Sitting of 31 October 2002

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

    LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
    Ordered,
    That so much of the Lords Message [29th October] as relates to the London Development Agency Bill be now considered.
    That the promoters of the London Development Agency Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present session;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House and, when so laid, the bill shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  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. Jim Murphy.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Miners' Compensation
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What additional measures (a) have been put in place and (b) are under consideration further to speed up the process of full and final payments to miners and their dependants to compensate for work-related illness. [76417]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): Significant progress has been made in processing claims by former miners and their families. Hon. Members will know that I announced earlier this week an extension of the vibration white finger cut-off date for posthumous claims. That will mean that the families of former miners who had not previously been made aware that they could submit claims for the injuries caused to their husbands or fathers will have a further three months in which to do that.
    In addition, I announced last year that 50,000 full and final offers would be made this year for lung disease. We are on track to meet that challenging target.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend welcome the increase in pay-outs from March this year from £12 million to £22 million in Ogmore? Does he acknowledge that a most significant contribution to that is the employment of 90 additional staff in Cardiff? The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers and others opposed that measure. Will my hon. Friend make a commitment to extend the resources for the settlement of the miners' claims? I extend an invitation to him to return to my constituency and listen to the anxieties of former miners and their widows.
    Mr. Wilson: My previous visit to my hon. Friend's constituency was valuable, as are all such visits to the coalfield communities. They inform our decisions, especially that to extend the vibration white finger cut-off date for posthumous claims. There is an awareness that the money is being given as rapidly as possible. Opening offices in Cardiff, Edinburgh and most recently, Manchester, facilitates that process. Matters are going well but there is no complacency, and we shall keep up the pressure and momentum until every claim is paid in full. I stress that every claim will be paid in full. The schemes are not capped. In cases where, unfortunately, the miner has died, the claim passes to the widow and then to the family.
    Adam Price: While I welcome the progress that has been made, I draw the Minister's attention to the appalling wait that workers in the private mines continue to endure. There is a case in my constituency of a 79-year-old miner who worked underground for 50 years, registered a claim in 1998 and has not yet had a medical examination. Will the Minister

    983
    urgently raise the plight of workers in the private mines with his officials, especially with IRISC, and consider bringing forward the results of the pilot programme?
    Mr. Wilson: The schemes apply to former employees of the National Coal Board rather than those of private mines. We urge the owners of private mines to enter into the schemes in the same spirit as the Government. However, in many cases, the owners of the private mines have disappeared and the insurers are not rushing to accept the responsibilities. We do our best, and I appreciate that there is an anomaly for the miner who worked in a private rather than a state-owned mine and is less favourably treated. Sadly, as the Tories know, that is the history of private mines.
    Jeff Ennis: There is no doubt that greater progress is being made, but will my hon. Friend update the House about the number of interim payments? How many are outstanding? There is no doubt that interim payments show good faith to miners who have not yet received a penny.
    Mr. Wilson: That is true. As a rule of thumb, the ratio that has been paid in each constituency or nationally in full or final payments, is roughly 2:1. More than that has been paid in interim payments. We are doing our best on both fronts. The prime objective must be to get as many full and final settlements in the cases of the oldest and frailest miners and widows. Nothing must stand in the way of that. However, I agree that it is important to get something to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Interim payments are therefore important and are far greater numerically than full and final settlements.
    Mr. David Heath: I thank the Minister for the attention paid to the former miners in my constituency and in the north Somerset coalfield. In view of the decision to which he referred earlier, will he ensure that the fullest possible publicity be given to this matter in areas that have long not had working mines? The networks are obviously less well established in those areas and it is much more difficult to get the message across not only to former miners but to their widows. In the Somerset coalfield, a little local publicity would certainly do a tremendous job in making sure that the message gets through.
    Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him 100 per cent. The specific difference with the widows' claims is that it has not been widely enough appreciated that a widow or a family has a claim when, sadly, a miner dies before having a medical examination to identify the condition of vibration white finger. That is quite a narrow point, but, in individual cases, a very important one. In that regard, we all have a part to play in our own communities and constituencies, through the network of clubs, pensioners' associations and so on, and we have three months in which to get that done. It is not as though no widows' claims have been received—there have been 11,000 such claims for vibration white finger—but it is because there are many more out there that have not been identified that I have given the
    984
    extension. By using this kind of exchange for local publicity purposes, everyone in the Chamber can make a contribution towards achieving what we all want.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to the Moodiesburn retired miners' branch in my constituency, and, in particular, for pursuing the call for posthumous payments to widows? We welcome that. very much. Does he now have the necessary medical support to speed up the process, and does he have a date in mind for its completion?
    Mr. Wilson: I attend as many of these meetings as possible, because it is important to go into the coalfield communities to offer reassurance that the schemes are not capped, that the claims pass to the widow or the family and do not disappear, that the Government have no vested interest in anything other than paying out the money as fast as possible, and that the money is now getting out at the rapid rate of £1.5 million a day. Those are the key points that I try to get across in the meetings. Every available respiratory specialist in the country is working on this, and there is no blockage in most parts of the country.
    My right hon. Friend also asked about bringing the schemes to an end. Apart from the posthumous claims, there is a cut-off for claims relating to vibration white finger. I do not think that anyone has questioned the principle of bringing the scheme to an end in that way, so that we can focus our resources on dealing with all the claims that are in. I am wary of setting a cut-off date for respiratory claims, because I do not want to deprive miners who develop these conditions from having the same treatment as those in whom the condition has already been identified. None the less, there eventually has to be a cut-off date, and I hope that that can be finalised in the same spirit of co-operation and openness.

    Rural Post Offices
    Norman Lamb: How many rural post offices have had applications for grants under the Capital Subsidy Fund declined. [76418]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I understand from Post Office Ltd that, by the end of last month, 168 applications had been received, and 110 grants to a value of £825,351 had been agreed. Thirty-two are still being considered, and 26 have been refused. So far, two applications from post offices in Norfolk have been agreed, and none refused.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not the reality that the amounts specifically allocated—let alone paid out—for rural sub-post offices is a pittance? There have been reports—in The Sunday Telegraph, I think—that £450 million is to be allocated over three years to help the transition to automated credit transfer. Will the Minister confirm how much will be paid out to those businesses now under a dark cloud,

    985
    how the money will go to support the remuneration of those businesses, and when they will be given the information necessary for them to plan ahead?
    Mr. Timms: We have made it clear that we want there to be no avoidable closures of rural post offices between now and 2006. We will be making a significant announcement about funding to ensure that that pledge is kept, and the details of exactly how that will work will be made available very soon. We have made a clear commitment that we want to see a continuing thriving rural post office network, as well as a successful urban network. Successful rural post offices offer big benefits, and we are committed to ensuring that that is what every rural area enjoys.
    Mr. Mark Todd: While I welcome any capital assistance that can be given to rural post offices, much the most important element of securing their future is ensuring that pensioners and benefit claimants can receive their benefits and pensions in cash at those post offices in future. What progress has been made to ensure that that is happening?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right that what is really important is that people should use rural post offices more. Certainly, people's ability to obtain their benefits in cash is part of that, although, increasingly, we shall want post offices to look for new products and services to attract new customers. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that anyone who wishes to receive their benefit in cash at a post office—weekly, if they so choose—should be able to do so. We have concluded agreements with all the banks on the provision of universal banking services from next year to ensure that that promise will be honoured.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Two days before we discussed the so-called urban reinvention programme en 15 October, the Government spin machine, with typical slickness and typical disingenuousness, announced this £450 million, of which we know nothing. Rural postmasters throughout the country still know nothing of the Government's plans, apart from some vague figure that they have been given by the newspapers. Will the Government explain their long-term policy for a sustainable future for the rural post office network and will the Minister now answer the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which demanded at its conference on 6 October that
    "the government take immediate action to avert the collapse of the nationwide network of post offices"?
    Is that true or is it just scaremongering?
    Mr. Timms: There certainly has been a degree of scaremongering on this subject. There has been no announcement on funding for the rural network, but we have made it clear that we have a commitment to ensure that there will be no avoidable rural post office closures between now and at least 2006. We shall announce the funding to make a reality of that commitment, although we have done a great deal on support for the rural network. We have invested nearly half a billion pounds, for example, in automating post offices in the urban and rural networks. The Post Office has also appointed a network of 31 rural support officers to ensure that,
    986
    where the closure of a post office in a rural area is threatened, someone is on hand to try to ensure that the post office is replaced, a new postmaster is recruited or the service is maintained in some other way. We have a strong commitment, and we are taking all the steps needed to implement it. The announcement on funding will be made very shortly.

    Energy Efficiency
    Ms Julia Drown: What assessment she has made of the prospect of improving energy efficiency by 20 per cent. by 2010 without building new nuclear power stations. [76419]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Government are carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the new year. The role of energy efficiency and nuclear power are issues that will be included in the White Paper.
    Ms Drown: The Energy Saving Trust calculates that energy efficiency in households could produce six times the amount of energy that nuclear power stations provide to households. Does the Minister agree that investing in energy efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power could deliver a low-carbon economy without the need for new nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Wilson: I am in favour of all these things, and I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's comments on energy efficiency, which has never been taken half seriously enough in this country. I hope that we can use the White Paper as a mechanism to stimulate a different approach to that, but I do not see them as being in conflict with nuclear power. I do not think that we need additional nuclear power, but whether taking action in respect of our one significant low-carbon contributor at precisely this point is the cleverest thing to do when our objective is to create a much lower carbon energy mix is a question for the White Paper.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will make a statement, at or before the end of November, on British Energy and the fate of the £650 million of public money that stands behind the company? Pursuing the Minister's answer to that excellent main question, does he accept the evidence that there is a significantly higher rate of return on investments in energy saving relative to new generation and that if that were to be at the heart rather than the edge of Government policy, it would be good news for everybody except the energy producing companies that are so aggressively lobbying his Department?
    Mr. Wilson: The answer to the first question is a straightforward yes: there will be a statement before 29 November.
    I am well aware of the potential for greater energy efficiency, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be at the heart of the White Paper. We have been aware of the potential for energy efficiency for a long time, but have not made a huge amount of progress in realising that potential, especially in the domestic sector.

    987
    The difference between six times greater energy efficiency and a 25 per cent. contribution to our electricity mix from nuclear power is this: one remains hypothetical and desirable, while the other actually exists.
    Alan Simpson: As I am sure my hon. Friend recalls, Aneurin Bevan said that there was no point in willing the ends if we did not also will the means. I look forward to reading the White Paper, which I hope will address the means, allowing us to focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
    Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the amount of public money put into British Energy is five times the amount that the Government said they could not afford to spend on supporting the Warm Homes Bill, which fell last year? In considering the balance of resources, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a shift in favour of what is renewable and what is sustainable?
    Mr. Wilson: Let me gently point out that there would have been an awful lot of very cold homes if we had not supported British Energy during the crisis. We obtain 25 per cent. of our electricity from nuclear power, and the one thing that we cannot responsibly do is turn the key and walk away.
    We gave a loan to British Energy for two reasons: to ensure security of supply, which is a responsibility of any Government, and to ensure the safe operation of our nuclear power stations. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me—just as I agree with him about energy efficiency—about the desirability of those two objectives.
    Richard Ottaway: I am sure the Minister agrees that nuclear energy and energy efficiency can go hand in hand. The real challenge is how to make nuclear energy economically viable. Is not the best way of achieving that to end Britain's uneconomic generating capacity, allow electricity prices to rise to a sustainable level, and encourage inward investment in the industry through rising prices in all sectors—coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The spin-off consequences of driving down the wholesale cost of electricity to the lowest possible point have been a mixed blessing, to say the least. It is an absolute certainty that once capacity starts coming out, prices will start to rise again. What I do not want is for that capacity to be clean in terms of our environmental objectives, while the low price creates an incentive to bring back dirty generation. That would be perverse, both in terms of our environmental policies and in the name of joined-up government.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is another way of looking at the problem? The energy crisis is probably one of the most important that the Government will face over the next two or three years. Not only has British Energy been bailed out, and will probably have to be bailed out again; PowerGen is also in trouble, and UK Coal is sacking people left, right and centre. The problem cannot be solved by putting a
    988
    few windmills here, there and everywhere. I am not against the idea, but even 3,000 windmills around Highgrove would not make much of a difference.
    I hope my hon. Friend will respond to this. Privatisation is now a dirty word in the energy industry. It has passed its sell-by date. Unless the Government reverse their attitude to public ownership and deal with coal and other energy sources in that context, the problem will remain unsolved for a long time.
    Mr. Wilson: The one thing on which we can agree is that there will not be 3,000 windmills around Highgrove. I also have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend's wider point—[Interruption.] I do have a lot of sympathy with his point. I think we should be past the day when anyone believed that dogma-based solutions, whether applied to the public or the private sector, to ultra-liberalisation or to the ultra-state sector, provided the basket of remedies that we all seek. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot subscribe to the extremely reasonable points that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made about the deficiencies of an ultra-liberalised market and at the same time dismiss entirely the comments that my hon. Friend made.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister agree that it would be possible to promote energy efficiency and to take decisions about the future of nuclear power more rationally if the true environmental cost of different forms of power generation were reflected in the price, and that to achieve that it is time that the Government scrapped the climate change levy, which has nothing to do with climate change, and replaced it with an emissions trading system compatible with the rest of Europe that allowed environmental costs to be reflected in the prices charged to consumers?
    Mr. Wilson: No, I do not believe that. The rationale for the climate change levy is justified in terms of our environmental objectives. The fact that it is revenue neutral is testimony to the fact that its objectives are primarily environmental, but I agree about transparency. There should be transparency in all these things. Decisions must be made in the light of that. As far as I know, no one is arguing against the renewables obligation. It is transparently obvious that if we are to have a renewables industry we have to tilt the playing field in favour of renewables. Once we have all the information and transparency on costs, we will have to ask, "Do we want to tilt the playing field in other directions as well?" These are decisions we must make in the context of the White Paper.
    Mr. Yeo: Does the Minister agree that the most basic measure of energy efficiency for consumers is whether they have a supply and that for thousands of consumers in Suffolk and other parts of the country to be without a supply for five days is absolutely disgraceful? Will he join me in condemning the failure of power companies to reconnect supplies promptly, to man helplines properly and to confirm that compensation will be payable to those consumers who have been damaged?
    Mr. Wilson: That is an interesting question. The hon. Gentleman may have more in common with my hon.

    989
    Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) than he was prepared to admit. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not prepared to make such allegations against the privatised companies, but I have instigated an inquiry to and whether the privatised companies have performed in a manner that is satisfactory, against reasonable expectations. Let us see the answer to that.
    The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about compensation is extremely interesting. I do not recall the Tories ever saying when in government that the electricity companies should pay compensation, whether or not they were responsible for the power cuts. The regulation is that they should pay compensation after 18 hours but only if they are responsible. By calling for blanket compensation, he is saying that the privatised companies are responsible. Excellent.

    GATS Initiative
    Mr. Colin Challen: What assessment she has made of the impact the general agreement on trade in services initiative will have on public services. [76420]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Public services are excluded from the scope of the GATS, provided they are not supplied on a commercial or competitive basis. The Government have made it clear that we have no intention of making commitments under GATS that would call into question our ability to continue providing public services such as health and education.
    Mr. Challen: Despite that, a lot of people fear that the liberalisation of trade in services will lead to the liberalisation of trade in public services. For example, only 10 days ago the principal of the university of Strathclyde said:
    "There hasn't even been the beginning of serious thinking about the implications of this. It could change the character of higher education dramatically and a lot of universities in the UK would sink."
    Does my right hon. Friend know of the examples of Leeds and Bradford, where the education authorities are run by private companies? Will she strengthen her unequivocal commitment to preventing the liberalisation of trade in public services and commit herself to publishing the full responses to all the requests for liberalisation during her consultation?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Unfortunately there has been a great deal of misleading information, particularly from some of the non-governmental organisations about the impact of OATS. Let me make it quite clear to the House again that GATS cannot force this or any other Government to privatise public services. We have already published an extensive consultation document which is on the DTI website about requests that have been made to the United Kingdom under GATS. That document is currently out to consultation. Of course we shall publish
    990
    responses to the consultation, if the respondents are happy with that and our own decisions in the light of that consultation.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is not the whole point that under GATS the west should be able to sell its services to developing countries in return for which the developing countries want the abolition of production subsidies, particularly for foods, in the UK and Europe? Is it not the case, therefore, that the Prime Minister's failure to secure the ending of production subsidies in Brussels means that everyone will lose out and that Doha has been delayed?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Had he listened to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on Monday, he would understand that at the summit over the weekend, we succeeded first in ensuring that after 2006 there will be a reduction in real terms in the total amount of subsidies going out through the common agricultural policy. Secondly, and even more importantly, the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy remains on track and remains a matter for the Agriculture Council subject to qualified majority voting. In other words, no country has a veto on it. We are absolutely clear that reform of the common agricultural policy is essential, not only for Europe's farmers and consumers, but above all for the people of the developing countries, and we will continue pressing in the Agriculture Council for radical reform of the CAP.
    Lawrie Quinn: Whether Governments will be required to privatise companies under the GATS initiative; and if she will make a statement. [76421]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As I have just explained, the GATS cannot force any Government to privatise services. The requests submitted to other World Trade Organisation member countries by the European Union make clear that the EU is not seeking the dismantling of public services, nor the privatisation of state-owned companies in developing countries. Where other Governments decide in their own interests to open services to private sector supply, we are asking in those negotiations for non-discriminatory access to those markets.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome her response. In the light of the recent summit in Johannesburg on sustainable development and the recent experience of liberalisation of markets in Russia and Asia, should not the so-called developing world be allowed to develop through partnership and a more sustainable approach? Above all, British companies should offer a helping hand to enable those countries to fulfil their opportunities in the trade round and their opportunities for future prosperity.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As we saw in the Asian crisis, if developing countries open some of their markets—for instance in financial Services—too quickly without having adequate regulation in place, that can have most unfortunate

    991
    consequences. However, provided that the sequencing is right and, where appropriate, there is proper regulation by the domestic Governments, I have no doubt at all that increased foreign investment and trade is the best way out of poverty for developing countries. That is why we are so strongly committed to the Doha developing countries round and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has led the way by committed £30 million to helping developing countries participate fully in those negotiations.

    Fireworks
    Mr. David Crausby: What steps she is taking to improve firework safety. [76422]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): On 15 October I announced a package of measures to address the problems caused by fireworks. The measures are designed to cut down on the problems of noise and nuisance as well as to reduce accidents.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the menace caused by fireworks increases year on year, and will she consider legislation, not voluntary codes, to restrict severely the retail sale of fireworks, which causes so much distress, particularly to the elderly?
    Miss Johnson: It was, and is, because I recognised the problems caused in communities by the illegal use of fireworks on the streets, often by teenagers, that I announced this package of measures. We need to see how effective the measures are in reducing problems. We are making air bombs illegal, introducing fixed-penalty notices, tackling the co-ordination of intelligence and encouraging councils to take steps. Many people thoroughly enjoy fireworks each year, and we need to strike the right balance to be effective.
    David Burnside: Will the Minister take account of the fireworks directive that the Northern Ireland Office introduced in the spring and evaluate its impact before taking any measures on the mainland? The directive imposed a £30 application fee for private firework displays; that has almost wiped out the use of private fireworks, yet the use of illegal fireworks in Northern Ireland has massively increased. Will the Minister please consider the evidence of getting involved, with good intentions, in measures that have a counterproductive impact, as has happened in Northern Ireland?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, we always stay in contact with colleagues elsewhere in government to share their experience. We will indeed watch the situation in Northern Ireland with interest.
    David Wright: Will my hon. Friend consider regulating to shift the sale of fireworks to mail order?
    992
    That would have the benefits of removing fireworks from shops and ensuring that only people with credit or debit cards could purchase them.
    Miss Johnson: I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for that method of purchasing fireworks, because I believe that that may be a cause of some of the difficulties. Although it is true that unregulated sales of fireworks to teenagers through unregulated outlets is often the problem, I am not sure that the remedy that my hon. Friend suggests would help. I would prefer that we clamp down on the use of fireworks in the streets and on the routes by which young people acquire them illegally, It is illegal to sell a firework to anyone under 18.

    Credit Cards
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of consumer and competition legislation in respect of credit cards. [76423]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): Our legislation offers many safeguards. However, we are examining the present financial limits on credit card transactions, the number of exemptions, the activities of loan sharks, the advertising regulations and a number of other areas of concern. The consultation period lasts for another month and we welcome the contribution of all hon. Members.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's reassurance on that matter. Does he share my concern about the misleading information issued by credit card companies? We looked at this in the Treasury Committee and found disturbing evidence. It is possible, for example, to have three different credit cards, all on the same annual percentage rate, borrow the same amount of money on each for the same length of time, yet the credit payment varies by up to 38 per cent. Is it time to look again at consumer and competition legislation and see if we can strengthen it to force the credit card companies to reveal the true cost of credit, whether it is used for the purchase of fireworks or anything else?
    Nigel Griffiths: I read my hon. Friend's trenchant questioning on 1 May in the Treasury Committee, when he went into this matter in some detail. I am concerned that credit card providers are interpreting the regulations in different ways and that that is not helping credit card users. We want to be able to compare what is on offer and allow consumers to choose the best product for them. We will consult on this and on other changes in advertising requirements shortly.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister accept that, although the United Kingdom credit card market is highly competitive, there are valid concerns about the level of security in a system that, unlike those used in other countries, does not require the use of a personal identification number or other form of identification at the point of sale? Does he believe that credit card security can be left entirely to the market

    993
    when the very fact of that competition may discourage credit card companies from imposing new, more onerous security requirements; or are the Government taking active steps to improve security, as credit cards increasingly become part of our daily lives?
    Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, with billions of credit card transactions in Britain, the rest of Europe and the world, security is a very important issue for consumers, the credit companies themselves and the retailers, so I concur with the hon. Gentleman. We take the issue very seriously.
    Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): But at a time when we have low inflation and a low interest rate nationally, does my hon. Friend believe that, instead of being bombarded with good, attractive short-term introductory offers through the post, at every motorway service station and every shop, those people who use credit cards should be given lower long-term interest rates and a fairer deal?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Treasury Committee highlighted those concerns and was particularly critical of the practice of inducing people to take out new credit cards at what appear to be artificially low rates of interest and then ratcheting up those rates. I am reliably informed that the present examples that credit card suppliers use for their own comparisons of APR are not based on the actual usage of cards; they are not the best tools for making comparisons, and I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is examining a number of those matters at the moment.

    Electricity Supply Industry
    Mr. John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the electricity supply industry. [76425]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Since 1998, electricity prices have fallen by between 20 and 25 per cent. for commercial consumers and domestic prices are down by 8 per cent.—the fall is greater for those who have switched suppliers. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction said earlier, we are currently reviewing energy policy and will publish a White Paper in the new year.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the context of rapidly falling wholesale prices, electricity companies with strong retail and distribution arms tend to be doing better than the pure generators, such as British Energy and AES Drax? Does she agree that in intervening in the market it would be wrong for the Government to favour one generator over another and that one way forward may be to take excess capacity out of the market and close the ageing Magnox reactors, which lost £200 million last year, sooner than planned?
    Ms Hewitt: As I have said before in relation to British Energy, we are not interested in favouring or, indeed, necessarily saving a particular company; we are interested in securing energy and electricity supplies for the British people. As for the Magnox stations, that is a commercial matter for BNFL, which has a closure
    994
    programme for those stations, the last of which will be decommissioned in 2010. Of course we have whole issue of the electricity supply markets under review and we will make further statements about it, not only in relation to British Energy, but, above all, in the White Paper.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Gas provides the largest and a rising share of our electricity supply needs. There are now strong indications that BP is about to begin a massive disinvestment from the North sea, following the Chancellor's tax hike in the last Budget. That will accelerate our dependence on imported gas and oil. What is the DTI's view of that contribution by the Chancellor to energy policy? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she had not more than 24 hours' notice of that catastrophic measure?
    Ms Hewitt: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been reviewing North sea oil taxation for some years, so the idea of there being only a few hours' notice of the measure is absolute nonsense. I also understand that BP has been reviewing its entire global operation. One of the problems that we have in the current electricity supply market is an over-supply of gas-generated electricity. That is, frankly, the direct result of the pool, which the Conservative Government supported, which artificially drove up prices and which led directly to the dash for gas. We will consider the place of gas and other sources of electricity generation in the White Paper.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only do we need a White Paper but legislation, particularly in relation to the nuclear liabilities authority, to straighten out at long last the historical costs from the current ones that the nuclear industry must face? Equally, the shortcomings in the new electricity trading arrangements and our worries about the incentives for longer-term investment might be addressed by legislation to afford the introduction of the British electricity trading arrangements, which will incorporate the Scottish stations, of which two are British Energy's nuclear stations. I know that her Department is always far down the list in terms of bidding for such legislative opportunities, but could we not have a miscellaneous provisions electricity Bill, as we had under the old Scottish Office, in which all the different elements could be put together to get the necessary legislation through in an appropriate time scale?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, of which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take note. I cannot, of course, anticipate what will be in the Queen's Speech. Let me make it clear, however, that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible with our plans for the Liabilities Management Authority, which will require legislation, just as we are proceeding with our proposals for legislation to extend proper electricity trading arrangements to Scotland to ensure that energy generated there—which includes much of our renewables energy potential capacity—is available not only to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that, over the next 10 to 15 years, CO2 emissions

    995
    will continue to rise unless new nuclear power stations are built, which does the Secretary of State think is the greater environmental risk: nuclear waste or CO2 emissions?
    Ms Hewitt: Those important issues will be considered in the White Paper. I made a statement to the House last year about the arrangements that we propose to make for historic nuclear waste, which is an enormous problem that has to be dealt with properly, regardless of whether new nuclear plant is built. We are dealing with that as we have outlined, most recently in the White Paper on the Liabilities Management Authority. Our commitments not only to the Kyoto targets but, well beyond that, to far more challenging targets for a reduction in greenhouse gases are absolutely essential. We will spell out in the White Paper how we propose to meet those commitments and how we respond to the recommendations of the royal commission on environmental pollution. I should stress that we will have to use a variety of measures to meet future challenging commitments on CO2 reduction, including far more radical steps on energy efficiency, and far more effective investment in renewables, as well as other sources of electricity generation. All that will be set out in the White Paper.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Only a few weeks ago, the Minister had to bail out British Energy with a loan of £650 million. On top of that, the UK business of TXU, the United States energy giant, hit the rocks and the Yorkshire coal industry fast suffered serious consequences. Is it not time that the Government properly underpinned the British deep-mine coal industry, British Energy and renewable sources to give us a guaranteed, diverse and reliable base supply of energy, which would provide us with the comfort of knowing that our lights would not go out at the whim or financial misfortune of some of these foreign companies?
    Ms Hewitt: TXU did get into difficulties, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, its UK operation has been sold with no disruption to continuity of supply for its customers. We have demonstrated our commitment to the UK coal industry through the UK coal operating aid scheme, in which we have invested more than £150 million to help secure the future of pits that have deep-mine reserves. We are now in the process of consulting on an investment aid scheme that might be possible under the new European rules on state aid to the coal industry. I take seriously my hon. Friend's point about the need to step up investment in clean-coal technology to contribute not only to security of supply but to our environmental objectives.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Secretary of State aware that as of yesterday afternoon 17,000 people in East Anglia still had not been reconnected to the power supply after the gales on Sunday? That has caused distress and inconvenience to my constituents who contacted me from Barton, Caxton, Eltisley and Swavesey, and they continue to have problems. In conducting an inquiry, will the Secretary of State ensure that either her Department or Ofgem pursue not only the general robustness of the
    996
    system but, in that particular case, the problems associated with call centres, which made it difficult for people to notify faults, why the companies were unable to provide specific information about when they could reconnect the power supply, which left people with no knowledge, and why so many low-voltage faults continue to occur across my constituency?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely understand the enormous distress and disruption caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others around the country as a result of the power cuts. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction said, he has commissioned a review of what happened and the lessons to be learned from it. That follows a special study earlier this year, which considered the resilience of the electricity infrastructure and whether power companies would be able to cope in extreme conditions like those last weekend. The review's conclusions were generally, but not universally, positive. The new review is considering what happened in practice, what mistakes were made and whether there were simple inadequacies. The call centre business is an important part of that review. It appears that the inability in some cases of the companies to communicate with their consumers was at least as much part of the problem as the original disruption to the supply.

