime Museum, the Mary Rose Trust, the Royal Naval Museum, English Heritage and the DCMS cultural property division.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving away. Although I am aware that some organisations were consulted recently, does he not find it peculiar that the public announcement about the arrangements, which still seem dubious to many of us, come from the Odyssey website?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that is so, I shall have to think about it and write to the noble Lord. I am not sure that it is as secret as he claims. In any event, we have a problem of commercial in confidence, but because of American disclosure provisions not least, we have not been secretive about it. The publication in this country came in a press notice on the MoD website, www.disposalservices.agency.mod.uk—noble Lords can find the address in Hansard—so that is not the problem.
The choice is between getting nothing and having a proper archaeological exploration, even with robots, from which we get a share of what is our own property, which we could not get by ourselves because we are not in the treasure hunting business. There is a specific provision that any items of heritage significance—a significance other than simply being gold or silver coins from the 17th century—will be kept aside and made available for museums in this country. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will think that the agreement has been entered into honourably and to the benefit of the people of this country. I hope to be able to spell it out in more detail when I write to him more fully.
There are still problems about the advice given to departments on the retention and disposal of antiques—particularly antiques that have some other intrinsic value. We are still considering how to improve on that. There are certain points to remember. Non-operational heritage assets are not subject to any additional charges. Operational heritage assets are generally government buildings protected by listing and planning regulations. That is true of the Foreign Office, the Treasury, No. 10, and so on. Antiques are not necessarily formally classified as heritage assets under resource accounts and budgeting. The

103
important point is that the introduction of resource accounts and budgeting has meant that departments are now more aware of the type of assets that they own and better equipped to make decisions about their care and use. Many of the things that speakers this evening have had in mind are not heritage assets that need to be held in trust for future generations. It is right that they should be treated in the same way as any other.
104
I hope I have given the assurances about genuine heritage assets that have been called for. If I have missed anything—I am sure I have—I will prepare a further note to send to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I shall place copies in the Library.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Public Record Office: Closed Files
  Public Record Office: Closed Files
  Electoral Registration: Absent Votes
  Electoral Registration: Absent Votes
  Shooting of Londonderry Bus Driver
  Shooting of Londonderry Bus Driver
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Coleraine to Londonderry NIR Line
  Coleraine to Londonderry NIR Line
  Belfast to Dublin Enterprise Service
  Belfast to Dublin Enterprise Service
  Bleach Green to Whitehead NIR Line
  Bleach Green to Whitehead NIR Line
  Belfast: Proposed Rapid Transit Network
  Belfast: Proposed Rapid Transit Network
  Houses of Parliament: Sitting Hours
  Houses of Parliament: Sitting Hours
  Criminal Records Checks
  Criminal Records Checks
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Money Laundering Regulations
  Money Laundering Regulations
  Last Night of the Proms: Northern Ireland Broadcast
  Last Night of the Proms: Northern Ireland Broadcast
  Morocco: FMD Vaccine
  Morocco: FMD Vaccine
  Degradable Plastic Products
  Degradable Plastic Products
  Biodiversity
  Biodiversity
  Immigration Rules: Allegations of Sudanese Breach
  Immigration Rules: Allegations of Sudanese Breach
  Bermuda: Proposed Constitutional Change
  Bermuda: Proposed Constitutional Change
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Ugandan People's Defence Force: Role in Ituri Province, DRC
  Ugandan People's Defence Force: Role in Ituri Province, DRC
  Indonesia: FCO Travel Advice
  Indonesia: FCO Travel Advice
  Exports to Iraq: Goods on Military List
  Exports to Iraq: Goods on Military List
  UN Sanctions against Somalia and Angola (UNITA)
  UN Sanctions against Somalia and Angola (UNITA)
  Zimbabwe: EU Sanctions
  Zimbabwe: EU Sanctions
  1st (UK) Armoured Division: War Establishment
  1st (UK) Armoured Division: War Establishment
  Abortions: Mifepristone
  Abortions: Mifepristone
  Microwaving Food in Plastic Containers
  Microwaving Food in Plastic Containers
  EC Nutrition Labelling Directive
  EC Nutrition Labelling Directive
  NHS: Proposed Foundation Trusts
  NHS: Proposed Foundation Trusts
  EU Healthcare Professionals
  EU Healthcare Professionals
  Welfare Food Scheme
  Welfare Food Scheme