    MINISTER FOR WOMEN
    The Minister was asked—
    MINISTER FOR WOMEN

      Women Entrepreneurs
      Mr. Huw Edwards: What she is doing to increase the number of women setting up their own businesses. [76452]
      The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The cross-cutting review of Government services for small businesses, published earlier this month, reinforced our commitment to encourage more women entrepreneurs. Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the launch of Prowess, an organisation that promotes women's enterprise around the country that we support through the Government's phoenix fund.
      Mr. Edwards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does she agree that in Wales women are particularly under-represented in the small business sector? Will she join me in commending the work of the Welsh Development Agency and its entrepreneurship action plan, which gives practical business support to women and other under-represented groups? May I just mention the success of one local woman entrepreneur in my constituency, Simone Price, who has a very successful fitness centre and was recently awarded fitness trainer of the year?
      Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituent and the Welsh Development Agency on their work. Increasing the number of women entrepreneurs in Wales is integral to

      997
      the business birthrate strategy. I very much welcome the work of the WDA with Chwarae Teg on a Welsh women's enterprise programme.
      Sue Doughty: Although the number of self-employed females has increased in the past few years, it is a different story in the boardroom. The number of women directors in the top 100 FTSE companies decreased over the past three years despite the fact that the most successful companies have women directors. What are the Government doing to address that?
      Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the woeful lack of women at the top of our major corporations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has done a great deal of work with the FTSE female index to draw attention to that problem. We are challenging corporations, their shareholders and their management to do better. The larger issue is the need to encourage more women to start up a business. I welcome, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, the findings of last year's Barclay's bank survey in which nine out of 10 women said that it is now easier to start a business. We will continue to encourage women to set up their own business and to go much higher in large businesses.
      Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware of the large numbers of black and minority ethnic women going into business, many in traditional areas such as hairdressing and catering but also increasingly into non-traditional areas? What is she doing to help, encourage and support black and minority ethnic business women?
      Ms Hewitt: One of those very successful black woman entrepreneurs, Yvonne Thompson, chairs the ethnic minority business forum, which I set up when I was Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce to advise the Government on how we can more effectively support black entrepreneurs. I am delighted to say that we are supporting, again through the phoenix fund, a number of programmes throughout the country that direct support specifically to black entrepreneurs and black women entrepreneurs in particular.
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am glad that the Minister mentioned the banks. I wonder if she is aware that the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants says that inequality in access to finance is holding back female entrepreneurs, who on average receive only a third of the capital obtained by their male counterparts. What does the Minister see as the main barriers acting against women who want to receive finance from the banks? What are the Government doing to address that?
      Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. Access to finance, which is the No. 1 issue for every entrepreneur, is undoubtedly a particular barrier for women. That is partly because women, on average, have less access to personal security that they can offer to the banks, but I am afraid that it is also because some bank managers clearly do not think that women can succeed in business. We are working with the British Bankers Association on that, and through
      998
      Prowess and its network of women's business support organisations we are directly supporting loan funds that target their operations on women entrepreneurs.
      Barbara Follett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that new businesses started by women are far less likely to fail than those started by men? That is put down to our natural caution and our ability to do more than one thing at once. Given that women have those attributes, will the Minister do all that she can to encourage girls to take up a career in management?
      Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a very striking fact that whereas in Britain fewer than a third of businesses are started by women, in America more than four in 10 new businesses are started by women. and businesses owned by black women there are growing at twice the rate of all the women-owned businesses and at four times the rate of all American firms. There is enormous entrepreneurial potential among our women that we seek to encourage. I am not surprised that the global entrepreneurship monitor report, which I know my hon. Friend is aware of, noted last year that one of the best ways for Britain to increase its levels of entrepreneurship would he to support and encourage more women into business, and that is exactly what we are doing.

      Gender Pay Gap
      Michael Fabricant: What proportion of her time was spent over the last month on the pay gap between the sexes. [76453]
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In the last month I have launched the public consultation on the new equal pay questionnaire. This week, the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and I hosted the first annual Castle awards ceremony, which recognised steps taken by employers to address pay inequality. I am also working with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and other colleagues to develop child care policies that will also help to close the pay gap.
      Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State did not answer my question about what proportion of her time was spent on the pay gap. I am tempted, Mr. Speaker, to ask her question 10, which I had hoped to ask her a little easier, but I suppose that would be out of order.
      Is the Minister aware that there is now a 17 per cent. pay gap between men and women as early as age 24? How does she intend to narrow that gap, given that under this Administration so many gaps have widened, including, as the Rowntree Foundation pointed out, the gap between rich and poor in this country?
      Ms Hewitt: I would be delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the league of equal pay champions whom we are appointing. We are doing a great deal to try to close this extremely stubborn pay gap. Every Department and public sector agency is carrying out an audit of its pay system to uncover the causes of the gap.

      999
      Those are on track for the target date next April. and of course they will be followed by action plans to sort out the problems that they reveal.
      We have also, in the Employment Act 2002, strengthened the Equal Pay Act 1970 by introducing the questionnaire procedure to which I referred. Through the fair pay champions and the Castle awards we seek to do far more to spread good practice in the private sector so that the pay gap, which has been narrowing over the years but has not been eliminated, continues to decrease and ultimately to disappear.

      Race and Employment Directives
      Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the implementation of the Article 13 Directives on Race and Employment and the feasibility study on a single equality body. [76454]
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Last week the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women) published a summary paper setting out the Government's plans to
      1000
      implement the race and employment directives, and a consultation paper on creating the right framework to support equality legislation.
      Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I received a letter from a female constituent who said:
      "The thought that my partner may be prevented from seeing me in hospital because she is not my next of kin is incredibly upsetting and frustrating."
      Inheritance tax, housing rights and pension benefits are just some of the inequalities that thousands of people in Britain face today. Does she anticipate that the changes in the legislation that she proposes will help my constituent?
      Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The draft regulations to implement the directive on which we are consulting provide that where, for instance, a pension scheme provides benefits to unmarried partners, it will need to do so whether the partner is of the same sex or the opposite sex. We will also outlaw direct discrimination against same-sex couples. We are examining civil partnership registration and the associated rights and responsibilities, which as my hon. Friend knows, raise a number of complex issues. We are taking on board her concerns and those of her constituent.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4 NovEmBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
WEDNESDAY 6 NovEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Animal Health Bill.
THURSDAY 7 NOVEMBER—The House will be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received and have not been debated on a preceding day of the week.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
The House will be aware that we will reconvene on Wednesday 13 November to hear the Queen's Speech and the next business statement will be on Thursday 14 November.
I am pleased that following the motion that was carried on Tuesday—
Michael Fabricant: Only just—seven votes.
Mr. Cook: It was carried to acclamation, may I tell the hon. Gentleman, with a just majority that any of us would settle for. I am now announcing for the first time a Commons calendar for a whole year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for support on both sides of the House.
We plan to rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 19 December and return on Tuesday 7 January. For the half-term week, the House will rise on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February. I am grateful for the attention of the House; I do not usually encounter such silence when I address it—[Laughter.] For Easter, we will rise on Thursday 10 April, and that will he combined with the constituency week, with the House returning on Monday 28 April. For Whitsun, we will rise on Thursday 22 May and return on Tuesday 3 June. For the summer recess, the House will rise on Thursday 17 July and return on Monday 8 September. Finally, for the conference recess, the House will rise on Thursday 18 September and return on Tuesday 14 October. I must repeat the health warning that while we on this side will use our best endeavours to meet those dates, our success in doing so will depend on the progress of business.
Mr. Forth: We are grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week, and are particularly grateful that he has honoured his undertaking to tell us the dates for the year ahead—we all very much welcome that. In that context, something has just occurred to me. Does he anticipate that each of these Thursdays on which he has announced the House
1002
will rise will be normal business Thursdays, and that there will be a business statement? That would help me and the House generally.
While the right hon. Gentleman is in this looking-ahead mode, can he say anything about the pre-Budget report? Last year, we had quite a lot of notice of it. It is an important event that we all anticipate eagerly. If he cannot tell us now when it might be, perhaps he can undertake that we shall be given full and adequate notice of the report so that appropriate dispositions can be made.
Representations have been made to me about an overlap or conflict in business that appears in today's Order Paper. In the Chamber this afternoon, we are debating defence matters. Simultaneously, in Westminster Hall, there is a debate touching on matters related to terrorism and foreign policy. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I suspect that this applies to Members throughout the House—have a great interest in both debates. It is especially unfortunate, therefore, that business of a similar nature has been scheduled in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall which will require many Members to make a difficult choice.
I make this plea to the Leader of the House: will he use his best endeavours to ensure that such overlap or conflict will not arise in future? Whatever our views about Westminster Hall may be—I suppose that even I must accept that it is now a permanent feature of our lives—please let it not become a negative rather than a positive in terms of what Members can do on the same day.
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is in another place and. as the Leader of the House announced, it is about to head in our direction next week. The Bill has been hugely changed. I think that it is fair to say that it is now in a bit of mess. As a result, I gather that one of the measures that has been inserted in it is what we used to call in the trade a Henry VIII provision, although I understand that it goes even further than that. In other words, such a mess has been made of the Bill that the Government had to insert in it something to this effect: "If we discover that it is unworkable in future, we can change it at will without having to return to the House."
Given those factors, will the Leader of the House give me an undertaking that we shall have enough time fully to scrutinise the changes that were made in another place and to deal with the very broad provision that has been inserted in the Bill? I hope that he can, and that we will not, even at this late stage in the Session, be forced to truncate or restrict our scrutiny of the Bill, important as it is in its own right but even more so because of the provisions that have been inserted in another place.
The changes that we voted for the other day will be new to us all, especially the 11.30 am start and the 7 pm finish. I ask the Leader of the House to give a guarantee to the House that we shall always have Secretaries of State in the Chamber for departmental questions and other related business at 11.30 am each day, and that we shall not start in any circumstances to have excuses being made such as, "Well, it was a bit inconvenient" or, "The Secretary of State had to be elsewhere" or, "There was something else happening", particularly if it happened to be in a media studio or something of that

1003
kind. I think that I am making a reasonable request to the right hon. Gentleman that he instruct his fellow members of the Cabinet that they will be in the Chamber at 11.30 am every day to answer to the House, with no backsliding.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the annual calendar that we have brought in. I believe that it will enable right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to plan more effectively for the use of their time in their constituencies. In the spirit of amity, I was much distressed to see in today's edition of the Daily Mail that he was described as dressing
"like a Victorian undertaker out for a day at the races".
I thought that grossly unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, who brings colour to our lives. I urge him to pay no attention either to that or any of the other points in the Daily Mail.
On the pre-Budget report, I anticipate that it will take place at roughly the same time this year as it has done in previous years. Plainly, it is important that the official Opposition and other parties get good notice of it. If it is not possible for me to do that through the business statement, we will certainly ensure that it is done through other channels.
The debate in Westminster Hall is, strictly speaking, on international terrorism; the debate in the Chamber is on domestic defence. I am conscious, though, of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We are obligated to have the debate in the Chamber today because, under the present agreement, we are obligated to have five days for defence debates in the House each Session, and we must get it in this week if we are to meet that obligation. We will try to avoid such a coincidence in future. I warmly welcome the fact that his observation on Westminster Hall is the kindest that he has yet brought himself to make about it. [Interruption.] I would not wish to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was mellowing. That would be a great disappointment to all of us.
On the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, the House will have a full day to debate those matters next week, and I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of making sure that the time is available for that. There is a big set of issues before us that day, to which the Government attach the greatest importance. I hope that Opposition Members who have spent the past year demanding vigorous action from the Government on asylum will not undermine their own statements by failing to support the Government in the vigorous action that is contained in the Bill.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman invited me to make an instruction to my colleagues in the Cabinet. If he will forgive me, I shall try to find more emollient, less challenging language. Of course, I totally endorse his view that the first call on any Secretary of State must be to be in the House to answer questions here, and I think that that will remain the case. I cannot exclude the possibility that, from time to time, there may be occasions when the House would recognise that there may be other competing calls—for instance, the necessity sometimes to represent Britain's case in
1004
European Council meetings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Opposition Members would be the first to criticise us if any of my colleagues let the British case go unstated on such important occasions. With those very few limited exceptions, yes, of course the first call on any Secretary of State will be to be in the Chamber for Question Time, and I do not anticipate that the change in time will make any difference to that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House has given us details of the debates on the Queen's Speech. May I draw his attention to an apparent anomaly? Although we debate at great length the contents of the Queen's Speech, it seems that we are not permitted to be given the Government's views on the status and format of that speech. Will he comment on the report in The Times yesterday headlined "Courtiers move to let the Queen speak her mind"? Is there any intention for future years, if not for this year, to disentangle the Government's declaration of their intentions from the direct statement from the sovereign?
On the modernisation package that was approved by the House on Tuesday evening, will the Leader of the House correct the impression given, perhaps inadvertently, by the Conservative spokesman that business will end at 7 pm? Does he accept that the motion that we passed refers to the moment of interruption, and that it would be possible, for example, to have private Member's business after 7.30 pm or whenever the Adjournment has taken place, or before the Adjournment? There are possibilities there.
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Hansard's report of the proceedings last night, when the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), speaking from the Back Benches, gave a lively performance? I do not know whose hospitality fuelled it, but it was certainly lively. Has the Leader of the House subsequently seen in The Daily Telegraph this morning that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is described by one of his senior colleagues as being "out of control"? Will he deprecate any statement that any right hon. or hon. Member should be under anybody's control, let alone the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is famous for his independence of mind, and let alone under the control of his leader?
Mr. Cook: I can well understand why the right hon. Gentleman's leader might wish to bring him back under control. I read in my copy of The Daily Telegraph this morning over breakfast—always the first paper to which I turn—that he has been saying that he has 80 Conservatives ready to sign a motion of no confidence in his leader. If true, that would certainly worry his leader, as I understand that it would take only 90 votes to carry such a motion. However, it is not for me to pry into that interesting and mysterious relationship.
On the Queen's Speech, I also read the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I was, frankly, rather mystified by it. We have no plans to change the nature of the Queen's Speech and I am not aware of any proposal from the palace that it be changed. The speech will continue within the broad parameters that it has, by convention, followed for a long time.
The hon. Gentleman was right in his observations about what happens at 7 pm. I tried to draw attention to the issue in my winding-up speech on Tuesday night. We

1005
have moved forward by three hours the start and close of the proceedings of the House. I deprecate newspaper reports suggesting that we have cut our hours. We have not done so; the hours of debate remain constant. What we have moved forward is the time at which the main business comes to a close, when there is a moment of interruption before any other business may begin. During this Session, we have become accustomed to not taking other business after the moment of interruption, but as I said on Tuesday, I cannot guarantee that that will always happen. However, I am conscious that the House voted on Tuesday for an earlier start and finish and I caution hon. Members against already starting to unpick that only two days later.
Fiona Mactaggart: On the decisions that we made on Tuesday, will the Leader of the House commit to having the widest possible consultation with hon. Members about the practical mechanisms for implementing them? People are not clear and they have views. The widest possible discussion will enable those new arrangements to work well.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but before I deal with her point, may I return to an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which I regret having overlooked? It would be my intention to have business statements on the Thursdays to which he referred. If that should change for any reason, we will ensure that he is informed. The reason why we will have no business statement next Thursday is not that the House is adjourning, but that it is the last day of the Session, so technically, I have no other business to announce for the Session. However, since the dates that I announced will all fall in the same Session, I anticipate that a business statement would normally be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made an important point. I intend to write to all hon. Members setting out the implications of Tuesday's decisions, how we will proceed with them and when they will come into effect. Of course, I am happy to consult Members and staff to ensure that their introduction is as smooth as possible and also as consensual as possible, consistent with the fact that the House reached a decision. I hope that, over the next year, we can arrive at a situation in which all Members believe that they voted for the changes, even if they did not do so.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Leader of the House aware that the air travel trust fund operated by the Civil Aviation Authority is £9 million in debt, and that, in reply to a question that I asked about the issue, one of his right hon. Friends offered to find space in parliamentary time for the introduction of primary legislation enabling the application of a levy to the industry to make good the debt? Is he further aware that no such time has been made available? If a major charter company went bankrupt, there would be severe difficulties in returning affected passengers to this country. Will he therefore enlighten the House as to whether there will be space in the Queen's Speech and time in the next legislative Session for that primary legislation to be put before the House?
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Lady knows, we are about to reconvene for the Queen's Speech and hear a full list of
1006
the primary legislation that may be introduced. I can assure the House that we are in for a very full and busy Session. On the specific point that she raises, I would be happy to draw her comments to the attention of the colleague to whom she referred and ensure that it is discussed directly with her.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am deeply disturbed—[Laughter.] Is he aware that I am deeply concerned about the reports to which he referred, in today 's Daily Mail and in The Daily Telegraph, about a right hon. Member who looks like a Victorian undertaker? In view of that concern, will he consider arranging a debate, preferably next week, which he and his shadow would lead, on the importance to parliamentary democracy of effective opposition?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is being mischievous, albeit very entertainingly so. Of course, it is for the Opposition to decide on proceedings in the days for debate on the Queen's Speech—we will have six days' full debate—and it would be immensely welcome if they were to have the courage to initiate a debate along the lines that he suggests.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Is it by design that the Government have announced that on 17 February next year, when congestion charging is introduced in London, Members of Parliament will not be here to experience the suffering?
Will the Leader of the House deal with the serious anxieties of those who have fleet vehicles and are subject to the fourth EU insurance directive? Regulations under that directive have to come into effect on 20 January next year, which has enormous implications. I understand that they have not yet been drafted. When will they be laid before the House? Will there be an opportunity for proper debate and consultation with the people affected before 20 January?
Mr. Cook: I assure hon. Members that congestion charges were not uppermost in our minds when we chose the dates for the recess. Hon. Members will, of course, return afterwards when they are in place. I shall take up the on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised with the relevant Department and ensure that we try to get the text deposited with the House as soon as possible. We have always tried to make sure that we have the text of European documents and legislation as early as possible Sometimes the reason for the delay does not lie on this side of the channel, but I will pursue the matter so that hon. Members can consider the directive as soon as possible.
Kevin Brennan: Will the Leader of the House get the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on national health service consultants' rejection this morning of the wicked Government's terrible offer? It would have required them to work a 40-hour week and sometimes to work at weekends. It would have stuffed their mouths with gold by expecting them to accept a 20 per cent. increase in their pay. Is not that shocking treatment of NHS workers? What other group of workers would be expected to accept such an offer?

1007
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House today to defend his treatment of NHS consultants?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to remind hon. Members that consultants in Scotland voted for the contract. I share my hon. Friend's regret that consultants in Wales did not. He is right that the offer constituted an increase of 15 per cent. over consultants' careers. They have rejected a fair deal, which offered more time for NHS patients in return for more money. It had been negotiated with consultants' representatives and was recommended to them by the consultants' committee that negotiated the agreement. I regret that the profession has rejected it. The Government will look to work with consultants who want to work with us to improve patient care.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear, there can be no renegotiation of the package, there will be no more resources beyond the 15 per cent. already on the table, and we must not allow any veto on NHS reform in the interests of patients.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When will a statement be made on the crisis in the fishing industry, given the overwhelming interest in the coastal communities and the thousands of jobs that are at stake? Perhaps the Leader of the House knows that the Scottish Minister in the Scots Parliament made a statement yesterday. As we speak, an SNP debate is taking place in the Scots Parliament.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall signing a document in 1998 that provided that the Scots Minister should lead UK delegations to Europe and the Council of Ministers when appropriate? When could that be more appropriate than when 80 per cent. of the jobs at stake are in Scotland? Yet we are met with obvious indifference; the UK Government will not even make a statement.
Mr. Cook: I acquit the Government of indifference about the matter. The concordat to which the hon. Gentleman referred has worked well—
Mr. Salmond: Answer.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question; he must bear with the answer even if he does not agree with it. The Scottish Executive would make no complaint of their involvement in work in Brussels. Their representatives work closely with the British embassy there.
I understand the importance of the issue to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other fishing communities in Scotland. However, we must take account of scientific reality. In 30 years, cod landing has reduced from 741 tonnes to 41 tonnes a year. The scientific community tells us that we are in danger of the cod stocks disappearing. The issue is not whether we have some restraint or no restraint, but whether we have it now, when we can save the cod, or total restraint when we have finished off the cod for ever.
Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 14 million people in
1008
southern Africa face an acute food shortage. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement to update the House on what action she is taking to assist those people? Will he also arrange for the House to be told what preparations are in hand in relation to Eritrea and Ethiopia, where I am told that a similar crisis is looming?
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be answering questions on Wednesday, and I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss those points, among others, then. I remind the House that the Government have an excellent record on providing aid and assistance to Africa. Over the lifetime of this Government, we are increasing that aid by 50 per cent. That is a substantial help to many rural communities there, and is well ahead of the performance of any other major donor nation.
Sir George Young: Can the Leader of the House say anything about the likely business when the House returns? Given that there is to be no business statement next week and that we have just voted for more certainty in our affairs, is it not perverse that, when we return, we shall not know the business for the second week back? Will he also confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not exempt from this new regime for certainty, and that there will be an early announcement of the date of the pre-Budget statement?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to remove any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have about the week after the Queen's Speech. That week will be dominated by the Queen's Speech. I have just referred to the fact that there will be six days of full debate on that matter, which takes us up to and includes the Wednesday of the next week. The topics for those debates are a matter on which he can address his Front-Bench colleagues, because the topics will be their call.
I have said already that I anticipate that the pre-Budget report will be given at broadly the same time this year as last year. Should it require any approach other than by me, I am sure that that will be made. We would not want such an important statement of the Government's success in having a sound economy to take place without adequate warning to the House.
David Winnick: The Leader of the Opposition should be left alone. He has a very difficult job.
Following the decision taken on Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the House of Commons section of the Palace of Westminster will remain open in the late evenings for meetings? It would be totally unacceptable if those facilities, which are used by many outside organisations—some in the Labour movement, obviously, and many outside it—were closed when the House is no longer sitting. I hope that all those facilities for meetings will remain open as they do at present.
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I have stressed throughout that facilities in the House will continue to

1009
remain open even though the House may not be sitting. That includes the Library, refreshment facilities and, certainly, rooms for meetings. Indeed, if we adjust our hours in the way for which we voted on Tuesday, there may be even greater convenience and ease for meetings to take place on the premises when we do not require them ourselves.
Matthew Green: Will the Leader of the House arrange either a ministerial statement or a debate on the loss of power that many households in my constituency and many others—such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—have suffered following the gales at the weekend? Almost a thousand households in my constituency still had no power yesterday, and some were still being reconnected this morning. I understand that the power companies are saying that they should not pay compensation because this is an act beyond their means. Many homes in my constituency have also been without water for three or four days because there has been no power supply for the generators. The water companies are saying that they should not pay compensation because it was not their fault, but the fault of the electricity companies. Can we debate this matter at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Get rid of privatisation.
Mr. Cook: I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that not even he could blame the recent gales on privatisation. While I share his robust defence of our philosophy, we cannot on this occasion blame these circumstances on capitalism.
I fully sympathise with the distress and difficulty caused to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) who have been deprived of their electrical supply. He underlines the extent to which, in modern society, so much of what we rely on depends on power being available. When that power supply is shut down, the effect is much more dramatic than it might have been in previous decades. If he will forgive me, I will not be drawn on the difficult legal question as to who is liable and who might be sued. That is a matter for lawyers, not politicians. I can assure him, however, that we are in close contact with the power authorities seeking to get restoration, and the information that I received this morning is that they anticipate that most of those who were still disconnected yesterday will be reconnected during the course of today.
Mr. Tom Harris: On Monday, my right hon. Friend and I took part in a debate on alleged abuses of the House of Commons by those Members who have not yet taken their seats. The charge was led by the shadow Leader of the House. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at media reports this morning that abuses of House facilities—namely, the Members' Tea Room have indeed been taking place this week, involving none other than the shadow Leader of the House, for nefarious party political purposes?
Mr. Cook: I am shocked to hear that the Tea Room is used for party political purposes. This is a very serious
1010
allegation, which I shall of course immediately discuss with the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee to consider whether we should pursue it.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing problems affecting the Government's consultation on airport policy? Of the documents involved, six remain unavailable to Members and those that have been published contain serious factual errors. On Saturday, a new exhibition will take place in my constituency, because of previous mistakes, and I understand that some of my constituents are seeking a judicial review of the consultation process. Given that, will he look carefully at early-day motion 1792?
[That this House notes with concern the consultation period of four months and that this equates to just seven parliamentary weeks; and calls upon the Government to extend,the period of consultation to the end of February 2003 to give more people a chance to respond.]
It seeks a short extension and is supported by Members on both sides of the House.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House early next week to explain what has gone wrong with the process and whether the Government will extend the consultation? I must tell the Leader of the House that this is a matter of rising concern among Members across the House, and I hope that he deals with it appropriately.
Mr. Cook: I understand the importance of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I shall certainly communicate with the Department for Transport on the importance of making available any documents that remain unavailable to the House. The consultation lasts four months, which, of course, exceeds the normal 12 weeks. The points that he raises underline the importance of consulting widely before moving to a decision, but whether there is room for any further delay would depend on how quickly we needed to reach that decision, and I suggest that it might not necessarily help all the communities affected if uncertainty were prolonged unnecessarily.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The first Adjournment debate that I was ever granted in the House by Speaker Weatherill was about an underground fire in my constituency. Appropriately, it was granted on 5 November. May we have a debate, perhaps on that date, on the misuse of fireworks? Although we have had a debate in Westminster Hall, the matter is very serious and the arrangements for the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of fireworks have got seriously out of hand. Can the debate be broad enough to allow us to discuss fireworks advertisements, such as one which states:
"Start off your display with a 'noisy firework'. This could be a rocket or perhaps an air bomb battery."?
It ends:
"Make sure that the finale is a spectacular setting of 2–3 of the loudest fireworks at once."
Considerable misuse is taking place and it needs to be squeezed out.
Mr. Cook: On 5 November, the House is committed to debating the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum

1011
Bill, on which I anticipate there may be some harmless pyrotechnics in the Chamber. My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, however, and hon. Members in many constituencies will have seen its damaging effects on constituents when things go wrong. That is why the Government have launched a major publicity campaign to try to reduce tyhe mischievous and irresponsible use of fireworks, and why we have already committed ourselves to taking the necessary powers next year to ensure that the most harmful fireworks and those that are most misused are not available on general sale. He makes an important point, which I am sure will continue to be at the forefront of the House's deliberations, not just this year, but in future years.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), the airports policy consultation document offers a pro forma reply at the end, but does not Parliament need to be consulted on matters of such crucial significance to our constituents' welfare? As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly announced the outline of the parliamentary year ahead, can he give us any commitment to a full debate on airports policy before the end of the consultation on 29 November?
Mr. Cook: I do not think I can commit myself to a debate on any subject by 29 November. That would be within a week of the Queen's Speech, and as I said, we have a busy year ahead of us. I fully appreciate, however, that airports policy is a major issue, especially for constituencies that are directly affected. It is inconceivable that we could proceed without giving Parliament a full opportunity to question the relevant Minister and express its views.
Mr. Mark Todd: Like many other constituencies, South Derbyshire is troubled by the problem of illegal camping on public and private property, and the nuisance and dumping of waste that it often causes. In July the Government announced that they were considering measures to strengthen controls on this antisocial activity. Apparently the matter has been passed to the Home Office. Could my right hon. Friend persuade a Home Office Minister to come here and tell us what progress the Department has made?
Mr. Cook: I realise the enormous distress that is caused to many communities by illegal camping As my hon. Friend will know, the Government recognise that what often concerns our constituents most is low-level antisocial behaviour which, while it may not necessarily grab the headlines, can have a serious impact on local communities' quality of life. I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office, and ensure that they contact him about the progress they have made since the announcement.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): According to the published results of a Department of Education household consultation in Northern Ireland, only in the 50 most deprived of a total of 566 wards was there
1012
agreement that academic selection should end. Will the Leader of the House make time for the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for education to come and explain why, in a written answer given to me this week, she said the predominant view was that academic selection should be done away with? Surely that was misleading the House, and an apology should be made.
Mr. Cook: I confess that I am not familiar with the details, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of the relevant Minister and invite him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Knowing that my right hon. Friend would welcome a question about top-up fees, I thought I might give him one. Does he agree that the universities in the most financial difficulty are those with a high proportion of science and engineering students? It appears that the resources allocated to those courses are insufficient. My local university, the university of Hertfordshire, is about to close its physics department, having already closed its chemistry and civil engineering departments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the matter is urgent, and that the House should have an opportunity to debate it fully as soon as possible?
Mr. Cook: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggested reply, and look forward to an occasion when an education Minister may be able to respond to his question.
The Government are proud of having provided an extra £1,700 million for higher education. That represents a remarkable change from the policy of retention pursued by the last Government. We want to ensure that we have the best—world-class—higher education, with universities that can hold their own in the face of what is increasingly global competition. The purpose of the review that will be published shortly is to examine how we can ensure that universities have the necessary resources while also ensuring that even the poorest citizen can go to university.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House consider organising a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister early next week on urban policy, following the meeting that he is holding today? I am particularly concerned about the knock-on effects of urban policy on greenbelt issues. We in Sutton Coldfield have been very suspicious of the Deputy Prime Minister's views on the green belt since his outrageous overturning of an independent inspector's report on Peddimore in my constituency, which would have protected the green belt.
Mr. Cook: I do not want to pursue the hon. Gentleman down an individual planning decision. I fear that I would quickly end up in difficulty on what is proper and on what may be appropriate for the local community to comment on, but on the generality of the principle that he raises I remind him that this Government have increased the green belt rather than reduced it and that the thrust of the policy of the Deputy Prime Minister is to ensure that as much building as possible takes place on brownfield land, not on green land. We will continue to pursue that policy.
John Cryer: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman

1013
Lamb), after the storms at the weekend a number of my constituents experienced power cuts. When they tried to contact the power supply companies, they were treated to a series of electronic voices followed by silence. I was under the impression that after the Tories pushed through privatisation attention to customer problems would be the top priority—in the marvellous new world of liberalisation, all that would be attended to. When will the Minister for Energy and Construction come to the House to tell us when the power industry will be renationalised and taken back into public hands—without compensation—or failing that, can we have a debate on the problems experienced in the supply of power to constituents such as mine?
Mr. Cook: I do not anticipate such a statement next week.
Of course, it is important that customers experiencing severe disruption to their supply should be able to get guidance, satisfaction and reassurance from the power authorities. I know that the Minister for Energy and Construction has been pursuing the power authorities to ensure that they respond well. Possibly after this week, when power has been restored to all consumers, it will be important that we sit down and learn the lessons of how the system operated this time.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I ask the Leader of the House to make time available soon for a debate on the recent spate of job losses in the offshore oil and gas industry? In my constituency there have already been job losses at Sullom Voe oil terminal, and more are threatened. Those losses are all part of a process that started with the tax changes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the Budget, without any warning to the industry. It is surely right and proper that he should come to the House to explain away the fruits of his labours.
Mr. Cook: To be fair, the Chancellor answers questions in the House regularly and there will be an opportunity for extended questioning to him on the pre-Budget report. Indeed, I anticipate that some of those issues will be relevant to whatever topics are nominated by the Opposition for debate following the Queen's, Speech. There will be a number of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to pursue those matters.
I deeply sympathise with the distress that will be caused to the constituents of any hon. Member who face redundancy and change. However, we must view that in the context of the fact that, in Britain, 1.5 million more people are at work than when we came to office.
Alan Simpson: May I ask for an early statement or debate on the increasing problems of violence in cities? If the Leader of the House saw last week's television programme about violence in Nottingham, he will have been as struck as I was by the incidence of violent crime that is alcohol related and the incredible problems that both licensing justices and local authorities now have in managing social movements of people around watering hole establishments; it is on a scale and density that they no longer have the power to refuse. Can the House and the Government take the opportunity to look again at the
1014
powers that we need to restore to local authorities and licensing justices just to be able to say no to some of these developments?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises the issue of the link between violence and alcohol which is clear and borne out by the evidence and statistics. The House will have the opportunity to explore those matters in the event of legislation on alcohol licensing in the next Session. The important considerations that my hon. Friend has outlined need to be heard in those debates.
My own local authority has made substantial progress in reducing violence from alcohol, not so much by controlling the licences of outlets of alcohol but by ensuring that the fast food outlets shut at the same time as the pubs, a move which has dramatically reduced the number of fights in the fast food outlets.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the role and terms of reference of what is now known as the British Board of Film Classification? I would then have the opportunity to question her about an important article by the veteran film commentator and analyst, Christopher Tookey, in the Daly Mail on 24 October, when he pointed out that
"the Board's director of communications, Sue Clark, has announced that the BBFC is reluctant to censor any other films in the future. Its role, she said, is one of classification, not censorship."
This change of role appears to mean that no violence or violent pornography, no matter how extreme, can ever be stopped or censored, but merely graded and classified. I should say, by way of declaring an interest, that when Chris Tookey, as he then was, was president of the Oxford Union some 30 years ago, he gave me my first paper speech to that assembly, so he could hardly be accused of being afraid to inflict gruesome and traumatic experiences on an unwary audience.
Mr. Cook: The mind boggles at what the hon. Gentleman hints at and I fear that anything I say will be an understatement. I will of course report his remarks to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and arrange to have a clarification of the point he raised sent to him.
David Burnside: You will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday was the first occasion since I was elected to the House last June when you did not call an elected Member from Northern Ireland. That follows—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not discuss what I do or do not do at Prime Minister's Question Time.
David Burnside rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. [Interruption.] It is not for the Leader of the House to decide whom I call at Prime Minister's Question Time.
John Barrett: Tomorrow the consultation process on the future of air transport enters

1015
its final month. For the consultation to be meaningful, there has to be a large number of responses. Many consultation documents have gone out, but very few have been returned. Will the Leader of the House raise the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport to encourage as much response as possible in the final month of the consultation?
Mr. Cook: I will certainly raise with my right hon. Friend the interest that has been expressed in the consultation on airports policy. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of responses, I am not in a position to confirm or deny what he says but it is a frequent experience during consultation periods that many responses are received as the rush of the deadline approaches.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House may be aware that tonight is Halloween. If he has any doubt, and if he looks through the papers today, he will see the witches looking into their cauldron and predicting the death of a Duncan. Will he ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week, reviewing any extra police activity tonight, particularly to do with trick or treating? An extra police burden is created by children who terrorise older people by ringing their doorbells and throwing eggs. There is also a risk to young children who wander round the streets knocking on the doors of strangers. Will the Home Secretary look at Government policy on that? What advice is given to the police and to schools?
Hon. Members: Answer!
Mr. Cook: I must confess that it had slipped my mind that tonight was Halloween, or I would have worked it into a reply earlier on. Halloween is an opportunity for hundreds of thousands of children up and down the country to indulge in innocent and friendly behaviour—[Interruption.] Perhaps even more innocent than the Whips. I would very much deprecate the action of a small number of children who, by behaving in an irresponsible and intimidating way, bring everybody under suspicion and make a wonderful occasion for children to enjoy into one of suspicion and anxiety in future years. I would appeal to all those going out tonight to enjoy themselves in such a way that those on whose doors they knock can enjoy the experience too.
Michael Fabricant: May we have a debate entitled "The Enemy Within" and address it to political parties? Does the Leader of the House agree with early-day motion 1835?
[That this House notes with concern the recent publication by Britain in Europe which equates opposition to the euro with opposition to Labour; notes that Britain in Europe is itself a multi-party organisation which contains
1016
opponents of a Labour Government; further notes that the use of the term 'enemies' to describe opponents of either Labour or the euro is extreme, likely to discourage reasonable debate and is a reversion to the tribalism so often condemned by the Prime Minister; further notes, with pleasure, the establishment of Labour Against the Euro as a growing group of Labour parliamentarians who are opposed to Britain seeking to join the euro before the General Election, recognises that LATE represents the views of the majority of Labour voters and a growing number of Party members and trade unionists; further notes, with concern, that this Britain in Europe publication was circulated to all Labour Party members by the Labour Party itself, believes that allowing an outside organisation which contains known and prominent opponents to attack members of the Labour Party in a Labour Party mailing is a novel method of encouraging internal discussion; and further believes that if the House is to have a debate on the euro then it should have argument, passion and humour but no distortion, personal abuse or dubious pamphlets from Britain in Europe.]
Will he join his right hon. and hon. Friends who signed early-day motion 1835, pointing out the schisms in the Labour party?
Mr. Cook: In the light of this morning's press about the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman has made a bold attempt to find schisms within the Labour party. May I assure him that there will be no need for us to have a specific debate on the enemy within? I hope that every week we will be able to discuss and debate the activities of the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on these occasions.
Mr. Alan Reid: Earlier, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to the report of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which recommends the banning of trawling in the North and Irish seas, and off the west coast of Scotland. In his answer, the Leader of the House appeared to accept the report's accuracy. However, there is scientific opinion that contradicts the report and believes that the complete ban on trawling is unnecessary. In view of that divergence of views, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the Floor of the House as soon as possible so that we can discuss the report and decide how best to convince the council that its ban on trawling, which would put 20,000 people out of work, is unnecessary?
Mr. Cook: It is a fact of any scientific proposal that someone in the scientific community will always have an alternative view. However, there is not much room for any doubt about the central proposition, which is that cod stocks are dwindling and that without action to retain them, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will, at some future time, face an outcome in which neither they nor their children will ever be able to resume fishing. If he really wants to look after the long-term interests of his constituents, I urge him to accept the need to ensure the conservation of fishing stocks.

Points of Order
1.22 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night we debated the Enterprise Bill. Amendment No. 1 dealt with the desire for a separation of powers between the chairman and chief executive of the new Office of Fair Trading. We divided the House shortly after 6 o'clock on the important matter of the two roles. During the debate, at about 5.57 pm, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), referred to
"Sir John Vickers, the current occupant of the role, who I expect to occupy both roles in future."
The hon. Lady said that slowly and the whole House heard it. I intervened on her on that specific point about occupying both new roles. It was therefore with some surprise that I read the Official Report today and discovered that that comment does not appear in column 910. I checked the tape just now, and it certainly was said.
Could you speak to the Editor of the Official Report on behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, to discover whether it was a genuine error—which I doubt, given the excellent stenographers—or whether a Minister or official from the Department of Trade and Industry went to get it expunged from the record?
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman see the Editor of Hansard. If he is still dissatisfied, I will look into the matter. That is the best advice that I can give him.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your sage advice regarding the Leader of the House? The right hon. Gentleman is leaving his place now but a few moments ago he may inadvertently have misled the House. It was the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland who told Members of the Scottish Parliament yesterday that he could lead a delegation to the European Council of Ministers, the Minister responsible for fisheries here who said that he cannot, and the Leader of the House, in a previous role, who said that on occasion he should. I see that the Leader of the House is still here—perhaps he would clarify that it is not true, as he said, that all members of the Scottish Executive are happy with the current arrangements.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House's time is up, and we have moved on. [Interruption.] Just for today. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could get involved
1018
in a conversation with the Leader of the House, because I am not responsible for the replies that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This issue, which I have raised with you in correspondence, relates to the freedom of access for Members through the main Corridors in the parliamentary estate. This week, access between Norman Shaw North and the Chamber is being blocked during sitting hours and even during Divisions. On Monday evening, a point of order was made relating to the issue, and Madam Deputy Speaker said:
"I remind hon. Members that they are required to carry their passes with them at all times.—[Official Report, 28 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 604.]
I asked you in the letter—I have yet to receive a reply—when that requirement was laid down and by whom, and what is the sanction for non-compliance.
I have been able to find out from the Journal Office that an order was made in 1974 stating that Members should be issued with passes, but there has never been any resolution of the House, as far as I can find out, stating that Members must carry them at all times. Even if there were such a resolution, how could you possibly require Members to ensure that the automatic card readers were working at the time the card was presented? That is the real issue. Surely the best form of security in the Palace of Westminster is to have good perimeter security and freedom of movement within it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of some of my constituents who ask me, "Have you got a reply ready for that letter?" When I ask, "When did you send it"", they say, "I sent it yesterday." I think that the hon. Gentleman sent the letter on Monday or Tuesday. He should wait until I can look at his correspondence, along with correspondence from other hon. Members.
I will look into this matter, but the House should bear in mind that we live in dangerous times and security must be a lot tighter than it used to be. There is a responsibility on hon. Members to ensure that they co-operate as much as they can with our security staff, who look after not only hon. Members, but all those who work in the House and who visit it. However, I will look at the hon. Gentleman's correspondence and reply to him.
Michael Fabricant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I endorse everything that you have just said, but may I ask that, when you look into this matter, you perhaps speak to the Parliamentary Works Directorate to ensure that all card readers are working at all times? Those of us who try to carry our identity cards with us can find it immensely frustrating if we then find that certain card readers are not operating properly and we cannot gain access.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into the matter.

Defence in the United Kingdom
[Relevant Documents: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001–02, on Defence and Security in the United Kingdom, HC 518, and the Government's response thereto, HC 1230.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Kemp.]
1.28 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): This is the last of the Session's five themed debates on defence. Two weeks ago, on 17 October, we debated defence in the world. Today, we consider defence in the United Kingdom.
As earlier debates have amply demonstrated, the United Kingdom's armed forces play a role in global peace and security that is second to none. They do so in defence of this country from attack by conventional and terrorist forces and as a force for good in the world, but they also play an important role here at home. The armed forces have a presence throughout the United Kingdom, from south-west England to Scotland, and from East Anglia to Northern Ireland. They serve the people of the whole United Kingdom as part of the wider community and the economy, and in conjunction with many other agencies organisations and emergency services.
I am therefore glad that the House has before it an excellent report from the Select Committee on Defence, entitled "Defence and Security in the UK", and the recently published Government response. Those documents will help us to address the issues today.
The context of the debate, like so much of the Ministry of Defence's activity in the past 12 months, is the aftermath and implications of the appalling terrorist attacks in the United States of America on 11 September 2001. Those attacks demanded two immediate tasks of us. First, we needed to respond urgently to the direct threat facing the United Kingdom and its interests. Secondly, we needed to re-examine our policies and planning to deal with al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organisations. Those responses were both international and domestic. They involved not just the United Kingdom but our friends and allies around the world; and not just the Ministry of Defence but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Cabinet Office and other Departments, including the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In the House on 16 October last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out both the immediate campaign aims and the longer-term objectives of our wider counter-terrorist strategy: to bring the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice; to prevent that group from posing a continuing threat; and to deny it a base in Afghanistan. More widely, we sought, and continue to seek, to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism from whichever direction it comes. That is a challenge that faces all responsible countries, and it is a challenge to which the response must be more than a military one alone.
After 11 September, the Secretary of State immediately commissioned work within the Ministry of Defence to address the policy challenges and to look at
1020
our defence posture and plans in the light of the potential terrorist power demonstrated so starkly on that day. That work took as its basis the Government's defence policy developed and put in place through the strategic defence review carried out in 1997 and 1998. Our approach at that time was widely recognised and welcomed as being the correct one.
As the House will be aware, the new chapter was a re-examination not of the fundamentals of the strategic defence review but of the impact on it arising from the emergence of strategic and international terrorism. The new chapter should therefore be viewed as a development of part of a whole, and not as a stand-alone strategy on defence. We published two discussion documents as part of a wide and open consultation, which produced many contributions from individuals and organisations, including Members of both Houses of Parliament. The result was the publication of the new chapter on 18 July.
That document analysed how military force could be applied in response to the asymmetric threat that international terrorism poses. We face a different sort of enemy now—one whose strategic interests, infrastructure and will to fight are different from those of a conventional nation state, but who has identified and acquired the means by which to achieve strategic and profound international effects by their actions.
Clearly, part of the response is home defence and security, to which I shall refer in a moment, but another key part of it is the "away" game: in effect, taking the fight to the enemy consistent with our obligations and rights under international law.
Mr. Michael Portillo: The Minister referred to the co-operation between Departments on this issue, which I applaud. Has he had discussions with the Department for International Development about whether funds for overseas development might in future be channelled more towards promoting good governance in some of the countries where terrorism arises? Could some of that funding be transferred towards schooling, because it seems that in places where public schooling has collapsed, militant organisations provide schools that educate the possible terrorists of the future?
Mr. Ingram: That is a good point, and it highlights the close inter-relationships that exist in taking forward the Government's strategy across a range of issues. That is why I said that our response must not be a military one alone. When we engage internationally, in any part of the world, we must look at how we ensure that we do so with the approach of trying to create a healthy society when that society may have been damaged or flawed. Afghanistan is a good example of that. Substantial aid is pouring into the country in relation to a range of measures, much of which is led by the Department for International Development and its overseas development strategy. I have visited one of the schools that was reopened in the early days post our engagement in Afghanistan. As a result of the Army being in place, that facility was rebuilt, and that kind of measure must be sustained. There are many good examples in many countries of us delivering on that basis. I am sure that that process will develop internationally. However, the

1021
right hon. Gentleman might want to pursue that directly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, with whom I speak often on such matters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend's flow, but I have a question on security—although it may well be partly an issue for the Home Office. If, heaven help us, we were to go to war with Iraq, what would happen to the 300,000 Iraqis living in this country? Would measures be taken of an enemy alien nature? What plans do the Government have in mind? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer off the top of his head, but I put down a marker that that is a real problem.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I cannot give an answer off the top of my head. He is right that it is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. If the problem were to be dealt with in the way he suggests, it would be the responsibility of the Home Office. I shall touch on the way in which Departments inter-relate and take the lead on a wide range of issues.
The new chapter showed that the SDR's emphasis on expeditionary operations with allies was correct. However, it also identified how to develop it by better exploiting what is known as network-centric capability. What that means in essence is that there is a need, to ensure first that our knowledge base is as deep and wide as possible and, secondly, that data are placed quickly in the hands of those decision makers who direct the response, through weapons platforms and other means, targeting the threat, however fleeting the opportunity may be. We envisage future capability being measured not by the simple number of men or weapons platforms in the overall order of battle, but by the effectiveness with which such power can be applied to hit the right target hard, fast and effectively. It is about best intelligence and best resources best used to best effect.
Whatever our objectives, however, the fact is that we live in the real world. We must recognise that the terrorist has the advantage of surprise and attacks will come according to their choice of time, place and intended effect. It will not always be possible to prevent, deter or disrupt attacks overseas. However, against that background, we have taken important steps for the protection of the United Kingdom from terrorism and for its preparedness to respond to attacks. Let me outline some of those approaches.
We have addressed attacks by renegade aircraft, which were used on 11 September. The Select Committee endorsed our general approach to that very difficult issue, and we may hear more from its members in the debate. We have taken steps that are delivering progressive improvements in our radar systems and have decided on investment that will allow quick reaction interceptors to operate from additional bases at RAF Marham in Norfolk, RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall and RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset. Those will give air defence commanders better information and more flexibility.
In the same way as we have had the ability to intercept aircraft for many years, we have a capability to deal with renegade shipping, which is another avenue of terrorist attack. The MV Nisha incident at the end of last year
1022
showed how we can mount such operations successfully, and I pay tribute to the forces deployed and the civilian personnel involved. As a result of the new chapter, we are considering a number of ways to improve that capability further.
Harry Cohen: My right hon. Friend said that we are in the process of dramatically improving radar. He will know of extensive reports that wind energy resources, to which the Government are committed as a major policy, are not being supported by the Ministry of Defence, which is blocking them on the basis of the implications for radar. Which one is the Government's priority? Surely the majority of the British people would support wind energy.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend could have mentioned any large structure that interferes with radar. Of course, such interference may not only cause problems for any possible military response; it may affect civil aircraft. The Government's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system need not be wholly inconsistent with the aims of our energy policy. We are pushing forward a progressive programme for the establishment of wind farms and wind turbines, but in that, as in any other planning approach, all environmental aspects have to be taken into account.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend does not understand that equation. Safety is as important as environmental issues of energy production. These matters are difficult to balance, but those who plan the construction and installation of wind generators need to know where and how they may affect radar coverage and what other environmental impacts they may have.
Chris Grayling: On preventive measures, will the Minister tackle the security hazards associated with light aircraft and airfields that are not part of the mainstream commercial industry but sometimes deal with substantial aircraft? Will he reassure the House that that element of our aviation industry is on his radar? Will he reassure us also that the same attention is paid to the threat that comes not only from large ships but from smaller vessels entering UK harbours?
Mr. Ingram: There was always a risk that I would be asked questions outwith my remit. One of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman may be a matter for the Department for Transport and the other may be a matter for the Home Office. I suggest that he takes up those issues directly with the Departments responsible.
Our response is in aid of civil powers. We stand ready to respond to any request for aid, and that is the matter that the Select Committee examined. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all those sensitive areas are being examined, but that does not mean that there is an easy solution. Any solution may have a big impact, on, among other things, cost, leisure or the economy. As I said in response to the previous intervention, we have to work out complicated equations, trying to find the best solution while maintaining normalcy in society; otherwise the terrorists have effectively won, and that, I am sure, is not the message that the hon. Gentleman

1023
would want to send. I take note of his concerns, and I will ensure that they are passed on to the appropriate Departments.
We have also made refinements to the well-established defence capabilities that respond to specific types of terrorist incident, including CBRN threats, which are those involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear devices. The House will appreciate that in all those areas, renegade aircraft and shipping and CBRN threats, it is not always advisable to be too specific about what our response would be. The more we publicly define, the more the terrorist knows and the more sophisticated the threat becomes.
Let me now turn to the new chapter and the issue of reserves. We suggested in the new chapter how we might make new use of reserve forces in this country. We published a discussion paper on that topic, and I am pleased that our proposals were broadly welcomed by the emergency services, the public and the volunteer reserves themselves. I can announce the details of their full implementation today. The volunteer reserves of the three services are a capable, integrated and usable part of our capability for military operations of all types at home and overseas. The measures that we are now implementing represent a highly effective way to build a valuable new capability to meet some of the home defence risks that 11 September highlighted. They do not, however, involve changes to existing operational roles or unit structures in the reserve forces.
At the heart of the new arrangements is the establishment of a capability to provide planned assistance to the civil authorities at their request on a regional basis in the event of a home defence incident. There will be 14 civil contingency reaction forces or CCRFs, each comprising some 500 volunteers drawn from existing volunteer reservists. Each will be based on a Territorial Army infantry battalion, and 29 new reserve posts will be established in each battalion to support the CCRF role directly.
Annabelle Ewing: We are talking about recruitment. Is the Minister worried about the impact on recruitment of young people to the Army as a result of increasing public concern about circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at the Deepcut Army barracks, including that of James Collinson, whose family live in my constituency? [Interruption.] Members may ask how that is relevant, but there is an issue about public confidence in the Army. Is the Minister not concerned that that will have an impact on future recruitment? We need to ensure that all the good things that he is talking about can be properly implemented. Will the Minister comment on that? Perhaps the way forward—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady must resume her seat immediately when I am on my feet. She has stretched her intervention to extremes.
Mr. Ingram: I well understand the hon. Lady's point. Any death in the armed services in a non-combatant role is always to be regretted. There has been a sizeable number of such deaths, almost 50 per cent. of which are
1024
caused by road traffic accidents. That is not to minimise the impact of any of the deaths, including suicides—those that have been officially declared suicides. As for the case raised by the hon. Lady, she is a lawyer, so she should know that I am constrained by a current police investigation. She may have supported the reopening of that investigation by Surrey police and, if so, I am surprised that she is asking me to comment while it is under way. We await the outcome of that robust, in-depth analysis, which I understand will be published early in the new year, although that depends on Surrey police. It is worth pointing out to the House that Surrey police said in a press statement on 30 April:
"No further information will be released until the enquiries are completed for fear of prejudicing any possible proceedings."
Hopefully, the hon. Lady appreciates the way in which that constrains any comment on those cases.
Mr. Nick Hawkins rose—
Mr. Ingram: May I just finish dealing with the intervention by the hon. Lady, who linked the issue to problems in recruitment? People are rushing to judgment who should know better—they should wait to find out what the police say. Some months ago, I asked the Army to take a health check on all the ways in which it delivers initial training. On top of that, I made an announcement in the House on 17 October, mindful of wider concerns that we conduct an in-depth appraisal of t raining of non-officer recruits in all three services. That work is being conducted independently of service commands, and I intend to make its findings public. I have already announced that to the House.
In addition, the Select Committee on Defence is due to carry out its own inquiry. I understand that it will wait until the police investigations have been completed and reported on. We must establish the facts before we come to conclusions.
I understand the sensitivity of the matter and the grief within individual families, which may become collective. Before I took up my present job, I was the Minister with responsibility for victims. I set up a range of victim responses in Northern Ireland. I am only too well aware of the problems associated with these matters. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence met one of the families earlier this year. We do our best to try to take on the depth of feeling. I hope that the hon. Lady now understands the way in which we are constrained.
Even with all the publicity, we are doing exceptionally well in recruiting terms, to such an extent as to put pressure on our training pipeline. There is no relationship between the two at present. However, the more the hon. Lady raises concerns without establishing the facts, the more she may work against the recruitment strategy. There is an onus on all right hon. and hon. Members first to establish and examine the facts and then come to judgment. We must not come to a rushed judgment. It is always difficult to strip out the emotion. We must try to find what is best for the families, for the armed forces, and for the defence of this country.
Mr. Hawkins: As the constituency Member for Deepcut, I associate myself with everything that the Minister has said about this matter. May I pay tribute to both Ministers for the way in which they have

1025
responded to the concerns that I have raised? While sharing the grief of the families, I hope that the Minister will agree with me that both the current commanding officer at Deepcut and his colleagues and Surrey police are approaching the matter in a responsible way.
As the Minister was aware, I was waiting for a more relevant part of his speech before intervening. However, as the matter has been raised, I ask him to join me in condemning some rather sensationalist and irresponsible journalism. I understand that many tabloid newspapers are having reporters permanently stationed in local pubs in my constituency to try to pick up any little tittle-tattle or scuttle-butt that they can then have blazoned in the largest headlines available to them. That is certainly not helping the defence interests of this country, nor is it helping the understandable grief of the families involved. I ask the Minister to continue his responsible and restrained approach and wait for the report of the Surrey police.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful for that intervention. I share the view expressed about the commanding officer and the Surrey police. They have had to take all the criticisms and speculation in the media, which are not solely made up by the media because sometimes people are speaking to representatives of the media. They then expand upon what has been said and maximise the headline impact. It does everyone who is trying to deliver an important service a great disservice when the matter is tackled in that way. I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I hope that those who are trying to exploit what are undoubtedly matters of deep grief will step back for a moment. I hope that the media, like right hon. and hon. Members will show a measure of responsibility.
Mr. Dalyell: Before I ask the Minister of State a general question on policy, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the care that he and his office have shown in respect of one of my constituents, who will be known to him?
It has hitherto been axiomatic that any problems were dealt with within the military, within the Army. What is the Government's attitude to bringing in the police from outside? That is rather a new development. It might be interesting for the House to know what the thinking was, in general terms, on bringing in the civilian police.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening compliments to my ministerial colleague. There is a big misunderstanding, promulgated by the press in its reporting of the matter. The police have always had primacy in such incidents. They pass on their findings to the internal branch of the Ministry of Defence police, who are as professional as the civilian police and equally committed to establishing the truth. A board of inquiry follows. If the board sets out matters that need to be addressed, we seek to address them. That happened in the case of two of the earlier suicides at Deepcut, as they were then described. The board of inquiry made recommendations, which were progressively developed
1026
and rolled out by the previous Administration. In addition, the findings of a board of inquiry are made available to the families, if they so wish.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I fully support the view that we should await the outcome of the police investigation, and I do not think that some of the more sensationalist headlines have been helpful to the debate about what is going on at Deepcut, or to the families. But does my right hon. Friend recognise that the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) raised an important point? If four people have died, possibly as a result of suicide, something is seriously wrong, and that could affect recruitment.
Mr. Ingram: I knew that there was a big "but" in that question. My hon. Friend said that he accepts the way in which I answered the hon. Lady.
Mr. Jones: I did not say that.
Mr. Ingram: So my hon. Friend does not accept that I am constrained while waiting for the outcome of the police investigation. I thought that he accepted that that was the correct approach. [Interruption.] I can deal with heckling. If my hon. Friend wants to intervene again and correct any misunderstanding on my part, he should do so. My understanding was that he accepted that I was constrained. He goes on to draw a conclusion. He does not know what the police will say, but he says that something is deeply worrying and something needs to be done, so we should get on with it. That is how I interpret his comments.
I tried to make it clear that we entirely understand the depth of the grief of individual families, and the collective grief. We are trying to work our way through the matter. I pointed out that it has not had an impact on recruitment. I do not want to make too much of that, because the situation could be changing as we consider it. The more the lurid headlines and sensationalist arguments are raised by those who may not have a direct interest as a constituency Member of Parliament, the more likely it is that there will be a deleterious effect on recruitment. We need caution and careful thinking. We must wait for the facts, get them marshalled, and then make judgments. That is the way we approach such matters in the Ministry of Defence. To do otherwise would serve no one, least of all the families or the bigger issue of the defence of this country.
The new arrangements on which I was commenting complement and improve our existing practices for using the armed forces at the request of emergency services and local authorities in support of civil contingencies. They add a new capability, but they do not mean that we will use only volunteer reserves in this role. In future, as now, in the event of an incident, the regional commander will be able to judge which of the units at his disposal best match the needs of the authorities seeking support. Precisely what units are employed in a given situation will, as ever, depend on what we are asked to do and what we have available in the time scale required.
There will be some 280 new reserve posts in Army division and brigade headquarters to provide regional planning, liaison and command and control for such

1027
operations. These brigade reaction teams will work with the emergency services and local authorities to develop specific plans for the use of CCRFs in their areas. Regional planning will also consider where other formed units, including those in the reserve forces of all three services, have capabilities that can be incorporated into planned incident responses. In the event of an incident, the brigade teams will be capable of providing a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week command structure.
Individuals volunteering for CCRF duties will receive additional training of five days a year, and we intend to provide additional training of two days a year for all the volunteer reserves in the three services in support of civil contingencies activity generally.
2 (National Communications) Signal Brigade will be assigned the role of providing the communications infrastructure to support the regional command chain. We have started the procurement process to give it new communications equipment compatible with that being adopted by the emergency services. That is a key part of ensuring that the military response can be employed effectively alongside those primarily responsible for dealing with civil contingencies. 2 Signal Brigade will provide an interim military capability from the end of this year, although the achievement of a full national communications capability depends on the emergency services own communications improvement programme and will not be complete before 2006.
In total, there will be an addition of some 700 new volunteer reserve posts, and some 130,000 man training days to the volunteer reserves in order to create that new capability.
We expect to have an initial operating capability in place by the end of the year. We plan a regional full operating capability by 31 December next year, which will include all new posts recruited and filled, and all regional plans fully in place and tested. The complete capability will not be in place until 2006 when the new national communications infrastructure is fully deployed.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State, through the Minister, for the advance notice that he gave me and, I am sure, others of that announcement. Will those recruited to the CCRFs be from those already in the Territorial Army? I suspect that many civilians will have relevant specialties, so will the Minister ensure that the message is distributed as widely as possible, not just to existing members of the TA but to others, and that there will be a mechanism for them to join the TA so that they can contribute to this good initiative?
Mr. Ingram: That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman may want to become a recruiting sergeant for the TA and assist us in achieving that objective. People have to be in the TA to participate, and the more who show willingness to participate in this aspect of public service, the better it is for the country. Therefore, my answer is most certainly yes.
The Select Committee made some comments about the Government machinery for responding to the terrorist threat. Not all those comments were entirely
1028
fair. It suggested that there were signs of complacency. I can assure the House, just as the Government in their response to the report assured the Committee, to which I gave evidence, that there is no complacency, nor will the Government tolerate complacency.
Mr. Kevan Jones: That is reassuring.
Mr. Ingram: I am glad that I have convinced my hon. Friend of the merits of my argument.
The Committee suggested that there was room for improvement in the Government machinery designed to co-ordinate the response to the terrorist threat. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has lead responsibility for counter-terrorist policy and plays a leading role in co-ordinating the issues and measures being taken to strengthen the UK's ability to respond to the terrorist threat. The police have, perhaps, the largest role to play and, as we know, they do so with courage and skill. But many other agencies contribute. The armed forces make an important contribution to the response, contributing their specialist skills and capabilities. The counter-terrorist threat contingency plans are tried and tested and designed to respond to a wide range of terrorist threats.
There is always room for improvement. Plans are tried and tested so that lessons can be learned and improvements made, and to ensure that the response can be adapted to new threats and new forms of threat.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister has had strong support from the official Opposition in the measures that have been taken to counteract the effects of organised terrorist groups, but I take his mind back to the period immediately after 11 September when we had the anthrax scare in the United States and the copycat element of the sending of harmless white powder by individuals who clearly were not organised terrorist groups but opportunist disrupters. Has attention been given to that copycat element of the individual malcontent as opposed to the penetration of organised groups, which I am sure the security services are doing their best to undertake?
Mr. Ingram: It is always difficult to reassure hon. Members about that issue, because the range of the threat is huge. It is almost impossible to apply a common definition, although the hon. Gentleman tried to set out his particular one. Even organised groups choose a time and place and an intended effect. As to individuals, as I am sure he recognises, if they are not in a loop of understanding and are not connected to a group or network, they are very difficult to detect.
All that we can seek to do is ensure maximum public co-operation at all times and encourage people to report anything of a suspicious nature. Clearly, the civil authorities have to put in resources, but they cannot tackle every threat in every month of every year. That is simply not possible. There are not enough resources to be thrown in. If we invested more in one area, a threat might then come from a different direction and a different individual. We must recognise the sort of world in which we now exist, as well as the nature of our domestic and civil society. To some extent, the incidents in the United States involving hoax threats, which also

1029
had some impact here, showed up some fragility in our response, but we learned from that and put in place mechanisms to deal with it. We learned something from exactly what happened. Indeed, we are currently on an enormous learning curve and all of us have to give our best attention to that.
Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. Does he accept that we need not only additional resources, but much greater clarity in the command and control involved in dealing with some of the threats? That is the case not only within the military, where such clarity tends to be good, but in its relationships with local authorities, for example. I know that this is not his primary area of responsibility, but can he give the House some indication of whether serious consideration is being given to including an emergency planning Bill in the Queen's Speech? Many of the people involved believe that such a measure is vital for our defence.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should have asked that question of the Leader of the House, who would probably have given him the same answer: we do not comment about what will be contained in a Queen's Speech. Indeed, I would not even comment on Bills with which the Ministry was specifically concerned unless they had been previously declared as a part of future Government action. None the less, he makes a serious point. There must be joined-up government, and from the perspective of the Ministry of Defence, we must be certain that when we are asked to do something, we can use a coherent and well-brigaded command structure, as that will make our response much better. Clearly, discussions in that regard are under way at all times in government.
The whole question of learning from experience was already inculcated into the Government's mind before the attacks on the United States, because we had already begun to review and improve the contingency planning for managing a disaster. That included the consequences of a terrorist attack in the United Kingdom. We drew experience from the fuel protest, the floods of winter 2000 and the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which led to the formation of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office to draw together and co-ordinate the different strands of Government activity that come into play in handling such complex and demanding events. I sit on a number of the committees that deal with such matters. There is a clearly focused dynamic in looking for new ways forward, and the process is about bringing together the strands into a clear, well-focused and well-delivered Government response under the Home Secretary's control.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: On the brigades system, will the brigades be responsible for co-ordination in their regions between the police and other emergency strands or will such co-ordination come under the control of the Ministry of Defence as part of an overall package? In other words, will the brigades be responsible for the day-to-day running of operations?
Mr. Ingram: They are a resource; they do not decide that they will be used. If a request is presented, a decision will be made about how best to use them. They could be
1030
on their own or alongside regulars as part of another MOD response. It depends on the circumstances. However, a request must be made; the brigades are not self-activating but, like the regular forces, they stand ready to serve the civil powers.
Of course, there are other aspects of defence in the United Kingdom apart from the threat from global terrorism. Although there is a greater hope for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland now than for much of the past 30 years, the need to deploy the armed forces continues. Some 14,000 personnel are currently deployed to the Province and act in support of the police. They continue to face a threat from dissident terrorist organisations and the violence on the streets of Belfast that marred so much of the past year. As well as providing the police with additional resources to secure law and order, they have helped them to carry out wider duties by giving protection and support in the search for and capture of terrorists, their weapons and equipment.
In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, members of explosive ordnance disposal teams continue to support the police and protect the lives of the citizens of this country by carrying out their dangerous but essential service of disposing of old unexploded ordnance and dealing with terrorist bomb threats.
The armed forces are called upon to undertake another category of civil contingency operation from time to time. Today, many armed forces personnel from all three services stand ready to provide firefighting support to the community in case of industrial action by members of the Fire Brigades Union. They are working closely with the police, the ambulance service and many others, including non-striking firefighters throughout the country, to mitigate the effects of any strike.
Jim Knight: Does not the firefighters dispute raise an anxiety about the way in which our armed forces are configured for expeditionary activity, and the extent to which they are being used around the world? Do we have the capacity to respond with military aid to the civilian power? Is my right hon. Friend worried, like me, about the effect of a possible firefighters' dispute on morale through, for example, loss of leave?
Mr. Ingram: The possibility of a strike puts a significant strain on our armed forces. If the strike continued for some time, it would greatly curtail many activities in which we are currently involved. We must also bear in mind that we do not know what future deployment may be required. There are therefore serious issues to consider. However, the response to the dispute, the numbers that we have been able to commit and the preparedness of men and women of the armed forces to take on an onerous task is a tremendous tribute to them. There is a personal cost, not only to them but to their families. I hope that those who are considering industrial action will hear that message.
Mike Gapes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I am conscious that I have spoken for a long time. The last time I opened a debate, I spoke for

1031
72 minutes and the shadow Leader of the House condemned me the next day. I spoke for such a long time then because so few Opposition spokespersons were present to keep the debate going. I want to make some progress.
The armed forces cannot fully replace the broad spectrum of capability that the emergency services provide, and they cannot be party to the dispute that we are considering. Although I am sure that hon. Members will join me in hoping that the dispute is resolved as quickly as possible, we have implemented a contingency plan to provide a service that will minimise as much as possible the danger to human life during any action. The 19,000 personnel who would undertake the tasks are disciplined, capable, well organised and led. They have been trained to perform the tasks that they would be expected to undertake to the best standard possible in the time available.
Hon. Members can be confident that the armed forces are able to rise to the occasion with enthusiasm and determination, should they be asked to do that.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) made a specific point about the cancellation of leave. In a debate in Westminster Hall earlier this week, I raised the great concerns of the Welsh Guards whose families have lost deposits for cancelled holidays and have not been reimbursed. The Under-Secretary rightly said:
"I should think that if people are losing deposits because of unforeseen operational commitments, I would expect them to be reimbursed."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 228WH.]
Will the Minister tell us whether the MOD has resolved that problem so that we can convey the message to the Welsh Guards and others throughout the country?
Mr. Ingram:I noted the response to the debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I asked questions. My hon. Friend may want to deal with the matter later. There are standard practices for tackling such matters against which we have to set applications for compensation. The best information available is that something is likely to be done because that would be consistent with the procedures. However, that does not apply across the board because people can insure against potential loss, for example, if something is planned and we fail to deliver. When the tempo demands short-notice deployment, which militates against everything else, we must deal with the matter properly and sympathetically.
Existing operational demands on the armed forces remain. Although there may be a need to maintain emergency fire cover if the dispute continues, the impact on their primary duties of defence of the UK interests and acting as a force for good will remain under review and be balanced against other commitments.
Providing emergency cover can be undertaken only at some expense. That means not only the financial cost but, as we said earlier, a cost to service personnel. We will do everything necessary to mitigate the impact on personnel of providing cover. We have done our best to ensure that the burden is shared. For example, there are
1032
several specialist groups in the three services that, because of their specific skills, are more susceptible to overseas deployment. Whenever possible, those "force enablers" will not be deployed on firefighting operations. However, it is unavoidable that many armed forces personnel who may be involved in firefighting duties will be inconvenienced, through postponed leave and disrupted training.
All the operational capabilities that I mentioned depend especially on the men and women of the three services. The demands on them are considerable. Availability of suitably trained and motivated personnel is vital to operational success. A vital element of the strategic defence review was the "Policy for People" recognition that our defence depends on our armed forces personnel and their families, and the civil servants who work with them. The armed forces overarching personnel strategy ensures that people remain at the centre of our plans.
Hon. Members have mentioned recruitment in interventions. It is one of our highest priorities. The services are engaged in a fierce competition for talent; they need approximately 24,000 individuals every year. They undertake many varied initiatives to find and recruit those young men and women.
Let me comment on the MOD's status as an employer. It complies fully with the responsibilities required of any employer unless there are strict operational reasons for not doing that. Often, we provide far more than many other employers because of what we demand.
We are not into making people, but breaking people Our training develops thousands of highly motivated., highly qualified and highly professional service men and women whose performance and record of success are second to none. If serious institutional problems existed, we could not provide what we do. As I said earlier, we take on 24,000 people each year. The vast majority become regular service men and women. It is worth noting that between 17,000 and 18,000 service men and women leave the services each year, and society is the better for them.
We are not complacent, and I am not saying that problems do not exist. Given the numbers involved at any one time in our training pipeline, it would be wrong to claim that we were perfect. I would ask that we be judged on our high level of success, against the background that. I have just set out. Nevertheless, we must keep a constant and critical eye on what we do, and if lessons need to be learned we will learn them. That is why progressive changes to personnel policy have been made over the years, designed to ensure the high quality of our outputs. Once recruited, it is important that we keep these highly trained assets.
As with recruitment, there is no single approach that will address retention. Our approach to that issue embraces a balanced and layered mix of measures, some dealing with broad issues such as pay, pensions, training, families, accommodation and diversity, and others addressing issues of concern to particular high value groups such as air crew, medical personnel and engineers.
I want to move on to defence industrial policy. Of course, we must ensure that the armed forces are well equipped to do their job. We are committed to a strong

1033
and globally competitive UK defence industry. We all benefit from its high value, high technology skill base. Over the last 18 months, with the help of the National Defence Industries Council, we have reviewed our defence industrial policy with a view to making the UK defence industry more competitive and better able to provide the armed forces with the equipment that they need, at best value for money for the taxpayer.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched this new policy on 14 October. We have identified three main priorities to take forward: getting best value from our acquisition decisions; improving market access; and investing in research and technology. Competition remains at the heart of our acquisition system. We use it to place some 70 per cent. of our equipment orders by value, and it remains the best means of delivering value for money, innovation and efficiency. But let me repeat the Secretary of State's promise that, for this Government, competition will always be a tool, not a dogma. Our goal is best value for money. If competition does not offer the greatest advantage for a project, we will not use it. However, value for money needs to be considered in a wider context than discrete project decisions. Often, decisions that we take now will shape defence decisions in the future, when, for example, they may impinge on the preservation of competition. So we look across projects and into the future to take into account all the factors that enable us to get best economic value for the United Kingdom.
I began by saying that the context of the past year had been the atrocities committed by international terrorists in the USA last year. Of course, there have been other terrorist attacks since then, including the vicious attack in Bali on 13 October. I set out to make two things clear, in opening this debate. The first is that the Government as a whole are committed to ensuring that the security of the United Kingdom is maintained and enhanced. The second is that the Ministry of Defence is both ready and able to play its important role in that essential work. As well as being a force for good internationally, we are a vital source of comfort and security at home. Post-11 September, we face enormous challenges. We have the trained personnel ready to meet those challenges and we are increasingly equipping them with the equipment and resources to help them to carry out their task. We have also put in place the response machinery at the heart of government to ensure that we stand ready, no matter from where, or when, the next threat comes.
2.23 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson:I do not regard this debate on the defence of the United Kingdom as separate—in its own box—from our debate on defence in the world, and I do not think that the Minister does either. All hon. Members realise that, even before 11 September, the threats at home and abroad overlapped. It is unfortunate that, owing to parliamentary timetabling, there is a clash between this debate and one that is about to begin in Westminster Hall on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism. A number of hon. Members were rather torn between attending that debate and this one.
I shall begin by extending our congratulations to the members of the Special Air Service and the Special Boat Service, and the Royal Air Force crews on the gallantry
1034
awards made to them for their role in Afghanistan. They get a lot of publicity, some of which is perhaps unfortunate, but the nature of the operations that they undertake often makes it difficult for them to get proper public recognition. I am conscious that discussing operational or training matters in relation to our special forces is not something in which we should indulge, but we should all recognise that, although those forces are high quality, they are limited in numbers and used on an extensive scale. That means that the time available to them for reorganisation, retraining and recuperation is often very limited. We should be aware that they have to put even more into those activities than members of the regular armed forces, of which they are, of course, a part. Unlike the special forces in some countries, ours are directly recruited from our mainline armed forces. They do not just have a label attached to them because they happened to join the service directly from civilian life.
The death of service men from non-combat injuries has been mentioned. The Minister rightly said that he could not comment on the incidents at Deepcut barracks, and I do not intend to draw him on that matter, or to comment on it myself. I obtained the information from a recent parliamentary question that there had been some 445 recorded suicides between January 1984 and 31 December 2001. Any one of those suicides is a tragedy" not least for the family concerned. That number of suicides may be the same as, or smaller or greater than, the number that occurred in civil society in that period. We should bear that in mind.
I want to draw on what the Minister said about the important review of how young recruits are treated and trained. Obviously, the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force want to get this right. Will the Minister tell us whether the fact that many of our young recruits fail or leave the services is a problem specific to the United Kingdom, or whether it is mirrored in other NATO countries? Furthermore, is it a problem specific to the Army, as against the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force?
Ms Julia Drown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only Britain and Belgium recruit children into the Army? Given that some of the suicides that have been mentioned involved children, does he think that we should learn lessons from other NATO countries on the recruitment and deployment of children in our armed forces?
Mr. Simpson:The word "children" immediately conjures up an image of people aged 11 or 12, rather than 17 or 18. The Government have already made some progress on this matter, but there are people in the Chamber who have served in the armed forces who know only too well that the recruitment of what used to be called "boy soldiers" was a superb way of recruiting long-service men and women for the armed forces. We are talking here about volunteer armed forces, not conscripts. I believe that the Government are taking serious measures on this matter in relation to the Army. All that I am trying to do is ask a series of specific questions.
There is a difficulty—particularly in the Army; less so in the Navy and the Air Force—in determining how we strike the right balance between producing a training

1035
mechanism that merely goes through the motions of preparing for military life, and one that actually prepares for combat. At the end of the day, we would all expect any form of bullying or training that puts young people's lives in danger to be ruled out. However, training has to be robust and realistic, not least because we may expect those young men and women, perhaps within a matter of months, to go into an environment that will be far more robust and realistic than any British training establishment. There is a fine balance to be struck, and I suppose that the old Army motto—"Sweat saves blood"—is very much in the minds of those on the training establishment. I hope that the Army produces a report and that it is published. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity to debate it.
I must discuss the strength of the armed forces. As of 1 April 2002, the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force had a manpower shortfall. I shall not go into the minutiae of that, which we could debate, although I believe that the issue is important. It was highlighted in the debate on overstretch in Westminster Hall this week by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). I am raising it in the context of not only UK defence, but defence in the world.
All the problems involving shortfall and its impact on training and operations as well as the difficulties of retention and family issues will be made worse by the continuing challenge represented by not only homeland defence and achieving expeditionary force capability, but the fact that falling below a numerical critical mass will make it incredibly difficult for the armed forces to fulfil a number of functions. I genuinely believe that, and I recall that, 12 years ago, General Sir Richard Vincent, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, argued to Ministers that if the Army fell below about 100,000 men and women, it would be difficult to maintain a raft of capabilities. I am sure that Ministers are aware of that, and the position is similar for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
On that point, will the Minister clarify press reports that some 30 per cent. of the Royal Navy's type 42 destroyers and type 23 frigates are out of action because their crews are ashore preparing for firefighting duties and other responsibilities? If that is the case, it is obviously a considerable challenge to the Royal Navy and it shows the tight operational conditions in which the armed forces are working. If they have such concurrent responsibilities, I suggest that that means that their overall effectiveness is incredibly limited.
During the Westminster Hall debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made the point that the armed forces can cope with all that because they have a can-do mentality. Indeed, in a strange way. the armed forces are their own worst enemy. They often say that they are short of manpower and do not have the right equipment, and then go on to carry out Government policy—they deliver on it. I suspect that, not Ministers, but the Treasury, then says, "There you are. The armed forces were crying wolf, because they delivered."
1036
I fear that the real issue could be sustainability. Any lengthy, full-scale operational war-fighting commitment, which most of us would rather not think about, would test the system to breaking point. There is little spare capacity, and Ministers are only too well aware that, in the event of us participating in a United Nations or other operation against Iraq that is not a quick fix, like those in Kosovo and Afghanistan, there will be major problems for the armed forces across the board.
May I ask the Minister to comment in his winding-up speech on the National Audit Office report that half the Army's Apache helicopters will have to be taken out of service for up to four years because the private finance initiative training programme is three years behind schedule?
Mr. Ingram: It was started by the Conservatives.
Mr. Simpson: From a sedentary position, the Minister does what the Liberals usually do—blame the last Conservative Government. Indeed, we might blame the last Labour Government, but the good thing is that we cannot blame the last Liberal Government, as they were in office so long ago. Of course, I recall that the 1915 shell shortage brought down the Liberal Government.
There is a serious point here: such failure to deliver on the Army's key programme—Apache helicopter capability—represents not only a defence procurement scandal, but an undermining of the morale of our armed forces. The Minister needs to consider that, not least because we were promised under the strategic defence review that smart procurement would resolve all the procurement bottleneck problems faced by all previous Governments. So far, I have seen little evidence of that.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I accept that it is the Opposition's role to look for opportunities to criticise a Government, but do the hon. Gentleman and his party accept no responsibility for the state of affairs relating to the Apache helicopter? Some of the decisions were taken by the previous Government.
Mr. Simpson: I hope that, in speaking from the Dispatch Box on defence issues, I have accepted that there is a continuity of decision making that sometimes goes back 15 or 20 years. I am proud of the fact that a Conservative Government decided to go ahead with the Apache, but if we are getting into this knockabout stuff, I have to say that I do not recall all Labour Members being in favour of it. The Labour party was arguing for larger cuts. The real issue today, which is all that service men and the public are interested in, is how we resolve the issue. There is a major shortfall and we could be sending some of our armed forces abroad to what might be a serious war with a capability that could be reduced.
Mr. Jones: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. but it is not the point that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence made this morning on the "Today" programme. He tried to blame this Government for the

1037
problems with the Apache. Does the hon. Gentleman accept some responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves—yes or no?
Mr. Simpson: No, because the problem clearly involves the training package and the simulator, not the fact that the Apache was ordered. The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: We on these Benches had little option but to support the Apache, not least because it was being built by Westland. The then leader of the Liberal Democrats, who represented Yeovil, made his views pretty clear, although the project was well worth supporting for its own intrinsic merit.
Is there not a curiosity here? In the past, we had men but no equipment. Now we have equipment but no men. Exactly what is the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the detraction from capability that putting those helicopters to one side for a period will have on the Army's ability, for example, to conduct campaigns such as that envisaged, at least by some, in Iraq?
Mr. Simpson:The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, and achieving such modern war-fighting capability as the Ministry of Defence wants will he extremely difficult. As I said in the debate on defence in the world, there is an additional problem over procurement in that the communications package that, it is hoped, the Apache will receive may have to be upgraded quickly to enable it to continue to communicate with the armed forces of the United States of America. The problem facing the MOD is challenging to say the least.
Mr. Francois: Is not the whole concept of air manoeuvre, to which the Apache is integral, very important to 21st-century warfare and, in particular, to the Army? There is not much point in preaching the concept of air manoeuvre, however, if half those helicopters sit in hangars because we have not been able to train pilots to fly them.
Mr. Simpson: Absolutely. The Government originally, and rightly, put at the centre of the strategic defence review the prospect of an Apache helicopter force that would be able to carry out the operations to which they would commit the Army.
Mr. Dalyell: Language is often very revealing in the House. The hon. Gentleman used the words "a serious war" May I gently ask him to urge some caution—along with a number of his distinguished Conservative colleagues—on the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the language he uses in egging on those who are thinking of a serious war?
Mr. Simpson:I am always very careful about giving leaders any advice. I feel—the Minister probably feels the same—that those who go to see a leader are rather
1038
like the grand vizier who used to go to see the sultan and, when he left, used to shake his head to make certain that it was still on.
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?
Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that language was important. Just before he started talking about the Apaches, the hon. Gentleman said that we might become involved in a UN-led war or a war led by others in Iraq. Surely the Opposition would not favour a war that was against international law—would they?
Mr. Simpson:I was speaking academically. I am not a Minister, unfortunately; the hon. Gentleman would do better to put his question to the Minister who is present. I was merely reflecting speculation that has taken place in the media.
As the Minister pointed out, the armed forces are not just our first but our last line of defence. That "can do" mentality means a number of things. More than a year ago, the forces were brought in to resolve the logistical problems caused by foot and mouth. Brigadier Birtwistle arrived with virtually no knowledge of the problem. He scribbled on the back of an envelope, and made certain that things were done while others in public service found the circumstances frustrating or almost impossible to deal with.
As the Minister said, some 19,000 service personnel have been training to undertake defensive firefighting in the event of a firemen's strike. I am sure the whole House hopes that the use of those personnel will not be necessary. I was lucky enough to visit the Army barracks at Swanton Morley in my constituency last Friday, 25 October. RAF personnel from Marham and Coltishall are deployed throughout Norfolk in contingency training; some 170 have been taken away from specific tasks until 24 December, with no roulement and no leave. I watched an exercise involving Green Goddesses, specialists from the RAF and defence fire service rescue units. I join the Minister in paying tribute to Squadron Leader MacIntosh and the men and women under his command, who are preparing for an eventuality that will put great stress and strain on them.
There is no doubt, despite the excellent work being done, that the Green Goddesses are slow. They have small water tanks. These Green Goddesses were using hoses from the 1950s, and their operational area in my constituency will extend as far as the north Norfolk coast. The personnel concerned took their training seriously, and showed considerable enthusiasm; but, with the best will in the world—this is not really an issue for the Minister, but he might pass it on to the Deputy Prime Minister—those fire tenders are very old. I suspect that when they were called out in the 1970s, many of us assumed that that was their last hurrah. We may well have to think about a future requirement—particularly in terms of homeland defence—for a reserve capability that is slightly more realistic.
When I left Swanton Morley I had with me my 11-year-old son, who had sat in the car watching the demonstration. I had told him what it was all about. As

1039
we drove away he said that he had found it very enjoyable and interesting, but were the fire engines now going back to the museum? The Government should think carefully about the effectiveness of those machines should they ever be used again.
The Minister spoke of the new SDR chapter. The Government's 1998 SDR, written at the end of the cold war, said:
"there is…no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe."
Within three years that had moved sideways, and the Government have admitted that they
"did not fully cater for threats on the scale which materialised on 11 September, and we therefore looked again at out defence posture and plans."
When we discussed defence in the world, the Secretary of State made a welcome announcement to which the Minister did not allude. He announced that the British Government would carry out a series of studies of requirements for ballistic missile defence. That is an important subject, not least because of defence from missile attack against the United Kingdom, but also because ballistic missile defence might well be the other side of the strategic coin with the Government's willingness to consider a pre-emptive strategy.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on the fact that, following the Secretary of State's announcement, the French Government appear reluctant that NATO should fund studies on ballistic missile defence. Most of us probably regard ballistic missile defence as being not unique to the defence of the UK homeland, but relevant to the wider European mainland.
The Select Committee produced an excellent report on defence and security in the United Kingdom. The Minister said that it had been extremely critical about a number of matters. I will not go into the details because I know that they will be raised by others, but, having listened to the Minister, I am concerned about the crucial issue of who is ultimately responsible for homeland defence. It must ultimately be the Prime Minister. Sir David Omand in the Cabinet Office is the co-ordinator of activity, but I must say this, with the best will in the world—I suspect the Minister is aware of it—when I listened, at a tactical level, to his explanation of the role of reserve forces, I perceived a certain amount of blurring around the edges in terms of lines of communication, command and control, and who was ultimately responsible, not least because so many Government and local government agencies are involved.
We all know that "co-ordination" frequently means moving pieces around the chessboard, rather than action. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that it might be an idea for his Defence Select Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider a joint study of homeland defence, giving specific consideration to co-ordination. At present it seems unlikely that, in the event of a major terrorist incident in the United Kingdom, we would witness a seamless reaction by the Government. It seems unlikely that there would be someone in overall command and control, and that that would be arranged
1040
quickly. I think that the Ministry of Defence would react quickly. However, I am concerned about the co-ordination across Whitehall. I urge Ministers to press the rest of Whitehall strongly on that.
I thank the Minister for his statement on the role of the reserve forces, not least because it justifies all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who said in the Chamber when the strategic defence review was moving like a stately galleon that the cuts announced by the Government in the reserve forces were too great. To be fair, the Secretary of State has admitted that, in the light of circumstances, many of us were correct on that. Welcome as that is—a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), have mentioned this—there is still a number of questions about how effective the reserve forces will be.
The Minister talked about the fact that there would be additional training of five days a year. What sort of training will the reserve forces have as formed units? What sort of training will they have with the emergency services?
A crucial issue will be the sort of equipment that the reserve forces will be allocated. We all know that for financial reasons they tend to get what the regular forces have left over. If we are taking the threat, which Ministers have rightly flagged up, to homeland defence seriously, that question will have to be seriously addressed. With regard to command and control in the MOD, particularly on the military side, the reserve forces should not just be an add-on, something at the bottom end of the list for brigade and divisional commanders.
Defence policy, budget and the armed forces depend crucially on the support of the public. In my county of Norfolk, we have been in the front line for 60 years. We had the largest fixed-wing aircraft carrier in western Europe, first during the second world war and then during the cold war, with the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force stationed in large numbers.
Other parliamentary colleagues have raised this question. Since the end of the cold war the MOD has disposed of hundreds of barracks, stations, dockyards, stores and married quarters. The specific question of the disposal of married quarters is causing some disquiet in Norfolk. Recently, in south-west Norfolk, the public were upset to discover that married quarters were being sold in blocks of three creating a suspicion that buyers were speculators rather than people needing a home.
Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: I will in a minute.
The Under-Secretary will be aware that some 200 former RAF quarters are standing empty and neglected at West Raynham just outside my constituency, which could be used for local housing. I know that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has spoken with the Under-Secretary, who said that he would look at the issue but that it was dependent on the review of forthcoming RAF bases nationwide. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us when we can expect the review to be completed and when a decision may be made.

1041
I heard a faint mewing from my left.
Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Simpson: How very aptly from my left.
Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House which Government sold off all the Army married quarters?
Mr. Simpson: That is a classic Liberal Democrat attack. The package for married quarters was introduced by the last Conservative Government. There is no secret. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been—I know where he was before he became a Liberal Democrat: he was in the Labour party, so I suppose his policies will have changed—[Interruption.]I am afraid to say that he was.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have MOD establishments in their constituencies that are awaiting disposal. Rightly, the Treasury is looking at the best value that it can get for those properties. Rightly as well, the MOD is looking at ways in which it can use them, but when married quarters are lying empty and being vandalised, it is a wasting asset.
In this debate on defence in the UK, the Minister has raised a number of issues relating to the role of the armed forces, the part that they play in the community, their strength, their deployment as part of an expeditionary force capability and their newly resurrected role in home defence. All of us support what the Minister said about the vital role that the armed forces play, but Conservative Members are conscious of the fact that the armed forces are being asked to take on new roles, that even with the resources that the Government say they are giving to the armed forces, there are still serious shortfalls and that in the event of more than one concurrent activity, the ability of the armed forces to provide long-term sustainability will be incredibly difficult.
The armed forces always rise to the challenge, but I think that all hon. Members know that in the past year many members of the armed forces have realised just how much they are now being asked to do. Our task is to make certain that they are given the support and resources that they need for the policy that the Government commit them to.
2.56 pm
Mr. Bruce George:I am sure that the signal was sent to the Conservative party, "Simpson is back" to help a deeply demoralised party facing a major crisis. When the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) referred to who is in charge, I must confess—no, I should not say it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I was going to say.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about the civil contingencies secretariat and leadership in response to a crisis in this country, a concern that the Defence Committee shares. I thank him and the Minister for their kind comments. As he will know, a symbiotic relationship exists between the Defence Committee and the Opposition Front-Bench team. We must co-ordinate a little more consistently over the months so that he
1042
remains in his position, otherwise when his leader reads his speech perhaps his head will be metaphorically chopped off and he will fully deserve it.
That is the extent of my bipartisanship for the moment. If provoked, I will go further and talk about jumping on bandwagons. As an observer of procurement failures over the past 25 years, I only wish that the delays had been for two years and eight months. This programme is on target in terms of budget and the quality of the helicopter, which is first rate. It is a great shame that some people wish to denigrate what is an excellent piece of equipment.
There has been a mistake, or mistakes, in the procurement of equipment for training; that is clear to all concerned. The company will pay for it. The delay of under three years, while it may appear to be a disaster, when set against the background of past procurement failures, is of about the same earthquake potential as the Dudley earthquake a few months ago, which measured I think 4.5 on the Richter scale. Apart from frightening my wife into thinking that I was snoring more loudly than normal, it caused little damage.
I understand that the Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee wishes to intervene. I willingly give way.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Defence Committee. Conservative Members have no intention whatever of denigrating the Apache; we were the party responsible for procuring it. At the time, I happened to be involved in supporting another bid, which was unsuccessful. The Apache is a first-class machine, but there is criticism of the incapability of the simulator to provide pilot training. The National Audit Office, not the Conservative party, drew attention to that problem.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that the first criticism is on page 24 of the Select Committee report. If people are prepared to look at the situation in the round, they will see that it is not a disaster. It is not for me to defend the procurement process, but I am concerned that we should not jump on too many bandwagons.
I am pleased that the Government and the Opposition received our report favourably. I am proud of the way in which the Select Committee operates and although the report ruffled a few feathers, it is an example of the Select Committee system at its best. It has been suggested that several Select Committees produce a joint report. I have tried that, and as a consequence the Defence Committee published its own report, which has not suffered as a result of being produced by just one Select Committee.
It is not for the Defence Committee to beat the drum for the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence, so we looked not simply at how to avoid a crisis by meeting the threat as far away as possible, but at how to minimise risk, what to do if all else fails and at how good we are as a nation at trying to clear up as swiftly and successfully as possible if—or when—we are attacked. The whole system will be called into question if such an attack succeeds and we have to depend on the three blue-light emergency services. I hope to God that an attack does not take place when one of the three is not fully operational, as the consequences would be

1043
horrendous and fingers would be pointed in many directions. I know in which direction my index finger would point.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the work of the Defence Committee and our
"important contribution to the continuing effort to strengthen the UK's defence and security against the terrorist threat."
That must be our common aim. The issue is arguably the most pressing that we face. We all know what terrorists can do and that, despite recent military and policing successes in dealing with terrorism, many terrorists are still out there, closer than we imagine.
David Veness, whose experience in fighting terrorism is unrivalled, told the Defence Committee that terrorists would strike. I share that fear. Defence in the UK covers more than defence against the terrorist threat, which is the most immediate issue covered by the Select Committee report. I am delighted that this debate comes just one week after the Government published their response to our report. Defence does not involve only the armed forces. The defence of the United Kingdom also looks to the police, voluntary services, the private security industry and architects of high-rise buildings.
During the summer, I spoke to some 25 heads of security in large corporations, mainly in London. I asked them what they were doing. Most of them were taking the threat seriously, but the Select Committee found that more than half of the largest companies in the UK have no business continuity plans. If companies plan to rely on the insurance industry to rescue them, they are making a great mistake. If there is a major crisis or attack, public services may be overwhelmed, so ultimately it may be up to the companies to use their own resources to minimise the consequences. An attack on the City of London or Canary wharf will have not just immediate disastrous consequences for individual companies, but for the whole economy.
The current threat is similar to the one that we faced during the cold war of having our entire society disrupted and large chunks of it destroyed. The difference is that during the cold war many people thought that the only chance of catastrophic attack was if there was a mistake, but from now on, a successful attack on the UK is likely to be deliberate and the consequences could easily be comparable with the worst fears during the cold war.
Harry Cohen: Given the context of this part of my right hon. Friend's speech about a possible terrorist attack on parts of Britain, what does he think of a policy that relies on nuclear power stations?
Mr. George: No doubt my hon. Friend spent the recess attending to his constituency duties as diligently as he always does. As I said, I spent much of the recess studying and that included preparing a paper for an international conference on the very subject that he raises. Rather than spending time on it now, I would be delighted to send him a copy of my report. If I could reach, I would hand it over now. It is a matter that causes me considerable concern. I shall not write to my hon. Friend but give him a copy of the paper.
Mr. David Chaytor:I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Now that he has had time to get the paper that he prepared, does it refer not only to the issue of nuclear power stations within the UK, but to implications for terrorist threat of the international plutonium trade between the UK and Japan?
Mr. George: It covers everything. I shall hand my hon. Friend a copy and test him on it later. However, I shall not make light of what is a serious issue.
I shall focus on a couple of issues in the Defence Committee report. I have referred to our methodology and how comprehensive it was. The problem with a Select Committee report is that if 30 per cent. of it is critical of the Government, they are quite happy with it. The report does not spend much time saying how wonderful the Government are, but concentrates on critical evaluation. Although much has been done that has been absolutely correct, the Select Committee, at no political risk to itself, pointed out where we were going wrong. We had every right to do that and I am pleased that the Government are taking it in the constructive spirit in which it was written.
In our strategic defence review monitoring exercise, the Defence Committee did not criticise the Government for stating:
"there is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or Western Europe".
That may have been true in 1998, but today it is a historical approach. Military home defence appears in the SDR as a military task in the section on regional conflict inside the NATO area. No forces were specifically committed to it and the Ministry of Defence told us at the start of our inquiry that the security and defence of the UK continues to rest on our membership of NATO and our willingness and ability to participate in operations and tasks abroad with partner countries in mutual self-defence. Conversely, terrorist activity within the UK, whatever its source, is seen as criminal activity and in most cases the operational lead rests with the police.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea from his studies of the time why, at the time of the strategic defence review, so little attention was given to the possibility of an extremist Islamist terrorist threat, when I think that we are all aware of the fact that, from quite early in the 1990s. the security service and the secret intelligence service recognised it as the next possible threat over the horizon? Where does he think the breakdown of communication between Government agencies occurred?
Mr. George: It probably took place about 1991, when the cold war was seen to end and the eyes of the intelligence services were taken off the range of threats. They looked at substitutes for the Soviets, who were not seen as the threat that they had been. They looked at crime, and I suspect that they did not look internationally and domestically at where other threats might exist. In fairness, the blame—if there is to be blame—goes back 10 or 12 years, and now they will spend another 10 or 12 years in making up for the fact that they averted their eyes to threats of political and religious extremism, wherever those threats exist.
Dr. Lewis: I am sorry to intervene again, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed my point. As I understood it, the security and intelligence services did appreciate the upcoming Islamist extremist threat from the early to mid-1990s onwards. My concern is that that appreciation by the intelligence services, which turned out to be accurate, does not appear to have been taken on board by those people who drew up the SDR in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. George: I honestly cannot say. The hon. Gentleman was closer to the then Government than I was in those days. I look forward to his observations and insider knowledge as to whether what he says is right.
The Minister announced the results of the Ministry of Defence's consultation exercise on the role of the reserves in home defence. As I understand it, the proposal has not changed significantly as a result of the consultation, although the new forces are to be renamed civil contingencies reaction forces rather than reserve reaction forces. The new name is perhaps a little odd if their responsibilities are to respond only to home defence incidents as opposed to the wide range of civil emergencies in which assistance from the military might be sought. The Defence Committee will want to look carefully at the proposals, and although we welcome the decision to give back to the reserves a role in home defence, there are a number of issues of concern including, for example, the notice at which they could be made available in response to a terrorist incident.
Our report questions how the commanders could choose between regular and reserve forces if both were available. I do not believe that these proposals answer that question. It would be demoralising for volunteer reserves if, having put themselves forward and having been trained, they saw regular troops deployed in their place. As we noted in our report, no reserves were deployed in the fuel crisis in 2000, and only about 10 per cent. of those who assisted with the floods in autumn 2000 and the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001 were reservists. Those were not home defence incidents but they suggest a pattern of calling first upon the regular forces.
In December of last year, the Secretary of State set out what he described as a formidable catalogue of questions that the SDR new chapter would have to address. At the top of that list were questions about how we should strike the balance between home defence and seeking to attack terrorists in their bases or in transit. These are fundamental questions—they are complex and deserve serious analysis.
We can see how much work is being done in the United States on this issue, including the appointment of Governor Ridge as director of homeland security and the proposal before Congress to create a fully fledged department of homeland security. That would bring together many existing agencies such as the coast guard, the border patrol, the customs service, immigration officials, the transport security administration and the federal emergency management agency. I am not suggesting that we follow the Americans slavishly, especially as their circumstances are rather different from our own. However, I contrast the thoroughness
1046
with which the issues are being examined and addressed by the United States with the bland statements in the new chapter. It says:
"Experience shows that it is better where possible, to engage an enemy at longer range, before they get the opportunity to mount an assault on the UK."
That is fine.
Mr. Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. George: In a moment, I promise. I will give my hon. Friend some more of my writings if he wishes and has the patience, especially on history, in which we both have a great interest.
This country did not attempt to deal with Irish republican terrorism campaigns by attacking their bases in the Republic of Ireland. Israeli attempts to destroy the bases of Palestinian terrorists have not so far been an unqualified success. I can see why, at both the rhetorical and the military strategic level, it is right to believe that we should strike at the source of the conflict. However, terrorists, unlike Saddam Hussein in the past, are not likely to line themselves up in such formations as easily to be destroyed.
The Defence Committee is conducting an inquiry into the new chapter and we will publish our report in due course. However, I am a little disappointed that the Government and the Ministry of Defence do not seem publicly to have treated this fundamental question with the seriousness that it requires.
Mr. Chaytor: In one respect, my right hon. Friend's subsequent remarks have pre-empted the purpose of my question. In the context of attacking the terrorist in his base, does my right hon. Friend think that an attack on Iraq by the United States—either alone, with the United Kingdom or with an international coalition—would be likely to increase or decrease the threat of the al-Qaeda terrorist network?
Mr. George: I will not go too far down that road. I can certainly speak to my hon. Friend about this privately, as the question requires more than a glib three-sentence answer. As yet, I am not convinced that al-Qaeda is alive and well in Iraq. There may be sufficient threats to this country and others to require a military response, but I very much hope not.
I said at the start of my remarks that I could touch on only a few of the issues raised in our report, but I want briefly to refer to one other area that has already been mentioned. I refer to legislation and the handling of major emergencies and disasters, including terrorist incidents. The Minister was circumspect in his response. The Government recognised well before 11 September that existing legislation was inadequate and set up a review of emergency planning in England and Wales. The consultation process for that review was in the second half of last year, and in fact straddled 11 September, so that many of the responses took the immediate lessons of those terrible events into account.
It is now more than a year since 11 September, and so far nothing has emerged. In our report, we recommended that the Government publish their proposals as a matter of urgency, with the explicit aim of introducing legislation in the 2002–03 parliamentary

1047
Session. I am sure that if I were to press the Minister on the issue today, he would again give the standard line, which is in the Government's response to our report, that he cannot pre-empt the Queen's Speech. So we will just have to wait. Except that on 9 September, the Government placed in the Library a progress report on the United Kingdom and the campaign against international terrorism. It is an interesting document which, regrettably, I suspect that few people have read because of its timing.
At the end of the document, there is a list of the Government's priorities for the next year in the campaign against terrorism, one of which is to protect the United Kingdom
"by further enhancements to civil contingencies arrangements, set out in a Civil Contingencies Bill."
Perhaps the Minister, even if he cannot predict the contents of the Queen's Speech, can at least confirm that that still remains one of the Government's priorities for the coming year.
Mr. Francois: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. Having read the Committee's report on the issue, I can honestly say without fear or favour that it was excellent, and I should like to take the opportunity to endorse absolutely its call for emergency legislation to be included in the Queen's Speech. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer for such a Bill.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that support. When the Bill is published, the logical Committee to which it should be sent is the Defence Committee, not any of the other Committees, because we have spent a great deal of our time on the issue. I hope that the Minister will pass on that endorsement to the Ministry of Defence and say that we should do that. The advantage to the MOD would be that the more time we spend harrying the civil contingencies secretariat, the less time and energy we will have to pursue the MOD. That would be in both our interests.
In our report, we welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand to the new post of intelligence and security co-ordinator. We will watch with interest how he, together with the civil contingencies secretariat under its new head, Susan Scholefield, takes forward their formidable list of responsibilities. I shall continue to urge the Government to take an active lead in pulling together all the many threads needed to co-ordinate our response to major emergencies, particularly those caused by terrorism, because that co-ordination is an essential element of any Government's first responsibility—the defence of the United Kingdom.
3.22 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch:It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), and I, too, congratulate him and the Defence Committee on its recent report and, indeed, the good work that he and his Committee continue to do.
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has already dealt with some important issues on equipment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to
1048
deal with the many constructive points that he made in his excellent speech later. I do not intend to begin my remarks by repeating what the hon. Gentleman said, because I want to concentrate on what I believe is the most important piece of equipment in the armed forces: the men and women who serve in them.
I want to say a word or two first about Apache helicopter training because it seems that those concerns are slightly more deeply felt than they may have originally appeared. The National Audit Office report rightly comments on the current training regime, but it appears that a number of training aids and training computer systems were never budgeted for at the very start. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm in his winding-up speech the following three points.
First, is it the case that we do not possess the equipment to allow us to simulate Apache attacks in numbers? In the past, Apaches have been used not alone, but with other Apache aircraft as well as other helicopters, yet I am told that we do not possess and have not budgeted for the training packages to allow that. Secondly, I am also told that our training packages do not contain a training laser that would allow us to use simulated laser, not the real thing. Apparently, the real laser is so powerful that it might harm our servicemen on Salisbury plain.
Finally, is it the case that, beyond what the NAO has already said, the only range where we can test Hellfire missiles and use them in simulation is in Cape Wrath in the north of Scotland, and that it cannot be used on Salisbury plain? I should like the Minister specifically to deal with those points in his winding-up speech.
May I join other colleagues in paying tribute to those members of the armed forces—some 19.000—who are preparing for the eventualities of a firefighters' strike? I have seen preparations under way in my constituency, and, like other right hon. and hon. Members, I sincerely hope that we will never have to go down that road.
This debate is entitled "Defence in the United Kingdom", and at the end of my remarks I will highlight and define what I understand that to mean. Of course we recently had a debate about the role of Britain's armed forces in the world. Liberal Democrat Members have broadly supported what the Government have been trying to achieve: flexible forces and rapid deployment—the very expeditionary strategy outlined in the strategic defence review.
We have supported the pursuit of the European security and defence policy—the commitment to build a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force for European Union states. We also have supported the deployment of British forces in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor and, most recently, Afghanistan, but we have to concentrate on problems nearer home. I want to begin with the biggest threat to Her Majesty's armed forces—retention and recruitment.
Recently released figures show a deficit in every category of full-time trained strengths and requirements, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk referred earlier. The naval service is 1,420 under strength; the RAF is 770 under strength; and the Army is 5,440 under strength. Reference has already been made to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall earlier this week.

1049
Net outflow from the armed forces, which had been slowly falling under this Government, rose in 2001–02. This year, twice the number of Army and naval officers left the services as joined them. Let us take just one example. The MOD estimates a shortfall of more than 130 fast jet pilots each year for the next four years. We all know that undermanning inevitably leads to overstretch, and even as commitments begin to draw down in the Balkans, new commitments arise, such as those in Afghanistan. Closer to home, the possibility of fire strike cover has involved cancelling the leave that more than 1,000 personnel were expecting.
Overstretch also has other casualties. Some 10,000 personnel are not fit for duty in front-line roles. By raising Army manning levels in the SDR, the Government have had to contend with an inbuilt shortfall on establishment levels. The SDR established clear targets for recruitment and retention, but they have consistently not been met. In fact, there are now around 6,000 fewer men and women serving in our armed forces today than when Labour came to power. Nowhere is that more acute than in the defence medical services. When a former head of the defence medical services, Sir John Baird, says we would struggle to meet our medical requirements for a major operation, we would do well to take note.
The SDR envisaged three fully staffed deployable field hospitals, but in current circumstances, even by stripping the reserve hospitals, we could field only two such hospitals at best. Reservists are relied on to fulfil front-line commitments in Bosnia and elsewhere. MOD hospital units are understaffed. Locums are employed to take up the slack, and even private hospitals are now being used to treat service members because the defence medical services are unable to cope. Clearly, that situation must not be allowed to continue.
The medical manning and retention review is now being conducted. Its conclusions should be made public, and we should debate them in the House. It is crucial that the new centre for defence medicine in Birmingham be helped to succeed. I have spoken to some of my constituents who have been treated there, and they have told me of the very great service of care that they have received. Considerable benefits have been achieved from the close links between that centre and the national health service, but those benefits will be of no use if the defence medical services cannot retain their specialists.
Of course I understand that there are extra difficulties in recruiting in those specialist fields. That is why the MOD must push extra hard for solutions. Some measures are simply common sense—for example, ensuring that the pay and conditions of military medical personnel are comparable with those of staff in the NHS. That makes sense, but there are no easy answers for such intractable retention problems and the MOD must start to listen to those who know best—the professionals who already work in the service.
Much has been said already about reservists. With gaps in regular regiments and serious shortfalls in specialists—signallers, engineers and doctors—the reserve forces are proving their utility. We approve of the plans announced today for reserve forces—the CCRF—to play a new role in home defence. We
1050
approve of that because it was, of course, a Liberal Democrat policy six months before the Government announced it.
Patrick Mercer: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest and respect. Does he have any suggestions to improve recruiting? At the moment, he has simply observed that recruiting is a problem. That is fine, but what solutions does he have to offer?
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has suggested several good solutions in debates in the House, which have not been taken up. I will echo one of those solutions: we need to look at the good practice of those regiments that can recruit more easily and that can sometimes stop recruiting as a result, and make sure that that good practice is spread among other regiments. He knows from regiments in the midlands, not too far from his and my constituencies, that that happens in an effective way. We must also look, for example, at those members of the armed forces who have recently left the service, many of whom find that they do not like civilian life as much as they thought they would and want to come back into the armed forces. Those are two suggestions, but I would be happy to write to him with our party's policies on this matter, which I daresay he will be more than happy to read.
To return to the CCRF, it will only be effective if it trains regularly with the civil services—the fire brigade, the police, the ambulance service and others—if it has the right equipment, as has already been said, and if it can recruit beyond the Territorial Army. I would be prepared to act as a recruiting sergeant-major, as the Minister suggested earlier, to try to bring other people into the armed forces.
Mr. Ingram: Sergeant, not sergeant-major.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful for even that humble assessment from the Minister. I would hope that the Conservatives would join in that role, too, as many people who are not currently members of the TA would like to contribute to what they see as the home defence of our country. We must bring in people who are specialists—chemical engineers, linguists and so on—whose skills can be brought to bear.
In the SDR, the TA was to reduce in numbers, and the MOD undertook to ensure that
"TA units are fully manned and trained and equipped to the standards needed to undertake their tasks effectively."
We are far from that. Unfortunately, at present, barely 60 per cent. meet their bounty every year. Against a strength of 39,663, only 23,201 are fit for role. The medical reservists illustrate that point, too. According to figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats over the summer, 201 field hospital, for example, is 34 per cent. undermanned, with a 90 per cent. shortfall in medical consultants, with no radiology or pathology consultants, and no neurosurgical nurses either. Furthermore, 202 field hospital was 53 per cent. undermanned, with no anaesthetics consultants, no radiographers and no burns nurses. Those are regionally based units—an asset to any community—and we must attract the right people into their ranks.
When there is talk of war—we have already heard such talk in the House this afternoon—the families of those who serve in our armed forces listen very carefully.

1051
The MOD should have a clear idea of the concerns of those who serve in our armed forces through the continuous attitude surveys undertaken on its behalf by QinetiQ on issues such as career prospects and equipment, and, in terms of their families, on aspects of life on base or in Ministry housing or accommodation. It is time the Government shared those concerns with Parliament. We should be able to hear the voices of the armed forces. The Army Families Federation, for example, receives more calls about housing than any other issue. The Under-Secretary, who has responsibilities for veterans, said he believed that the privatisation of the MOD housing estate was
"not the best bit of business done by any Government".
He is absolutely right. On 18 July, the Secretary of State himself said that MOD accommodation was "shocking". I am sure that even the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk would agree with that.
Of course, bad management is part of those problems, and I understand that a major building programme is under way. Sadly, however, the mistakes of the past have to be lived with today. Since 1998, the Government have spent £100 million pounds on renting empty properties from Annington Homes because they were not good enough or not in the right place to give to service members. Have the Government had any discussions with Annington Homes about trying to renegotiate or overhaul the contract, which I accept was foisted on the Government? How do the Government propose to address the rising cost of substitute accommodation? In the first quarter of 2002 alone, the Government spent nearly £9 million on substitute rented accommodation for the armed forces. That is equivalent to 225,000 nights in average bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That means that, this year, the Government are heading for an annual total of around £40 million. No wonder the customer attitude survey conducted by QinetiQ for the Defence Housing Executive shows that a third of armed forces families are "not content" with their accommodation. That must improve.
In the Government's comprehensive spending review settlement, the defence budget was given an extra £1 billion a year over the next three years. Of course, we welcome that. However, a succession of major and minor defence reviews over the last 10 ten years have all indicated that current capabilities cannot be maintained without major structural changes and extra funding year on year above domestic inflation. When the SDR targets were set, the additional threat and costs of the campaign against terrorism were not foreseen. Estimates assumed that major projects would not be subject to cost overrun, but of course they still are. We know, too, that personnel costs can be met at present only because of shortfalls. We need more open competition and value for money, less waste, ways of saving money through co-operating with our European partners on procurement and logistics, and further targeted increases. Otherwise, the ability to mount additional operations could be jeopardised.
The service pay rise this year was a realistic and achievable 3.7 per cent. Recent comparisons between firefighters and the troops that are on standby to replace them have been illuminating. Personnel costs for well-
1052
qualified service men and women increase at or above inflation rate, and that trend is worsened in times of poor retention. There are also concerns about pensions. If we are to address the problems of retention, we must address the changing needs of our male and female soldiers, sailors and airmen. The risk of relationship breakdown, for example, for members of the armed forces is higher than for most people in civilian life. Marriage rates are falling. Since 1997, however, the number of UK regular forces aged between 25 and 29 has fallen by a remarkable 20,000, while the number aged between 20 and 24 has steadily risen. The average age of our armed forces is therefore falling considerably.
Mr. Eric Joyce:The hon. Gentleman has used an enormous amount of statistics in his speech. I have been reflecting on a statistic that he used earlier, and I want to establish whether there is depth in what he is saying, or whether he is simply reading off a sheet. When he said that the RAF was 130 pilots short each year for the next four years, did he mean 130 short, or 130 short every year for the next four years in a cumulative way?
Mr. Keetch: Actually, I referred not to the RAF but to fast jet pilots, because, of course, there are fast jet pilots beyond that. What I meant was 130 short every year for the next four years—year in, year out—which is a serious problem. I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman the figures and supply him with the parliamentary answers that I have received from his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, which are the basis of these statistics. I have used statistics because they show the severe overstretch of our armed forces at the moment.
We have a new generation of soldiers, both male and female, some of whom would have been only 10 years old in 1990, and would have watched the reports of Desert Storm in Iraq on their televisions. Many of them would not remember the Falklands war. If we are to recruit and retain high-calibre young men and women to our forces, we must look at their concerns, not at the concerns that we judge that they have. In the QinetiQ continuous attitude survey, the MOD asked soldiers an interesting question: whether unmarried partners should be granted the same support and allowances as the spouses of officers and soldiers. I am glad that the Government asked that question. Of course we do not know the answer, but I hope and believe that there will be changes as a result.
When faced with the need to adapt its traditions and rules to keep pace with the rest of society, the Ministry of Defence understandably adopts a cautious and precautionary approach, but that has proved costly. We have had to pay compensation for the infringements of the rights of gay men and women in the military. Pregnant soldiers have been summarily dismissed. We should not wait until such issues are tested in the courts before we recognise that a policy needs to adapt. Our society is ahead of the armed forces in recognising the legal and financial rights of unmarried partners. Members of the House voted to amend our pension scheme to give recognition to unmarried partners. The civil service pension scheme recognises unmarried partners, too. We know that last year the Ministry of Defence settled out of court to a young lady whose

1053
unmarried partner was killed on active service in Sierra Leone. How would the Government act should a similar situation arise? That is one decision that the Ministry of Defence could make without fearing that the modernisation and reform would threaten the fighting capabilities of our armed forces. Indeed, it would only enhance the men and women who serve in them. If our forces are sent into action, they should know at the very least that their loved ones are being provided for, whether they are married or not.
The Government have been willing to revise the strategic defence targets according to changes in circumstances. For the same reason, they should be as willing to adapt to the needs of the men and women who fight in our armed forces, because those people are our defence in the UK. Policies must put their needs first and be developed with their input. If we ask our armed forces to serve us, we must make it clear that we are determined to serve them.
3.41 pm
Harry Cohen: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and support the case for improved pay and conditions for members of the armed forces, as indeed I do for the firefighters.
The House will be horrified at the high level of casualties following the use of gas in Moscow last weekend. The Russian authorities faced a truly difficult set of events. Although I hope that authorities in this country never face a similar problem, we have important lessons to learn and policy initiatives to take. At the same time as we press the Russians for greater openness on what was used and how it was used, there should be greater openness concerning British preparations to use gas in counter-terrorist operations.
In March 1998, I asked about a chemical agent held by the Ministry of Defence called CR, which it keeps to maintain
"an effective counter terrorist response capability."
Initially I was pleased to be told that the Government's policy on CR
"is consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, which permits the use of certain toxic chemicals for law enforcement purposes." — [Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 324W.]
However, as the same permission enabled the Russians to use their gases, I am concerned about the use of CR for law-enforcement purposes in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of open-mindedness on the dilemmas faced by successive Russian military authorities. Can he shed light on the fact that after the gas was applied in the theatre in Moscow—so effectively and lethally that it knocked everyone out and killed people so that nothing could explode—many of the assailants were dispatched by gunshot wounds? Presumably that happened when they were unconscious.
Harry Cohen: I have seen those reports. I want the Russian authorities to be more open about what happened and why. I hope that they can be encouraged to produce that information.
Patrick Mercer: I had the good fortune—or the misfortune—to watch the events on Russian television
1054
last week. It was obvious that Spetznatz forces made no bones about the fact that the terrorists were executed while they were unconscious. There was no question of hiding that. Indeed, the terrorists' wounds were exposed and filmed on camera to the acclaim of the audience among whom I was standing.
Harry Cohen: That act was wrong, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
Although I would not want the Government to release information that could be useful to terrorists, there is scope for greater openness, not least in having information ready to send to doctors who treat casualties exposed to such materials. When the full story of what happened in Moscow is known, I fear we will learn that some people died in hospital because the doctors knew nothing about what compound had affected their patients. I would not want that to happen if we had a siege.
In response to my questions in 1998, I learned that the Ministry of Defence held about 260 kg of CR which was described as
"a riot control agent designed to cause temporary irritation."
That was a puzzling statement because the next answer from the Ministry of Defence in response to another Member said:
"CS irritant is the only riot control agent held by my Department." — [Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 324W.]
But CR had been described in the same way. Although the full effects of CR have not been published, perhaps one side effect is amnesia. That juxtaposition of contradictory answers prompted correspondence.
The Minister wrote to me explaining that although in technical terms CR was considered a riot control agent, because of its effects it was held for use not against rioters but against terrorists—hence the claim that CS is the only Ministry of Defence riot control agent. As I cannot understand why a substance such as CR would be used against terrorists unless hostages were involved, that means that it would be used in situations similar to that in Moscow. Is that a serious loophole in the chemical weapons convention? Could a country stockpile chemical agents while pretending they were for law-enforcement purposes and then let their military people use them in a war? That would critically undermine the convention, the major piece of international law which controls chemical weapons around the world and which most major countries have signed.
The convention clearly says that any toxic chemical held for one of the permitted purposes, such as law enforcement, should he held only
"as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes".
That provision could close the loophole because other countries could challenge in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague the holding of such chemical weapons. That international body relates to the convention, and I urge the use of such challenges and inspections.
The Government, through the Ministry of Defence, must give a new public assurance that they have checked that stocks of CR are held in compliance with the

1055
chemical weapons convention. But they must also do a little more. They cannot simply say that they are in compliance; they must present evidence of their thinking and show how they reached their conclusions. Only in that way can we make other countries justify what they do with chemicals for law-enforcement purposes. The Government would be a world leader by helping to keep the loophole tightly closed.
We cannot allow the use of gas to pass without comment. It may seem politically expedient not to condemn the use of gas now, but will it seem that way in a decade? The greatest control on the use of chemical weapons around the world is the fact that they are taboo in many cultures. If it becomes acceptable to use chemicals in law enforcement, that may lead to a weakening of the general taboo against their use in other circumstances. We owe it to British troops in the field to ensure that the sense of taboo against the use of chemical weapons is as strong as possible.
If the Russians feel that there has been little international pressure concerning the use of gases, what is to stop them using the same substances in Chechnya itself? If they did so, would the Americans feel free to use sleeping gases in Iraq? We could be at the start of a slippery slope that ends with scenes such as those in Halabja in 1988—another instance in which the Government of the day found it expedient not to criticise. We need strong controls on all those materials in all circumstances.
The Government must accept that there is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. There is still speculation about the exact gas used in the Moscow siege, and although thankfully it was not lethal for the majority of the people involved, it was lethal for about 100 others. As with all substances that can bring about unconsciousness, the difference in the dosage necessary to make a person sleep and that needed for lethal effect is relatively small, which is why an anaesthetist will constantly monitor a patient who is under general anaesthetic during routine surgery. Sadly, uncontrolled doses can be lethal.
A great deal of political attention has been paid to so-called "non-lethal" weapons in recent years. It is laudable to try to create methods for carrying out military and peacekeeping operations without causing as much death and destruction, and the United States has an extensive programme to develop non-lethal weapons, but all that is too optimistic. Perhaps the longer-term lesson from what happened in Moscow is that it has demonstrated, in the bluntest possible terms, that the drive for non-lethal weapons is based on the fundamentally mistaken belief that materials that interfere with the operations of the human body can be applied with little chance of deadly effects becoming apparent. Non-lethal often ends up being lethal.
In summary, the Government must publish the evidence for their conclusion that their holdings of CR gas comply with the chemical weapons convention, and then encourage other countries to display similar openness. How can we demand from Russia information that we ourselves have not provided?
Hugh Robertson: I accept almost everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but will
1056
he answer a simple question? Given that the evidence now emerging from Moscow is that the special forces had to move quickly in the early hours of the morning because they believed that the hostages were about to be killed by their captors, how would the hon. Gentleman have resolved the siege without recourse to gas, which the forces needed to use to stop the terrorists activating their explosives?
Harry Cohen: I cannot say how I would have done it because I do not have all the information. Nobody has, which is why we want openness, at least in retrospect, from the Russians. I have made it clear that the use of the gas does not breach the chemical weapons convention. We must have openness, otherwise we will open up the possibility of the convention being breached, and I want to prevent that.
The Government must also be more open about the rules of engagement for the use of CR and provide full reassurance that they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the correct treatments are available if anyone is exposed to CR. Lastly, and most important, the Government must ensure that chemicals used in law enforcement are there only as a last resort. It took most of the 20th century to achieve proper controls on the use of chemical weapons; it is the Government's duty to ensure that those controls are not weakened in the first few years of the 21st century.
3.54 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). the Chairman of the Defence Committee, invited me to expand on my earlier intervention about the intelligence services' assessment in the 1990s of the rising threat from Islamic fundamentalist extremism, and I shall do so with the limited knowledge that I have.
That knowledge simply goes back to an incident in, if I remember correctly, 1994 or 1995, when, perhaps looking backwards a little too much and forwards too little, I was concerned about membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee and in particular the fact that people were being appointed to that Committee who had a history of sympathy with the former Soviet Union. I discussed the matter with a senior parliamentarian—it would be invidious to identify him—who said, "Quite frankly, Julian, we are not bothered about that any more." Surprise surprise. What was a genuine surprise was that he then said, "We are concerned about whether any members of the Committee have links with Muslim fundamentalism."
I was impressed by the fact that, at that early stage, when there had been no significant eruption of Muslim extremism in this country, the committee should have been already thinking about such matters. We cannot lay at the door of the intelligence and security services the accusation that they were not thinking about these matters long before 11 September 2001; clearly they were doing so. We have to wonder why, when they had appreciated that Muslim extremism would be the next threat over the horizon, the strategic defence review carried out in 1998, several years later, did not pay more attention to that threat.

1057
The Chairman of the Defence Committee criticised the post-11 September Government pronouncements in various Ministry of Defence documents as being too brand in stating that in the defence of the United Kingdom, the fight had to be carried to the potential enemy long before he got too close to home. I think that criticism a little unjustified. If there is a primary point that I want to convey in my contribution, it is that passive defence against terrorism is never enough; only a form of offensive defence can hope to be successful.
That problem is not new. Strangely enough, the strategic planners of the United Kingdom—in the days to which I refer it was still just about at the tail end of what was called "the British empire"—had to face something very similar. At the end of the second world war, they had to assess what the arrival of mass destruction weapons meant for the future defence of the country. Some of the top scientific brains in the country were then still available to the Government service because they had been recruited as scientific advisers to the respective service Ministries throughout the second world war. They turned their attention to the prospect of whether there was any straightforward or practical way to counter the threat posed by the advent of biological and, as they were then described, atomic weapons. They quickly came to the conclusion that it was important to keep up the techniques of conventional military warfare and maintain the traditional roles of the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force in safeguarding sea communications and defending the United Kingdom's air space, as no one knew what sort of conventional conflict might yet take place. However, because only a few mass destruction weapons were needed to cause massive devastation, the only real defence against them was the ability to threaten immediate and devastating counter-attacks, thus deterring people from launching an offensive in the first place.
There is a parallel with today's situation. In the international threat facing our homeland, a small number of people may use the technology that the west itself has developed. Modern airliners, for example, may attack modern buildings, resulting in the deaths of many people following detailed organisation by a few individuals. That mini form of mass destruction is difficult to stop because only a few people undertake it. As we heard from the Minister of State for Defence in response to one of my interventions about individual terrorists undertaking copycat operations, there is no way in which society can protect against every deranged individual who may want to attack it. There is therefore a parallel, as a small number of people pose a disproportionate threat of damage and destruction.
However, there is also a difference in the solution to the problem—deterrents cannot be applied to people who are so filled with hatred that rational consideration of their own interests cannot be deemed applicable. If we are dealing with those who are so full of hatred that they are prepared to commit suicide to bring down their perceived enemy, we cannot hope to deter them from attacking. However, if we cannot hope to deter them and cannot necessarily, because of the mass destruction multiplier effect, hope to prevent them from carrying out those attacks, it follows that the MOD's basic
1058
approach is correct—we must stop them launching the attack in the first place. The best way to do so is, indeed, to attack their bases or at least their centres of power.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned one key aspect of the campaign against terrorism, although he may be coming on to it—intelligence. Is it not the case that it may not be necessary to launch a pre-emptive attack with the aim of stopping an attack? With adequate intelligence, one can know that an attack is being planned, so it can be detected and stopped. Is it not the case that we probably do not know how many attacks have already been thwarted by excellent intelligence? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to those people in British intelligence who are protecting us in that way?
Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my remarks very well indeed. I endorse entirely what he said, but I have not yet elaborated on what I mean by offensive defence. It is not enough to talk about intelligence as a way of finding out what is intended— that is of value only if we take counter-action. We should, of course, praise the thwarting of individual terrorist initiatives, as the hon. Gentleman said, but that alone is not a sufficient answer to the problem. As in the case of attack with nuclear weapons—only one or two have to get through to cause indescribable and unacceptable damage—so with terrorism. Only a small proportion of those attacks need succeed and escape the best attempts of the intelligence services to thwart them for the results to be unbearable and entirely unacceptable.
We must bear in mind the fact that what has happened so far has not been anything like as bad as it could have been. That may surprise hon. Members, but it is true. My mind goes back to the emergency debate held on 14 September last year in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, when I outlined in my contribution the sort of draconian measures that would be necessary in a free democracy if we protected ourselves against a series of suicide attacks on a par with what goes on within the borders of Israel or the occupied territories. I leave aside the rights and wrongs of that conflict—I am looking at this purely in technical terms.
A comparison could be made with the long history of the confrontation of our country's intelligence services and armed forces with the IRA. In the course of that long struggle—I hate to say this because I know that it will be misinterpreted—a sort of rules system was in operation. The people who carried out terrorist attacks on British society did so in a ruthless but calculated way. If a particular political initiative was coming up, they would decide whether they wanted to derail it, and whether they should have a bomb explosion, assassinate a soldier or whatever. It was almost like a horrible lethal form of chess. Similarly, I suspect—although I do not know—that the response of our intelligence and security services was strangely analogous. When the IRA went beyond a certain level of offensive behaviour, the security services were free to take firmer and more deadly action than was normally allowed.
The system that developed was therefore graduated for political purposes. One factor, however, makes that comparison with the more recent international terrorist

1059
threat slightly strained. It would have been easy for the IRA to cause many more explosions and casualties—for example, by not giving bomb warnings, which they often did—had they wanted to do so. They did not do so because they were playing the deadly game that I have described—but such considerations of restraint do not apply to international terrorists of the type who attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Such people are out to cause maximum casualties at every opportunity. The fact that that has not occurred in this country so far is a measure of genuine weakness on their part, rather than a wish to restrain themselves. Where they have been able to strike, as in Indonesia, they have done so. We must ask ourselves why they have been relatively weak in their subsequent activities against their most hated enemies—first, the United States, and secondly, Great Britain.
Our Government, with the full support of the Opposition, have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States. The terrorists' response to the United States and our country has been low level because they have been put on the back foot following the counter-action against the terrorist base in Afghanistan. Any branch of that deadly network must also be concerned because, wherever international terrorism raises its head, it simply provokes the authorities to suppress it. We know that in Pakistan there was, shall we say, an ambivalent relationship between the Pakistan intelligence service and extreme Muslim fundamentalists. Since 11 September, the Pakistan authorities have been forced to crack down. We know similarly that parallel work will take place in Indonesia.
I see that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has resumed his seat. It seems that despite the critical remarks that he made about it being too bland to talk about keeping the threat away from us as far as possible, rather than relying primarily on defensive measures at home, that must be the essence of our counter-terrorism strategy. It is vital to keep these people on the back foot. The best defence of the United Kingdom is to keep them on the run.
I shall conclude with a small suggestion that I hope the Minister will take on board. In my first intervention on the Minister of State, I referred to the danger of copycat terrorism and to the vulnerability of open democratic societies to anyone who wants to send a white powder through the post or set himself up as a sniper, whether it be for terrorist purposes, for motives of extortion or for any other indefensible reason. The trouble that we face in the modern world with the new feature of international terrorism is that the potential terrorist need not even know, let alone be in touch with, the leader of his organisation. We now have terrorist websites on the internet. There is the ability for instructions to be given from a cave in Afghanistan, for example, or from somewhere on the Pakistan border to those who wish to sacrifice themselves to the terrorist cause. All that can be done without any direct chain of command.
I wonder whether the Government, given the threat that we face, have paid any serious attention to something that I know does not appeal to those who believe in the freedom of cyberspace. It is something
1060
which I know would be technically difficult, but at least it could be worked upon, perhaps on a voluntary basis, with the internet service providers that are responsible for managing a great deal of the material that goes into cyberspace.
Serious talks should be held between Government agencies and with the firms responsible for the management of the content of the internet, with a view seriously to assist in limiting the potential for renegade individuals, copycat terrorists and various other deranged enemies of a free society to obtain ideas, instruction and deadly plans as a result of internet cyberspace communications.
4.14 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the use of the internet in this context.
I offer my support to our armed forces who, day in, day out, prepare for and take part in defending our country, and creating and maintaining peace in many key parts of the world. Over the past year, the Government and the nation have been asking more questions about our relationship with the rest of the world. We have been asking how our values and ethics should be reflected in our defence and foreign policy. Arms exports must form a central part of this discussion.
The Government have been congratulated on passing the Export Control Act 2002, which should help limit the flow of arms to conflicts throughout the world. However, we need to ask more fundamental questions about arms exports and the subsidies that the arms trade receives. The Ministry of Defence justifies defence exports, broadly for two reasons, one economic and one political. The economic argument runs that arms exports are supposed to be a money maker for the United Kingdom, given our need to have some arms, and that mass-producing them makes them cheaper. Supposedly there is a direct financial benefit to the economy and an indirect one given the number of people employed in the industry.
The economic argument fails. The MOD supports huge subsidies to the arms trade. The most recent study of UK arms exports by the Oxford Research Group and Safer World estimates that UK taxpayers provide subsidies to the arms trade of £420 million per year. That probably comes third only to agriculture and transport. The subsidy is hundreds of times more than state aid for tourism, the media and culture, which are more likely to be the industries of the future. Each job in the arms industry costs £1,000 a year of taxpayers' money. A quarter of that sum is paid through taxpayers' money to media, culture and tourism jobs.
I realise that there is a need for defence and arms. However, inappropriate promotion of the arms trade, and too much of it, promotes conflict. If the choice is between subsidising and promoting British bombs and bullets, with all the destruction and misery that we know they can cause, or subsidising and promoting British media, tourism and culture, with the ability to expand people's opportunities and increase opportunities to entertain and inspire, all at a quarter of the price of each job when compared with the cost of £1,000 in the arms industry, surely the second approach should win time and again.

1061
It is not only campaigning organisations that have established the costs of arms exports. Two senior MOD economists worked with two other economists to publish the "The Economic Costs and Benefits of UK Defence Exports", which I shall refer to as the York report. The report quantified the economic and employment impacts of a 50 per cent. reduction in defence exports over just two years. It was concluded that
"the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and one-off …the balance of argument about defence exports should depend on non-economic considerations."
Even one-off costs need to be considered seriously. Jobs are important, and I want to see people fully employed in productive and satisfying employment. The York report highlights the capital intensity of the defence industry. It is estimated that halving defence exports would lead to the loss of 49,000 jobs in the short term but the creation of 67,000 new jobs in the civil economy over five years.
Mr. Joyce: I presume that my hon. Friend recognises that in recent history there has been a shift in the economy from manufacturing to service industries. There are areas that rely heavily on manufacturing jobs. I think that defence economists generally accept that the new jobs that would be created would not be in the same areas. They would tend towards the south-east and away from the areas that rely on manufacturing jobs.
Ms Drown: There are a couple of points to make on that. First, retraining is always possible. Secondly, I recognise that we need to do much more with regional planning to ensure that we do not continue to suck more and more jobs, together with more and more housing, into the south-east. That is not welcome in the south-east or at the edge of the south-west, just as it is not welcome in other parts of the country.
Moving from old trades to new trades without job losses is the key to serious defence justification that the country needs.
Mr. Kevan Jones: It seems that my hon. Friend is referring to the arms industry as rather like sin, and that she is in favour of a little of it but opposed to a lot of it. In the north-east, for example, there has been a shift from manufacturing. The new jobs that are coming on stream are very high tech and service related, and many of them have an important role to play in the defence industry in this country and internationally.
Ms Drown: I shall explain why it is appropriate for us to support defence and arms. At present, it is not easy to support our position if we support an ethical foreign policy.
Mr. Keetch: In my speech and in the speeches of other hon. Members in the defence in the world debate two weeks ago, we covered large aspects of the hon. Lady's argument. She mentioned ethical policy. Does she agree that, there is nothing unethical about supplying our allies and friends with the arms to defend themselves? That is right and proper. The real problem for the arms
1062
trade is that we sometimes supply weapons to countries that are not our friends or that may turn out not to be our friends in the future.
Ms Drown: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue in a little more detail, he will see that his position is not so different from my own.
There is much talk about the fact that the current labour market is much more flexible than ever before, and that full employment cannot always mean the same employment. The success in my constituency is due to the flexibility of the work force. Swindon lost thousands of jobs when the railway works closed, but our highly regarded work force have adapted to change, and we enjoy near-full employment, with more manufacturing than many other parts of the country, as well as a strong service sector and many UK national and international headquarters based in the town.
People who work in the defence industry are highly skilled and well trained. Managed right, with proactive defence diversification, we should be able to get those skills into new and more productive fields without redundancies or unemployment.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: In my constituency we have a Royal Ordnance factory. Workers there cannot easily be retrained. Their specialist employment is making explosives. Can the hon. Lady explain where we are to get retraining and re-employment for people in Somerset?
Ms Drown: Retraining is the key to a successful defence diversification policy. I have every faith that the hon. Gentleman's highly skilled workers can be retrained. We in Swindon had to do it with our railway workers. who produced some of the best engines that any country has ever seen. They are now doing different jobs in high-tech firms—more productive firms. It can be done if there is the will to do it.
Perhaps the York report has persuaded the Ministry of Defence that the only argument left is the political one. The Minister with responsibility for defence procurement has said:
"The Government supports defence exports primarily on the grounds of their benefit for defence and international security policy."
So arms exports are supposed to be about benefiting our friends and allies, helping to deter aggression and keep the peace. That should mean that such exports help legitimate regimes. That is why the Export Control Act 2002 is so important. It allows the Government to refuse export licences to regimes that do not embody the positive values that we want to spread—regimes that flout human rights—or to stop the purchase of arms that would not support sustainable development.
The problem with that argument is that we currently export arms to regimes that clearly fail to promote those positive values. British arms exports to Saudi Arabia have helped legitimise a corrupt and undemocratic regime with one of the worst human rights records. Systematic torture and ill treatment in prisons and the imposition of corporal punishment such as amputation and flogging continue there. The political argument for arms exports cannot be listened to sympathetically while

1063
we continue to support arms sales to regimes that do not uphold human rights or where they are used to fuel aggression.
Ministers and hon. Members may have heard on the "Today" programme a couple of weeks ago that in Jordan, Ministry of Defence officials, UK Government employees, Prince Andrew and a Defence Minister were in the same hospitality suite at an arms fair as Saddam Hussein's cousin. That arms fair was attended by delegations from Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. The Government had 40 employees there and Britain was the biggest seller, besides Jordan itself. Every half an hour, Army display teams were showing off weaponry like a live television commercial, so even those threatening us are given intelligence on our weapons.
The Minister said that it was fine for Iraq to come and look, but because of the UN embargo, it cannot buy. That does not stop the Iraqis getting intelligence on our weapons. They were invited to see them, even though they cannot buy them. What do the Government do to protest about the fact that Iraq was represented at the arms fair? When there is an arms embargo on Iraq, what are Iraqis doing at an arms trade fair? The fair was held in Jordan, which the Scott report identified as the main route for arms to Iraq. When questioned, the Minister said that those countries are moving towards democracy and are forces for stability in the region.
Let us wake up. The truth is that the UK is such a massive exporter of arms that our threshold for friends must be very low. We are friends of India and Pakistan. That is right, but there are serious questions about selling weapons to those two countries, given the dispute over Kashmir. Given the concerns in the middle east, selling parts to Israel via America is also wrong. Having such a low threshold for friends is morally and economically wrong. It warps the Government's serious attempt to maintain an ethical foreign policy. We need a much higher threshold in place to ensure that we do not export arms to countries that could pose a threat in the future. The Government need to open their eyes to that danger and take action before it is too late. That is even more important, in the light of new international work on tackling terrorism and promoting peaceful and democratic regimes.
Obtaining approval of arms exports from a House Committee rather than from Ministers would be one way to make the system more transparent, and would better show each export on its merits. Similarly, all subsidies for projects should be reviewed to look at how much tax money is going into each project and whether it could be better used elsewhere. In addition, we need to take a serious look at moving skills from defence jobs to more productive areas. We will still need some defence jobs, but not as many as we have at present. The result would be a better use of taxpayers' money, more jobs and a more stable world.
Having heard the comments made earlier, I cannot leave a debate on UK defence without making a few comments about the UK's recruitment of child soldiers.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) suggested to the hon. Lady that she was in favour of virginity, but not all the time—
1064
[Interruption.]—or rather, in favour of sin, but not all the time. Perhaps she could set out, for the benefit of the House, what defence exports she believes to be justifiable, and to which countries she believes exports to be legitimate. There are a great many people in this country represented by hon. Members in all parts of the House whose jobs depend upon the defence industries, and our armed forces are dependent on those industries as well. Furthermore, those defence industries feed through to civil applications, from which Britain makes a great deal of money.
Ms Drown: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in Hansard, he will see the ethical principles in which I believe. I would be surprised if he supported exporting arms to every country in the world. I pointed out that our present threshold is not at the right level. I hope that he will reflect on that and bear it in mind when he considers his own policy on these issues.
I shall speak briefly about child soldiers. The United Nations committee on the rights of the child produced its report on the UK this month. It stated:
"The Committee is deeply concerned that about one third of the annual intake of recruits into the armed forces are below the age of 18 years, that the armed services target young people and that those recruited are required to serve for a minimum period of 4 years raising to six years in the case of very young recruits. The Committee is also concerned at the widespread allegations that young recruits have been the victims of bullying and at the fact that children below the age of 18 years take direct part in hostilities overseas."
The Committee recommended that the UK Government ratify the optional protocol on the involvement of children—
Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady confirm that she previously made that point to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time, and that he thoroughly disagreed with her?
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have raised the matter, and the Government have not moved to change their opinion. I believe that they should keep the matter under review. The current position is not right, and that is why I shall continue to challenge it.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger rose—
Ms Drown: I have taken several interventions, and I want other hon. Members to be able to speak.
The committee wants the Government to ratify the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and to take all necessary measures to prevent the deployment of persons below the age of 18. It also wants us to strengthen and increase efforts 10 recruit people of 18 and older.
The Minister talked of the need to follow international obligations and one would have thought that the UN convention on the rights of the child would be central to that. In response to my intervention, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said that recruiting under-18s was a successful way in which to staff the armed forces. How do other European countries manage to staff their armed forces without having to do that? Why cannot the Government introduce a separate training organisation

1065
for 16 to 18-year-olds and give them the choice when they become 18 of whether to join? What objection can there be to that? That should be combined with more work on recruitment and retention of those over 18. I was delighted to hear from the Minister earlier that recruitment is going well. We need to keep working on that because that is the way to solve the problem.
The hon. Gentleman twice said that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children, but to say that is to ignore UN rules, which, given the international situation, is a dangerous precedent to follow. When UNICEF sought to deal with the problem of the 11 to 13-year-olds who are recruited in some of the poorer countries, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, those countries ask why it is raising that when the UK itself recruits children. There is an issue there about the Government having the moral authority to play their part in challenging the even more outrageous recruitment of very young children throughout the world.
I support greater financial investment in the staff of our armed forces, and we need to look further at intelligence, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East said, because that is crucial to protect the country. We can do that by diverting some of our funds and support for arms exports into personnel issues. I end where I began, supporting those personnel, those armed forces, who protect the country so well.
4.32 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was a Territorial Army officer. I held the rank of major in the Northumberland Fusiliers, and I led many young people who were extremely good. They were dedicated, tough and knew what they were doing, and they were not children. They were people on whom I would rely and for whom I would lay my life on the line to lead them. They were very good. In the Gulf, where our 3rd Battalion took a friendly-fire incident, which the hon. Lady may remember, those young people did not stop. They carried on with their job and went through with it. I have great respect for the young people of Britain. They do a great job. They are not children but have minds of their own. If we treat them like children, we shall never get over the stigma. We have a young military force called the Combined Cadet Force or the Cadets.
Ms Drown: I in no way suggested that those young people are not as fantastic as the rest of our armed forces, but why does the hon. Gentleman object to those people, who have a separate training organisation, making the decision to join the armed forces when they reach 18?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Why not before? I do not understand the hon. Lady's arguments. I strongly believe that young people must be given the right to make up their own mind. If one wants to start work at 14, one can do so. If one wants to train for a trade, one can do so.
Patrick Mercer: I had the pleasure to command junior leaders who were 16-year-old soldiers. The regime was
1066
benign and there was discharge as of right. In other words, any young soldier who asked to be discharged could be discharged automatically, unlike an adult soldier. There is indeed a separate training organisation for young soldiers called the army foundation college in Harrogate, which trains young men and women most carefully, in a paternal fashion, with completely different military regulations. There is also—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is rather long for an intervention.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend makes a most eloquent point, with which I completely agree. There are strong safeguards to ensure that young people are trained to the standard at which they can do the job. My hon. Friend was commanding officer of a fine regiment that took young people to Bosnia and brought them all home. That shows the dedication and ability of the young people.
I come now to the Territorial Army.
Ms Drown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that discharge as of right applies for only six months, and it is iniquitous that when young people sign up they have to do so for six years, whereas 18 and 19-year-olds usually sign up for four years?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I am reliably informed by a whisper in my right ear that they have the right to be discharged throughout their training.
Ms Drown indicated dissent.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I had better move on. If the hon. Lady shakes her head too much, it may fall off.
The TA has given great service in the defence of Britain ever since it was a militia. It has a unique ability to be a local defence force. It knows its area. There is no better organisation to defend a local area, because it already knows it. If one wants to deploy troops with the ability to defend strategic sites, such as the nuclear power station in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and the ammunitions factory in my constituency, there is no one better than the TA because it knows precisely where such sites are. Following 11 September, many such places were protected. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing Skyguard radar to come down to the Minehead area where it did an invaluable job in checking the height of aircraft across strategic locations in Somerset.
I was interested to note that one of the problems of the CCRF, which will be made up of 14 battalions of 500 men, is recruitment. I do not know whether the level of recruitment in the TA has changed, but the turnover used to be near 30 per cent. I suspect that it has not greatly changed. If one tries to maintain training so that soldiers can be used effectively in the field, there must be a nucleus of people who will continue to be able to train others. It might be worth considering having a core of people, for not just training for external operations but internal operations. I thoroughly agree with the idea of having 280 command and control personnel, but it may be better to expand that to have a core of people who

1067
could train in homeland defence for people such as the TA. The regular Army is stretched and being able to retrain personnel to do that in the long term may be not only uneconomic but almost impossible given the other roles that all troops nowadays are expected to carry out.
Having undertaken a Government course at Easingwold on emergency planning as a councillor, I know how difficult it would be, should a petrol tanker explode in a town in the north-east where I was, to ensure that those 280 personnel were trained to a level at which they could cope with such disasters. At the moment, the police, fire and ambulance go to a command centre, and, if Army personnel are used, they must be trained to that level. When I was in the TA we used to try to do that for larger operations. We would have to go to north Yorkshire from Newcastle. That may not seem a long way to hon. Members but it is if one has only a weekend.
One has to put time and energy into achieving a level where such jobs can be carried out. In my experience of training at Longmoor for operations in this country, I never felt that I had got my men to a level at which I could guarantee that they could do the job in the field if they were pushed in straightaway. The problem with homeland defence is that one does not know what the threat is. It could be anything from white powder to something major in London or elsewhere. People may have to be deployed who, through no fault of their own, are not up to scratch. We must ask ourselves whether we as a Parliament are prepared to take action. We have one chance in such circumstances and no more. In Russia, people made the decisions that they felt to be right. I cannot fault that. Commanders on the ground will have seconds, minutes, half an hour or possibly an hour to make the decision to deploy troops and to ensure that they get it right.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I no longer feel that I can sleep safely in my bed in Durham in the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman has moved to Somerset.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have recognised that there was a co-ordination problem between the military and the civil authorities at a local level and have taken action to improve that co-ordination? I was a member of the Defence Committee when it dealt with the matter. Does he not agree that the Government have reacted and tried to solve a key problem in communication at a local level between the Army, the other forces and the civil authorities?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will start to sleep soundly, or I will come back and haunt him. He is absolutely right; the training always has been good. Having participated in the Government course, I strongly advocate it to anybody, but a level must be attained at which it is possible to continue to keep people fully trained for eventualities.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made the very good point that we do not know where the threat is coming from or what it will be. Unless the nucleus is kept going, it will not be possible to train people to a proper level.
1068
Equipment is another important issue for the Territorial Army. It has been pointed out that the TA tends to be given the cast-offs of the regular Army. When that happens—I have direct experience of it—TA personnel are left to use inferior equipment to do exactly the same job as their regular counterparts. I remember opening packages containing chemical warfare suits that almost fell to bits, although that happened a long time ago, before the Minister was in situ. The equipment that is provided to the Territorial Army must be up to scratch, especially where chemical warfare is involved. If not, we know who will suffer.
The bane of my life and that of the Minister is the Royal Ordnance factory in Puriton in my constituency. He knew that that was coming. I was interested recently to note that BAE Systems, another great British company,
"shamelessly played the patriotic card in its campaign to win the £2.9 billion contract to build two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, warning that a win for its French rival would seriously damage the UK's industrial base."
That is what The Guardian said. The Times stated:
"BAE Systems' chief executive, Mike Turner, has…demanded that his company be given the job because of the strategic need to retain big projects in this country."
I have spoken to the Minister about the Royal Ordnance factory in Puriton, which is now owned by BAE Systems. Why has the company still made no decision what it will do with the factories? There are three large Royal Ordnance factories in this country. If they are closed, production will go to America, but the chief executive of BAE Systems is jumping up and down saying that it wants to keep big manufacturing projects in the UK. Hypocrisy is one thing, but it is another for a company to contradict what the Government recommend in terms of the control of our strategic ability to supply our armed forces with British-made and British-secured ammunition and explosives.
What I do not understand is why BAE Systems is being so vocal and the Government so silent about the need for the company to ensure that the supply of ammunition is maintained within the UK. I do not understand why we cannot ensure that it does so. Interestingly, the aircraft carriers will carry 800 tonnes of ammunition when they sail out of port. I would love it if the explosives were made in Bridgwater. That would certainly keep the jobs there, although I am sure that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) would have something to say about that.
The defence of the UK is in the hands of an overstretched military who do not always have the capacity to do what we ask of them. They do what we ask because they are the highly professional organisation that we know and have come to respect. I urge the Minister to remember that young adults can be taken into the cadets and on to the regulars and that we should try to keep them there. People have left the territorials and regulars as reserve soldiers. We should do everything that we can to keep them. We have a nucleus of people and the terrorist threat to this country will not go away, no matter what we do. The one thing with which everybody in this House is charged is the defence of the homeland. The Americans take one view;

1069
we take a different one. We have had a lot more experience of defending our homeland in the past few generations.
Patrick Mercer: Sadly.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I agree. I think that there is only one year since the war when British forces have not been in action, so we know the level of our people's commitment.
It is important that people such as those in the Territorial Army be given clear structures, but if we do not recruit sufficient numbers to supply the troops and keep them in the field in the long term, whatever attack we face, we will fail in keeping it out.
4.46 pm
Laura Moffatt: It is certainly a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), because he clearly has enormous experience of the armed forces. I could not possibly match it, but I hope that I can join him in expressing tremendous support for our armed forces.
My interest began when I was a young girl who joined a uniformed organisation called the Nautical Training Corps, which was wonderful. That superb organisation taught me about life, took me out and about and got me in touch with lots of sailors, which was very helpful. We should be very proud of our uniformed organisations, which play such a large part in helping young people to understand what they want to do in life. Forgetting those wonderful sailors, if I had not met my husband at school—I remain with him—I would myself have joined the armed forces to do my nursing training. I was keen to do so.
My interest continued long before I became a Member of Parliament. Many of us who have had jobs involved in the defence industry have begun to understand its complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) rightly talked about the difficulties that are faced by our armed forces and the defence industry in producing the goods that are needed so those forces can do their job properly. That will never be an easy matter to solve or one of those issues that we can allow to toddle along without taking great cognisance.
I was therefore deeply proud that, after the 1997 election, I was placed on the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and I were immensely proud to be the first two women to serve on the Committee. I am not sure whether I am pleased that the Chairman is present, because I am going to be cheeky. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was a superb Chairman. Although some people may say that he did not encourage women to serve on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and I say differently. We were given the same tasks and asked to be just as robust as the men. We were given no concessions, not even for shopping when we went abroad. He was truly wonderful.
Mr. Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend's experience on the Defence Committee has obviously been invaluable. She has one advantage over male members, in that she does
1070
not have to share a tent with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) when we go away.
Laura Moffatt: I shall not intrude on past sadness. Sadly, we did not share a tent. [Interruption.] I should perhaps rephrase that.
Mr. Bruce George: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you exercise the discipline over my Committee that I cannot?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will resume her speech and relate it to the debate.
Laura Moffatt: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be disappointed but I was sad that the women, including the staff who accompanied us on visits, were not placed in tents only because we were put in strange outbuildings and were freezing while the men were in fabulous comfortable tents. That was a mistake, and I hope that it will not be perpetuated.
Although my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Committee was superb, he famously said when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South left the Committee—
Mr. George: No, don't say that.
Laura Moffatt: I shall not be bullied by my right hon. Friend. That shows that I have done well to cope. He famously said, "One woman down, one to go." [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, indeed.
The diversity and robust nature of the Committee are vital. Two members belonged to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That is right and proper. Let me say a good word for the Whips, who often come in for criticism. I cannot imagine why; it is a mystery. I was delighted to be put on the Defence Committee, but I approached the Whip and asked whether it was a mistake. I had heard tales about its being manufactured and that no one who presented difficulties would serve on it. I admitted that I was a member of CND and asked whether the decision was correct. The Whip said, "Of course it's right. We should have a diverse Select Committee that can examine all aspects of defence." Of course, we are not there for our own purposes; we should he able to examine matters across the board.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I do not recall people in CND being anti-military. They were against weapons of mass destruction, not this country's capacity to defend itself.
Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because there is a feeling that a CND member would not be welcome on the Defence Committee. That is clearly untrue and I am pleased to be able to say that.
The Select Committee on Defence was able to examine the big issues of the day, including extremely troubling matters arid others that were heartening. It was pleasing to examine in detail the strategic defence review. It was a trailblazer in terms of trying to define our armed forces and the way in which we ensure that

1071
they have the necessary equipment. The new chapter shows a commitment to ensuring the flow of resources and making sure that we listen to the people who do the job on our behalf and undertake such valuable work.
A major difficulty persists in the Defence Medical Services. As a trained nurse for 25 years, I am especially interested in them. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is no longer in his seat, told us about the shortfall that the Defence Medical Services face. The national health service also faces such difficulties. The close link and interchange of experience and technical expertise between the health services means that they suffer the same problems. We should therefore not be surprised that recruitment difficulties are the same for both.
The problem is being tackled in a way that I believed impossible. I did not believe that representatives of the NHS and the MOD could sit down together and consider carefully methods of recruiting from the NHS. They examined ways in which to release staff. That is an extremely difficult problem to tackle, but it is now being done in a way that will bear fruit. In that regard, the Centre for Defence Medicine will create extra expertise and be of tremendous advantage to us all. It is wonderful that the Select Committee is able to tackle those issues. Issues such as terrorism and ensuring that we properly address the difficulties that we face today are also, rightly, in the hands of the Select Committee. I was pleased to read its report, because hon. Members who have left the Committee remain engaged with the valuable job that it undertakes.
It is impossible to ignore the economic impact of our defence industry. I have mentioned some of the jobs that are so crucial to Crawley. The reason I am so supportive of those jobs is that they help to ensure that we have decent communications and proper simulator training facilities. Those jobs are at the soft end of the market; we do not produce arms in Crawley. I do not, therefore, find it difficult to support them. I know that the impact that they have on my town is a positive one, and one that I feel completely comfortable about supporting.
We need, however, to tackle certain issues, and we now have the Export Control Act 2002, which allows us to examine what is happening in relation to defence exports. The annual report also plays a vital role in that regard. We need more openness, however, and we need our Select Committees to have more involvement than the Quadripartite Committee simply meeting the Secretary of State to discuss these matters. We also need more input from the Floor of the House. We have nothing to hide. This is a decent country, and people do decent jobs for decent companies that provide a real service. We have everything to be proud of, and more openness will not be a constraint. I would like to see more of it, and a more prominent role for Parliament in these matters.
I want to discuss the impact of those defence industry jobs—of which there are now several thousand—on Crawley. We often think of the south-east as a high-employment area with no employment problems. Why, therefore, should we think of maintaining those defence jobs in Crawley and the south-east? I would like to make a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is crucial that we maintain those jobs there. We often think
1072
that we should direct our attention to other parts of the country where unemployment is an issue, but we should still think seriously about contracts that are important to the south-east.
Gatwick airport is in my constituency and has 36,000 employees across the board. Many of those jobs are in the service industries, however. They are good jobs, with reasonable pay, which provide full employment. One could argue that we should not he moaning. It is clear, however, from visiting defence industry companies such as Thales, that the jobs that they offer are degree-entry jobs. They are fantastic jobs for those coming out of universities and colleges, and the companies provide superb training, including apprenticeships, to ensure that the jobs are of the highest quality. We would have serious difficulty with the diversity of jobs available if those defence jobs were not there for our young people. I make a plea: when acquisition issues are considered, we should not think, "Let's not worry about the south-east and acquisitions from companies there."
Mr. Kevan Jones: Following my sin analogy, my hon. Friend obviously agrees not only with sin, but with quality sin. Is it not the point that a lot of those high-tech jobs in the south-east support long supply chains, including industries in the north-east of England and small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on such contracts for their livelihood?
Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend, who is right. It should not be assumed that research and development work such as that being done in Crawley has no impact on the final product, often outside our own constituencies. It is important to remember that the defence industry is global in nature. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed a defence industry conference a couple of weeks ago, he pointed out how complex the matter is. We are talking not only about British-based companies, but about companies with major interests in the UK, and we need to support those jobs.
I am pleased that, after donkeys' years, Thales in my constituency has recognised the trade unions, which it did not do in its previous life. That is a step forward; therefore Thales is, and is seen as, an excellent employer. The Chairman of the Defence Committee may have another view—I am sure he does—but the fact is that such companies are important to our economic base and we should remember to be careful about and sensitive o f that. We must not say, "They are foreign owned and therefore not important to this country." Clearly, that is not the case.
It would be extremely silly of me to sit down without making a plea for two really good procurements that I feel deeply about and which will strengthen the technology base in the UK—Watchkeeper, and the advance vehicle training system, which will give our armed forces the ability to train without causing huge disturbances to our countryside. Those technologies will allow training to take place in circumstances that are almost real, so it is important that we develop them. That is at the core of the work going on in Crawley. Having mentioned it, I hope that regard is paid to its importance.

1073
These debates are significant. We range widely, even though we are discussing defence in the UK, but it is important to understand that everybody involved in defence is part of a process and likes to feel part of that process. Even those working in defence companies that are manufacturing goods for our armed forces have something special about them. They understand what they are doing and what contribution they are making to defence in the UK. We need to recognise that their work is important.
Competition is right—of course it is. We must ensure that we get the best value for money at every turn and that whatever is procured is fit for the job, but we must value those who work so tirelessly to ensure that our armed forces are the pride of the world and have first-class equipment.
5.4 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I am grateful to be called in a debate on such an important subject. I shall raise two specific issues relating to defence in the United Kingdom—the new chapter of the strategic defence review and the outcome of the Government's related consultation exercise on the role of the reserves in home defence and security as well as the UK's resilience against attack and the connected topic of emergency planning.
The new chapter of the SDR was issued to update UK defence policy in the light of the events of 11 September. The first paragraph states:
"Following the appalling events of September 11th, the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Ministry of Defence would look again at its defence posture and plans to ensure that we have the right concepts, the right forces and the right capabilities to meet the additional challenges that we face from international terrorism and asymmetric threats (defined as the threat of attack by unconventional methods which would have a disproportionate effect)."
In response to the paper, a number of organisations and individuals—of whom I was but one—argued that the Territorial Army and other reserve forces should be given an enhanced role in helping to provide for the security of the UK against such asymmetric attacks.
The MOD subsequently issued a more specific paper on the role of the reserves in home defence and security. At the heart of its suggestion was the establishment of what were then called regional reaction forces, in most cases formed around one of the remaining TA infantry battalions in each region, which would give a UK-wide total of around 6,000 personnel in that role. Reaction forces could be called on at short notice to assist the police and civil authorities in the event of an impending or actual crisis. I agree with the reaction force concept, and I therefore welcome the Minister's announcement this afternoon—although perhaps the MOD could have come up with a slightly sexier name for the units to encourage recruitment and retention.
When I served in the Territorial Army, I specialised partly in what is now called chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological warfare—CBNR in the current jargon. That gave me at least some conception of how lethal biological agents, or small quantities of chemicals such as VX and sarin, can be. If we were subjected to any kind of attack with such weapons, particularly if it were a concerted assault rather than a one-off, the consequences could be truly awful. Given the media
1074
hysteria that would inevitably result, there would be a pressing need for considerable numbers of trained troops to give protection and reassurance to the civilian population, in order to allow some semblance of normality. The regular Army is simply too small to provide such protection on its own, and besides it will always be partially deployed overseas. I believe that a revamped and retrained TA could fill the gap by providing units specifically trained to deal with homeland security and chemical and biological first aid.
I ask Ministers, including the Minister who is present, to consider establishing a specialist CBNR platoon in each TA battalion, with a higher readiness than the rest of the unit, which might be expected to provide a trained response on the ground within hours of an attack—to act, as it were, as a CBNR spearhead in reacting to an incident such as a chemical attack on a local railway station, when CBNR troops in kit would probably be needed to assist the blue-light emergency services, very few of which are CBNR-trained and equipped. Such a platoon could also act as a specialist CBNR cadre for the rest of the battalion and, indeed, other elements in the regional reaction force.
Let me put it succinctly. If someone were to launch any kind of concerted attack on the civilian population of the United Kingdom, we would need far more specially trained troops than we have now. I agree that the TA would provide a very cost-effective solution.
I want to say something about the resilience of the UK in the face of terrorist attack, and the related issue of emergency planning. I have done some research, and have received direct briefing from local government officers with responsibilities in this field. I thank, among others, Mr. Charles Thomas, the emergency planning officer of Rochford district council—with whom, incidentally, I served in the TA—and Mr. Peter Pearson, the emergency planning officer of Essex county council.
A number of serious challenges need to be addressed if we are to improve the resilience of the United Kingdom to any type of asymmetric attack. First, emergency planning is woefully under-resourced. The Government spend only around £19 million a year specifically on that, compared with a defence budget of billions of pounds.
Most district councils have no full-time emergency planning officer at all. The person who holds that role is usually double or triple-hatted, has other responsibilities and so can spend only a proportion of each day preparing for potential disaster. Most county councils and unitary authorities do at least have a full-time emergency planning office but even the largest county councils have only a very small staff—what amounts to a planning cell—to deal with these issues. Most of the "buffer stocks" from the cold war era have disappeared. Much of the planning to date has been London-centric, rather than addressing the problem across the UK. In short, most local authorities lack both the specialist staff and the resources in sufficient quantities to respond adequately to a real attack as opposed to a theoretical exercise.
Secondly, lines of command and control in emergency planning are unclear, a point that was made both by the Chairman of the Defence Committee and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). Emergency planning is a classic example of a cross-

1075
cutting issue. It involves not just the MOD but other Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health, to name just a few. That raises the issue of who is in charge in the event of an attack. There is still considerable confusion about the relationship between the civil contingency secretariat, the military, chief constables and local authorities in the event of an emergency. We need to cut through that Gordian knot while we still have time to do so.
The handling of the foot and mouth crisis—I stress to the Minister that I am not seeking to make a partisan point—provided a clear example of what can happen when lines of command and control are unclear. In the event the Army responded excellently but it was several weeks before it was fully called in. We would not have several weeks to react, or even several days. We may have only a few hours to save potentially thousands of lives in the event of a substantial asymmetric attack. The stakes are that high. We must clarify exactly what our response mechanisms are and, having done that, rehearse them thoroughly.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying about the serious situation that he is describing. In his discussions with people in local authorities with responsibility for emergency planning, did he find out whether they had been supplied with equipment to enable them to discover when a biological attack was under way? It is not easy to know initially whether such an outbreak is the result of an aggressive action. Although NATO is taking steps to ensure that our armed forces are prepared, I have not heard anything with regard to the civil powers in that respect.
Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My understanding is that some local authorities—I emphasise the word "some"—have limited stocks and protection equipment, much of which is effectively outmoded, and that others have virtually no equipment whatever. Therefore, they would be extremely hard-pressed, if casualties were beginning to appear, to ascertain quickly exactly which agent was at work, which would be vital in co-ordinating a response. Much more needs to be done to get that equipment into the field, as it were, where it could be of material use were it ever needed.
That brings me to a key issue. As the excellent report by the Defence Committee pointed out, there is a crying need for new legislation. The statutory framework which governs emergency planning is now very outdated. There have been three paradigms of emergency planning in the UK since the second world war. The first might be defined as the cold war paradigm in which our emergency planning was configured largely to responding to a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the Berlin wall, we moved into the second paradigm, the post-cold war paradigm of the 1990s, when Governments of both political colours stood down much of the infrastructure that had been put in place. The 10-year rule started to creep in and we believed that perhaps there was no direct and immediate threat to the security of the United Kingdom. After
1076
11 September we moved into a third and new paradigm—the real threat of asymmetric attack with the potential use of a variety of weapons of mass destruction. Our existing legislation relates to the first paradigm, but the world has moved on. We now require new framework legislation and the resources to make it effective to address the scenario that we face in the 21st century rather than the 20th.
I stress as strongly as I can that we need to act before it is too late. The threat is very real, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) pointed out with great clarity. It may seem curious to argue that one of the most important things that we need to shore up the defence of the United Kingdom is a wad of paper, but in this case I believe it to be true. We need an emergency planning Bill in the Queen's Speech to clarify exactly who is responsible for what and when, and to update statutory responsibilities so that those people who hold these important—indeed vital— responsibilities in local authorities will have some chance to obtain resources in the face of all the other pressures on their budgets.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. It is not that we do not know who is in charge at local level. The real problem relates to the co-ordination of different local agencies and how that fits in with what the military are doing. I do not think that there is any confusion as to who is in charge of what; we need to work out how to get them working together.
Mr. Francois: I can only say that, having talked to practitioners in the field, my impression is that there is definitely some confusion about how it all knits together, who is responsible for taking decisions and the timing of the process—whether it be in relation to the civil contingencies secretariat intervening at national level, or chief constables acting in the county, or emergency planning officers, or regional military commanders. Who will give orders to whom and who is in charge when they disagree? I do not think that the military have a problem; rather it is those around them. One of the maxims of successful military operations is to have a clear chain of command and control. We do not have that. I am stressing this issue because if there is a crisis we will have only hours to deal with it, and if we do not sort things out in advance, people will die.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points. Having been a Territorial soldier he also knows that in the event of an emergency incident it is extremely important to set up a command centre. Does he agree that the command centre system needs to be re-established so that people can get to an incident and take command?
Mr. Francois: I agree entirely. That command centre needs to be chemically and biologically secure. I understand that during the cold war local authorities had a statutory responsibility to maintain such a command centre, at least in a state of readiness. I further understand that that responsibility no longer exists, but should be included in a new emergency planning Bill.
I shall conclude my remarks as others wish to speak.

1077
Hindsight makes geniuses of us all. Many of us are wearing poppies this evening in recognition of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, partly because of mistakes made by our predecessors in this place. Perhaps, for once, we could at least learn our lessons in advance, because history shows that if we learn them after the fact, the cost, in all senses, is infinitely higher.
5.20 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. There have been a number of high quality contributions. I listened to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) with great interest, although I do not necessarily agree with all his points. Relatively recently, however, I visited Falkirk council's emergency planning services covering my area. Because my constituency is underlaid by pipes going to and from a refinery over the boundary, I have always thought that there must be at least an element of risk, as the pipes are only 3 or 4 m below the surface. I am pleased that the local emergency service officer has taken that into account.
The hon. Gentleman's points were well made. I am not sure about including proposals in the Queen's Speech, but this is a very important area. I was aware in a previous existence of the importance of emergency planning by local authorities under the old system. We may never get back to that, but it is an area that local authorities must consider.
I have a few comments about some of the other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke about the UN and child soldiers, as she described them. Although I suspect that I share my hon. Friend's world view in some respects, I get a wee bit fed up—not with my hon. Friend—when UN reports directed at Britain refer to child soldiers, when clearly it is very peripheral. Since I have been in the House, I have been lucky enough to visit Africa a few times to see that very real phenomenon about which many international agencies write and talk. To see 13 and 14-year-olds taking part in combat—indeed, we saw a couple of 11 and 12-year-olds in Sierra Leone, who were quite infamous for a while—using weapons, killing and being killed, is not just slightly but enormously different from the situation in the UK.
As the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, there is an enormous difference between military training and education for 16-year-olds in this country and what is described as training in foreign armies. The UN is concerned about where training takes place and people being of a sufficient age to be involved in military operations because training in some African states takes place pretty much in theatre. There is no separation between training, having a weapon, being 15 and taking part in operations. I urge people who criticise our system, in particular the UN panel, to visit an Army apprentice college or training establishment to see the quality of the education, which is second to none and compares to that in any civilian college. No one takes unnecessary risks. Even when those still under 18 go into an operational theatre, commanders, by and large, take account of their age and they will often be given duties that are at the less risky end of the spectrum. I think that the UN should take account of that in its reports.
My hon. Friend also mentioned diversification, and I intervened on her at that point. Diversification is a perfectly sound concept; indeed, the Government have
1078
a diversification programme, although a fairly modest one. However, people, perhaps understandably, sometimes miss the fact that the Ministry of Defence is the single largest customer for British industry, and its impact on the economy is enormous. I would not want procurement used simply as an economic device—the aim is clearly to procure the best equipment for the armed forces—but it is nevertheless significant for a number of constituencies. Retraining does not exactly deal with the issue, which is about movement—the jobs tend to move to the south-east. Studies have shown that jobs tend to move to areas that are better off and away from those that are worse off.
Although job mobility is very important, the fact is that movement created by excessive diversification adversely affects areas, such as Scotland, which is experiencing a net loss of people We would like to keep them there if we possibly can. I suspect that that possibly also affects the north-east, although I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that there is also a translation from the lower skilled end of the spectrum to the higher skilled, new economy jobs in those areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) alluded to industrial procurement issues, but it is worth flagging up—this has not been discussed today—the extent to which expenditure on military equipment in Europe is enormously inefficient compared with the United States because we have different interests in various countries and there is enormous duplication. The Government have to consider this country's interests, but in due course there will have to be far greater co-operation between companies and countries, so that we can get a far greater bang for the buck—or euro, or whatever currency we are spending—in comparison to the Americans. At the moment, we in Europe punch far below our weight in procurement and capability terms.
I want primarily to talk about something that was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen): international law, which we hear quite a lot about in the Chamber. I have great respect for international law and the UN—we all do—but people sometimes miss the point about the nature of international law when they refer to it as being written in stone and considered very objectively by judges.
I am not a lawyer. Some might say that I have not been blessed or cursed with a legal training depending on their perspective, but I understand that international law is, by and large, made up of a number of different instruments: the UN charter, resolutions passed by the General Assembly, by the Security Council and in a number of other places. That is very different from domestic law. If any lawyer wants to intervene, I shall happily take the intervention.
We have a set of laws. We have judges and juries and, by and large, our legal system's interpretation of the law is pretty objective, but that does not exist in international law. We can all refer to international law and aspire to its ideals, but ultimately, most of the time, international law will be interpreted very subjectively and in a way that reflects the interests of states that are members of the UN, which tends to be the arbiter of such things. More than just being subjective, the interpretation will be a matter of politics.

1079
I am as much a fan of the UN as any other hon. Member. I really do believe in its ideals, but the UN is made up of a very large number of nations, half of which, or more, do not have democratic systems such as ours. We say that the UN should be the arbiter of all things good, but we have to qualify that in some way. I will not suggest today how to do so in all senses, but we must qualify what we mean when we refer to international law, on one hand, and the UN being the supreme moral arbiter on the other.
Annabelle Ewing rose—
Mr. Joyce: Before I give way to the hon. Lady, I should say that I have noticed the Scottish National party's presence on the Opposition Benches—it is wonderful to see someone there—but I have also noticed that, although she wants to take part in this important debate, she has done so very asymmetrically, so that she cannot be challenged. However, I am happy to deal with whatever opportunistic point she wants to make.
Annabelle Ewing: In fact, the hon. Gentleman invited any lawyer in the Chamber to intervene on the specific point that he made about the position and status of international law. I wonder therefore whether he can share his thoughts on the role of the International Court of Justice, which is located, in case he is not aware, in The Hague, in the Netherlands.
Mr. Joyce: The hon. Lady—I say this with great surprise—raises an interesting point. There is a place for that to which she refers, and the International Criminal Court is still embryonic, in a sense, as the United States has not yet signed up to it—for reasons with which I slightly sympathise—although I hope that it signs up in due course. It is in exactly those cases that one can have a little more confidence in a proper judiciary that can make objective judgments. Most of the international law cases that we see or hear about at the moment, especially in view of the international situation, refer to UN charters, resolutions and so forth, which are much less concrete matters than those dealt with by the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
To return to my point about how we interpret the UN, its will and international law, it seems to me that a number of countries are prepared to say, "These are the values inherent in our system, which we think are quite good—democracy being one of them—and they can be universalised. Those values must be an important aspect of how international law is interpreted." At the same time, however, it must be recognised that no law stays in place for ever, and that all laws should be challengeable and changing. When we make judgments about what we should do, and whether we should deploy our forces in a particular context, we should be cautious about legitimising those decisions according to what is international law at present. Sometimes, it is a slightly ethereal concept, and while we must maintain general respect for international law, a particular role exists for countries such as ours, which have a democratic system, a set of values that we respect and that we would like to see across the world, and which are prepared to take
1080
action to spread those values. I urge hon. Members to develop ideas about how we might make changes to aspects of international law in a way that reflects that general trend, rather than accept the questionable idea that all members of the UN should have an equal input into how we interpret that international law.
Before I conclude, I want to refer to the laws of armed conflict. The Geneva conventions are a good case in point. We need to update the way in which we determine what it is acceptable for our armed forces to do. The Geneva conventions are very close to the heart of anyone who is interested in defence issues, and rightly so. Increasingly, however, the UN is deployed not so much in peacekeeping operations but in a potentially warlike context. The UN is not clearly covered by the Geneva conventions, however, as, effectively, it would be policing itself, which raises certain issues. In addition, peacekeeping troops are not technically covered by the laws of armed conflict when, in effect, they are involved in a warlike situation. There are difficulties in that respect. Can the Minister, who is not in his place at present, say whether the Ministry has given thought to those issues? Sometimes, it is difficult to raise issues about the Geneva conventions or international law without seeming as though one is challenging the whole concept, which I am certainly not doing. It is important, however, that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office should consider those issues to see whether changes can be made.
This has been an interesting debate, and I could talk at greater length about some of the other contributions, although I will not do so. I look forward to the next defence debate, however, when the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) will be able to make a speech, and perhaps we will be able to intervene on her.
5.34 pm
Patrick Mercer: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who makes his normal trenchant points so clearly. In response to the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), her husband's gain was certainly the Royal Navy's loss. If I may, however, I shall expand for a moment on the comments of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown).
I regret that the Minister is not in his place, as, for once, I was going to be complimentary about the way in which junior recruiting has been handled over the past four or five years. The hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West understands the issue in great detail and I am sure would make the point better than I can. The fact remains, however, that another Administration wrongly ensured that juniors were no longer recruited into the services. That was a great error. A number of regiments, in particular the highland regiments, suffered egregiously as a result. Only now, with the interjection of money and forethought, are the Scottish regiments beginning to recover and the lifeblood of our technical arms beginning to come out of the Army Apprentices College and the Army Foundation College.
Were the hon. Member for South Swindon in the Chamber, I would reiterate the hon. Gentleman's words. There can be no similarity between the infants—I use the phrase advisedly—that he saw in Sierra Leone and with whom I served in Uganda, and the juniors who

1081
serve in the British armed forces. The training is carefully organised. It is deeply paternal and protective. The instructors rightly understand that they are in loco parentis.
Mr. Colin Breed: HMS Raleigh, through which all Navy recruits pass, is in my constituency. It holds passing out parades almost every week. Parents and families see their relatives go through six, seven or eight weeks of training and are extremely proud of their achievements. They also remark on the incredible change in them. That is much to the benefit of the individual who goes through the training, but it also means that the Navy is held in high regard. There is tremendous affection for the way in which the recruits have been carefully nurtured and trained, which makes a fantastic difference to their lives. We should recognise that the families and parents who see that happen to their children know what is happening.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and underline those points. A recruiting initiative among families of juniors when they attend such parades is encouraging and welcome.
The hon. Member for South Swindon got it terribly wrong. Those young men and women are the lifeblood of our three services, especially the non-commissioned officers' and the petty officers' messes. To categorise those young soldiers, sailors and airmen as children is wrong.
Laura Moffatt: I want to drive home that point. I might have agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon until I met two young people who were school-phobic. They were difficult young men who were not attending school and were being naughty on the streets. They joined the foundation and are transformed. They are now enjoying a fantastic experience. That completely changed my mind.
Patrick Mercer: The hon. Lady is right. I can give many examples from Newark and Retford of young men and women who have been changed wholly by the scheme.
The young soldiers are not usually allowed into action. There is no question of that happening in Northern Ireland. In other circumstances, it is considered carefully in light of the campaigns to which under-age soldiers, sailors and airmen might be deployed. In general, youngsters—I use the phrase advisedly—are not allowed or expected to fight.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the armed forces provide great opportunities to many youngsters in former mining communities, such as my constituency and Nottinghamshire where I grew up? Without those, they would not have the chance to get the skills and expertise offered at an apprentice level, to see the rest of the world or to get well-paid and fulfilling, meaningful jobs and careers.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, I might add, for his normal sensible point of view. I could not agree more. The armed forces provide a wonderful opportunity, particularly for young men and women from depressed
1082
areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency and my own. I am not slow to make that point in trying to create jobs for young people in my constituency and, I hope, others. I know from my regiment that junior soldiers continue to provide the vast majority of the non-commissioned officers and the sergeants' mess. If we tinker with that system, as has been done in the past, we tinker with our lifeblood.
There is no point in my talking about 11 September because everybody knows what it meant to America, but it is interesting that two other nations now claim that they have experienced their 11 September. The first is Australia, after the appalling attack in Bali, and the second is Russia, following the so-called siege last week in Moscow. That nation has suffered grievously at the hands of terrorists or freedom fighters—take your pick—and is well used to terrorism, war and suffering.
The Government have an extremely difficult task ahead in preparing this country, not only physically but mentally and ideologically, for our 11 September, which must surely be coming. There is an inevitability about this event. We are very aware of the Nisha incident, to which hon. Members have referred, which happened at about this time last year. I do not know the details, but I believe that it was an attempt to detonate a weapon of mass destruction on the shores of this country. I believe also that one of Her Majesty's warships was about to be attacked in the straits of Gibraltar and that a number of other attacks have been seen off, foiled or nipped in the bud. I pay tribute to the men and women of the intelligence services, which make interdiction of these events possible. One day, however, and in my opinion it will not be long in coming, one of these attacks will succeed. Hon. Members must forgive me for using a cliche, but the terrorist needs to get lucky only once and we so-called civilised societies need to be lucky all the time—a trite old saw, I know, but it is true.
We have had a reasonable amount of experience of such attacks at the hands of the Provisional IRA, but it is interesting to consider the mentality of the two countries that have been struck recently. I am sure that other hon. Members were as shocked as I was to see, after the Bali bombing, how the press took every mawkish advantage of the Australian relatives and the survivors; how the western press wrung every little bit of pathos out of those unfortunate individuals; how Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen were seen to cry on television, and how the Prime Minister of Australia, clearly affected by the event, had every ounce of grief and passion wrung out of him.
Last week, as I have already mentioned, I was in Sebastopol, a Russian city, albeit in the Ukraine, watching the events in Moscow unfold on the television. Many of the people in Sebastopol had relatives in Moscow or serving in the Russian armed forces, and the city was badly affected when the Kursk went down some time ago. There is no doubt that the reaction of the Russian people was wholly different from anything that we could expect in this country.
There was a certain amount of celebration at the killing of the terrorists and blind acceptance of whatever the security forces did. A certain number of casualties were acceptable, as long as mass casualties were prevented. As I have said, when the television crews unveiled their ghastly shots of gunshot head wounds of terrorists killed in the centre of Moscow, the people with

1083
whom I was watching were up on their feet, clapping their hands and shouting their approval. I am neither approving nor disapproving; I am merely saying that that nation is coming to terms with an event that we too are likely to face.
It is interesting that the so-called liberal western press went to town—"Massacre in Moscow". Massacre of whom—terrorists or their own people? I would ask the people who penned that line, "That's fine, criticise as much as you like, but what was the alternative?" It was 1,000 dead—700 civilians and terrorists and 300 security forces. That is what Mr. Putin was talking about—those were the stakes. We must come to terms with the fact that we are going to have to deal with that sort of problem—that is the challenge facing the Government.
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is making some extremely succinct and pertinent points. Could he clarify something? One striking thing about the situation in Moscow was the scale of the attack, which gave rise to the question of how it was possible for so many armed terrorists to be within the confines of the city. Does my hon. Friend think that that was a one-off event or is it possible that large numbers of terrorists could be operating in other places in the developed western world?
Patrick Mercer: I do not want to go too far down the track of dealing with the origins of the attack, whether it was a Chechen Government-inspired attack, a freedom fighter attack and so on. However, the great danger after 11 September is that other terrorist organisations will strive to emulate and improve on what was achieved then. We are vulnerable in other no less serious ways to a similar form of attack. That is the challenge facing the Government. Ultimately, that is what the debate about defending the nation is all about. The Government must achieve a higher level of awareness among the target population—ourselves—without scaring the pants off us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Not an easy task.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister—I am sure that that is true.
Without undermining our national confidence, we must be made more aware of and alert to what lies around the corner.
Mr. Keetch: I shall not detain the hon. Gentleman long, as I know colleagues wish to speak. The other interesting thing about the Moscow attack is that it underlines the international nature of terrorism. The uncle of Mr. Barayev, the leader of the gang who was killed in the attack, was generally responsible for the kidnap in Chechnya of four British Telecom workers, including someone from my constituency, who were beheaded. It is also the case that Osama bin Laden used Chechen fighters, so there is a link to international terrorism. That is one of the defining differences in dealing with that kind of terrorism and the Irish terrorism to which he referred earlier.
Patrick Mercer: Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer spoke earlier this week, and compared al-Qaeda to
1084
mercury. To borrow his words, if you strike mercury with a hammer, all it does is splinter and become more dangerous. The problem is tricky—we must make sure that we spread the word without aiding and abetting the terrorist's cause. His aim is to terrify. Any hon. Member who has spent time in Northern Ireland or lived there will understand how difficult it is to tread the tricky path between alerting people to danger and wrecking their quality of life, which is what the terrorist strives to achieve.
I should like to reflect on the forces available to deal with the threat, and shall speak up on behalf of the police. Police forces generally have done a wonderful job of deterring and detecting terrorists, as well as causing their attrition.
I make a plea for the handling and organisation of special branch. I appreciate that it is not the Minister's particular consideration, but I am sure that special branch would benefit from a regional organisation or possibly a national one. Currently its structure is extremely disparate and relies on the patronage of each chief constable. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my comments to the Home Office.
The fact remains that it has been announced that the police force will have extra policemen. Perhaps that is for street crime, for everyday detection of ordinary decent crime. However, there will be more policemen under arms, under truncheons and under helmets in the next few months and years.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Thanks to a Labour Government.
Patrick Mercer: I am interested in that comment. Thanks to any Government, one would hope in the circumstances, but credit where credit is due.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to find a Conservative Member who recognises the valuable contribution that the Government have made to increasing police numbers. I suggest that he reinforce the message to the Leader of the Opposition.
Patrick Mercer: Again, I am grateful for the intervention. Nottingham has yet to see any extra policemen. In my constituency, police are being taken away from us to police the town of the hon. Gentleman's birth.
Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the constituency in 1984, he would know that the then Conservative Government had no shortage of policemen in Nottingham.
Patrick Mercer: I shall move on.
The armed forces remain deeply stretched. I will not iterate all the eloquent points that have already been made. Currently, however, the armed forces are facing the possibility of having to handle firefighting, to operate an increased number of troops in Northern Ireland against an increased threat and to prepare for a putative war in Iraq. Why will the Government not grasp the nettle and say that there will be more men and women put under arms? Why will they not say about the armed forces what they are saying about the social

1085
services? We appear to have no difficulty in asking for more nurses, teachers, policemen or firemen. Yet never do we ask for more troops, sailors or airmen.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): Although the decision on whether action will be taken against Iraq must be taken within the next few weeks, I am worried because the Government have to make a choice: whether the firefighters will receive more money or whether the armed forces can be used in a conflict in Iraq. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely worrying for everybody that the armed forces are so finely and tightly stretched that such decisions have to be made at a time when there is no real threat of conflict, apart from one of our own making?
Patrick Mercer: I am not sure that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says.
Having acted as a strikebreaker in 1977 during the last fire strike, I can assure the House that it was an exceedingly invidious duty. It turned firemen against soldiers and soldiers against firemen, from which the fire services and the armed forces are still trying to recover. 1 regret that. However, many Members have spoken about our reserve forces. Why should those forces not be used for firefighting duties? What is wrong with that? When we face all these challenges, why cannot our reserves be used for more active and vibrant jobs than at present? I am not criticising the excellent work that is done by the reservists and Territorials. For instance, intelligence cap badge units have been called up.
It is perfectly possible to recruit. Many Members will say that we cannot add more troops, more seamen and more airmen to the order of battle because we cannot recruit. The fact is that we can. It is entirely possible. At the risk of boring the Minister even more than I normally do, there are any number of techniques that have yet to be practised by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency to bring men and women under arms. The commanding officer of 1 Royal Tank Regiment has experimented in Liverpool with schemes that are wholly different from anything that is centrally directed. Ask that commanding officer where he has gone for expertise. The answer is not to the recruiting group. That said, I congratulate the Minister on the recent recruiting successes, I only wish that the training organisation were in a position to accept recruits into training in a rational and sensible fashion.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the success in recruiting regular soldiers. He will be aware that the recruitment of territorial soldiers has been less successful. Does he agree that one of the problems is that employers are increasingly unhappy about releasing soldiers for territorial duty?
Patrick Mercer: There are two points. First, if territorial duties were made more interesting, more exhilarating and more exciting, recruiting would be easier. Secondly, I believe that the Government are already trying hard to square the circle with employers. However, more needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) touched on the numbers of our special forces. I do not want to labour the point, as it is a
1086
sensitive matter, but our special forces are being overworked, in the same way as some of our specialist troops. I ask the Minister to examine carefully the selection process for our special forces, the use of special forces reserves, and the present level of overstretch that these precious resources are facing. I have no doubt that with a little more imagination and a few more shibboleths being knocked over, the Special Air Services and the Special Boat Squadron can be expanded considerably through recruitment, despite what some of their own members would say.
If the Minister wants any evidence—I know that he does not, as he keeps a close eye on the situation—he should look at the divorce rate. He should go into the centre of Hereford, as I know at least one other hon. Member frequently does, look at the number of SAS divorcees in that town, and see how many children no longer have fathers. We are putting enormous pressure on those gallant men—I use the word "gallant" particularly in light of what is happening this week, when the conspicuous gallantry crosses, the military crosses. the George medals and the mention in dispatches will be bestowed upon those brave men by Her Majesty the Queen. The pressure being put on those gentlemen—I can use that word—is almost unbearable.
The challenge before the Government is to prepare the nation not just physically, but emotionally, for what lies ahead. I believe that a substantial attack on this country is inevitable. I hope very much that the casualties that we take are minimised. Perhaps the attack will not develop, but if it does, we must be ready for it, not just in muscle, but in mind.
5.58 pm
Bob Russell (Colchester): I shall concentrate on the retention of our armed forces. It has been pointed out that recruitment is not as difficult as it was in the past, but in the defence of the United Kingdom we need military personnel who are experienced and who wish to remain in Her Majesty's armed forces. Within the Ministry of Defence, the Government need to do more to create a culture for the retention of our soldiers. We recognise that they are well trained, highly motivated, qualified professional soldiers.
I regret that only last week the Conservative defence spokesman referred to soldiers of the Colchester garrison as "squaddies". I hope that in his summing up, the Minister will confirm that as far as the Government are concerned, our Army is made up of professional soldiers, who should not be described in such a derogatory way.
Patrick Mercer: In my 25 years' service in the Army, I never found anything pejorative in the use of the word "squaddie". None of my Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire soldiers regarded it as a pejorative term. The hon. Gentleman is wholly unfair to say that.
Bob Russell: I appreciate that intervention, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the garrison town of

1087
Colchester, which I think he would acknowledge is the premier garrison town in the country, that is a derogatory term.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Aldershot is the home of the British Army and is the pre-eminent garrison town in the United Kingdom.
Bob Russell: That is obviously why the Government decided that the Parachute Regiment should move from Aldershot to Colchester. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I am particularly concerned about the quality of accommodation for our married soldiers. Can the Minister say why the defence housing executive upgrade programme is so far behind? It is my understanding that only 60 houses have been completed and in Colchester garrison more than 500 remain to be done.
I recognise that the Conservative Government's disgraceful decision to privatise the married quarters of soldiers in Britain was not in the best interests of our soldiers, but equally it is this Government's responsibility to ensure that all married quarters are brought up to the high standards that we and any other responsible employer would expect.
Annington Homes, the privatised landlord, in Colchester, as elsewhere, is selling off houses at huge profits. The Government should recoup that profit to plough it back into the married quarters so that our soldiers and their families can have the best possible accommodation. We are talking here about retention, which is what my contribution today is about.
Work will start in the next year or two on the new Colchester garrison under a massive private finance initiative. The Minister knows that I do not believe that such private finance initiatives are in our long-term financial interests, but they are the only game in town, so we go for them, and the Minister knows that I back him 100 per cent. I welcome the assurances that I have been given that the single soldiers' accommodation will be of a quality of which they will approve and that there will be quality technical support and training facilities. Only the best will do.
But there is more to this than just the housing of our military personnel. I draw the Minister's attention to an Adjournment debate two or three years ago that I secured on the education of the children of our soldiers in garrison towns and naval and air bases throughout the country. More investment is needed in those state schools with a high proportion—90 per cent., 95 per cent., and sometimes 100 per cent.—of pupils from military families who suffer from what is known as the turbulence factor. We had an interesting debate in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Government do not recognise the special needs of such children, which result from families moving backwards and forwards, with fathers and mothers being sent elsewhere in this country or overseas on tours.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an extremely significant issue. He asks the Minister to bear in mind his previous comments, but could he
1088
enlighten the House on what he feels should be done to address the specific circumstances that Army children face?
Bob Russell: The Department for Education and Skills bases its recognition of need on the number of free school meals that a school provides. The nature of the circumstances means that very few soldiers' children—if any—are entitled to free school meals, so none of the deprivation or other factors that might apply in a mainstream school on an estate next door will come into play. As children from military families can be moved mid-term and their father or mother can be sent on a tour away, there should be greater recognition of such anxiety and upheaval and additional resources should be put into the schools. That is the turbulence factor, which exists even though the usual education criteria ignore or overlook schools whose pupils are predominantly, if not exclusively, the children of military personnel. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as he made a serious point. I hope that it will be addressed, as sadly, it was not dealt with following my Adjournment debate.
On military personnel who require medical attention, there is no problem with the primary care that is provided on site, but what I am told is called secondary care hospital provision is often not supplied in the locality. When that is the case, personnel can be bussed long distances to military hospitals. We do not have such a hospital in Colchester. Indeed, there are very few such establishments, which is why personnel are sometimes taken long distances to receive medical attention—another area of anxiety. None the less, I welcome the news that a regional rehabilitation unit for injuries is to be established in the Colchester garrison next year. That is certainly something to look forward to.
I have mentioned the new Colchester barracks, and this is an opportune moment to place it on record that the garrison commander, Colonel Julian Lacey, retires on 15 November. That may be good news for him, but it is certainly not good news for the new Colchester garrison project. I express my appreciation of all that he has done. I hope that the Minister will ensure that all his expertise and knowledge will somehow be retained in respect of the new garrison project, which I believe is the largest such development in the UK in PFI terms.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) painted a grim picture of what might happen in this country. I sincerely hope that his worst predictions do not come to pass, but he brought to our attention the need for vigilance from everybody. We should not rely only on the armed forces to provide that vigilance. There is obviously widespread intelligence, but the whole of society needs to be on alert.
We all pray that the fire dispute will not happen. Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues elsewhere in government a suggestion that I made four years ago when Essex had one of its fire strikes? We have such strikes from time to time and the Green Goddesses were on the road in that instance. The serious point is that, as other hon. Members have mentioned, we will be sending out our soldiers in fire appliances that are almost museum pieces. Would it be possible for the territorials or one or two regiments of the British Army to be trained as a skilled auxiliary reserve that is capable of

1089
operating the sophisticated fire appliances that are otherwise available'? I recognise that we cannot expect soldiers to go straight from their current duties to operating such appliances.
Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but it would make territorials difficult to recruit. Anyone who wants to be a territorial solder joins the Territorial Army. Anyone who wants to be, for want of a better phrase, a "territorial fireman", becomes a retained fireman. Is not there a danger of a conflict of interest?
Bob Russell: I do not believe so. I was trying to embrace the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the territorials. I am happy to stick with my original proposal of four years ago of one or two regiments with an auxiliary role. Their members would be soldiers first, but have a second skill, which would not necessarily be the ability simply to cover the sort of dispute that may happen in the next week or two. They would constitute an auxiliary force to deal with not only fires but emergencies. The fire service deals with more than fires.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but last year, troops were involved with the foot and mouth epidemic, flooding and many other things. How would the auxiliary forces be trained to the appropriate level to ensure their effectiveness in emergencies?
Bob Russell: We acknowledge that the modern fire appliance cannot be operated by simply anybody; it has to be used by trained personnel. One or two regiments of the British Army could be trained to enable them to offer something extra in an emergency.
I urge the Ministry of Defence to accept that we must do much more to encourage people to remain in the Army and not to leave in such large numbers.
6.11 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friends are well aware of the passionate opposition of some of us to military action against Iraq in the current circumstances. However, the debate is not the occasion on which to go into that.
On 29 October, at column 683 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker gave me permission to present a case for a debate under Standing Order No. 24. In the course of that application, I asked 14 questions, and I have written to 14 Ministers to ask for their comments. I have also asked for the comments of the ambassadors of France, Russia, China, Qatar, the Emirates, Jordan and various other countries.
I want to reiterate five of the questions, which pertain to the Ministry of Defence. The fifth question was,
"will British troops, if they are captured, be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention?"
The sixth question was,
"will British troops be under the orders of American officers and will they be required to serve in an army of occupation?"
There has been much speculation about an army under General Franks. Those matters have to be thought through before we even approach such a situation.
1090
My 10th question asked,
"what rights will Iraqi soldiers captured by British forces have, and will they qualify for the protection of the Geneva convention?"
My 11th question was,
"what will be the position, under military law, of members of the British armed forces who refuse to fight because they believe that a war waged against Iraq that has not been authorised by the United Nations could lead to their being charged at a war crimes tribunal under the International Criminal Court",
which the British Government rightly support.
Mr. Joyce:Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dalyell: No, because of time. The 12th question was,
"how would the position of British troops charged with war crimes differ from that of American troops, given that the United States has declared itself exempt from any international criminal court?"—[Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 683–4.]
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to answer those questions this evening, but they are serious matters, which require reflection.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his questions and I leave it to the Under-Secretary to decide whether to respond. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the title of the debate is "Defence in the UK".
Mr. Dalyell: I would like to add two more points. It is sometimes said that the forces are narrow-minded on these matters, but they certainly are not. There has been serious discussion by Brigadier Patrick Cordingley and many others, and I certainly would not have been invited by narrow-minded people to discuss these issues at the Royal College of Defence Studies. The forces are serious about these matters, and should be commended for that.
Much has been said about the difficulties relating to the toughness of training. National service men went through very tough training indeed. All right, it was more than 50 years ago, but I shall not forget being made, rightly, to crawl up drainpipes at Catterick camp on the North Yorkshire moors. It is not the toughness of training that has led to the recent difficulties.
6.15 pm
Chris Grayling: I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Defence Select Committee on their work on civil defence and the defence of the homeland of the United Kingdom. No debate in the House would be complete without a little party political repartee, but the issues underlying the report produced by the Committee, which were discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and others, are fundamental and go beyond party politics. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government of the day—with the support and, rightly, the scrutiny, of the Opposition parties—to ensure that we do the right thing to protect the people of this nation against a threat that is undoubtedly present. I share the fear of my hon. Friend that it may become much more of a threat in the years to come.

1091
I welcome the Minister's comments about the steps that the Government are taking to strengthen the role of our armed services, our reservists, and the Territorial Army in preparing for an eventuality that we all hope will never happen, but which could happen none the less. The culture of cross-cutting, of which the Government make so much, needs to be placed firmly at the heart of the work that the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments are doing to ensure that we are prepared for a threat that I hope will not materialise. In particular, I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of creating a single Minister with cross-cutting responsibilities, who has the right to work within the Ministry of Defence and other Departments to ensure that we have a joined-up approach to civil defence. We must ensure that we have not only a clear point of responsibility but full and properly integrated structures between the civil and military spheres to ensure that we are adequately prepared.
After 11 September, I discussed with the chief executive of my local borough council the work that we do in our area to prepare for a major civil disaster. It became clear to me from that conversation that relatively little work is done. The local authority has a nominal responsibility, and it will do some work, but we all know from experience how hard-pressed local authorities are. It was clear that the actual work being done was far too thin on the ground. It was equally clear that there was relatively little contact between the local authority and other agencies, particularly the armed services. Closer working partnerships between the armed forces and local authorities in preparing for such eventualities will be extremely important in the years ahead, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that that takes place.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) talked about the fire strike. It seems ludicrous that modern fire equipment is not accessible to or usable by our armed services, and that the appropriate training does not exist. If we go beyond the short-term issue of the fire strike, it seems possible that a situation may arise in which that training will be required. I hope that the Government will consider delivering proper training on modern fire equipment within the armed forces.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for the difficulty of access is that firelighters attend many road traffic accidents, and the equipment used in dealing with them is highly technical?
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the same skills could be needed at a time of disaster.
Will the Minister give some thought to how we can use the older members of our armed services? We let our public servants go far too early in a society that is considering pushing up the retirement age, so the expertise of members of the armed services who retire after 20 or 30 years is lost, even though knowledge of many issues we have discussed today—terrorist threats and how terrorists work as well as weapons of mass destruction and their medical and other implications—resides within them. We should take greater advantage of that expertise and not necessarily let such people leave the armed services in so fixed a fashion.
1092
I hope that Ministers consider whether there are ways to retain and use that expertise, possibly by keeping people on in the armed services for longer in different roles. If they do, I shall be grateful.
6.21 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): As always, this debate has been extremely well informed and the usual suspects are in their places. I venture to suggest that this occasion has become one on which consenting adults engage in discussion in public— although, looking at the Gallery, it may seem that our proceedings are taking place in private.
Mr. Speaker himself foreshadowed the debate's importance when, in answer to a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he pointed out that we live in more dangerous times, which is why the security of the Palace of Westminster has been greatly strengthened in recent years and, indeed, recent weeks.
We have ranged well beyond security and terrorism, however, in discussing retention, boy soldiers, service accommodation, arms exports, reserves, and the sleeping arrangements of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on overseas visits with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. So I hope that the debate has been sufficiently interesting and demanding for the Hansard stenographers, ensuring that they have been able to stay awake.
I must single out one contribution, although I do not have time to deal with it in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made interesting suggestions about the profound difficulties that we face in dealing with international terrorism, particularly that involving an enemy that is, as Colonel Spicer has suggested, like mercury, in that when it is hit, it explodes and atomises, but does not disappear. I am not sure that we have yet found the solution to that problem.
Rather like the vicar, I shall, if I may, take as my text the words of General Sir Michael Rose, writing in the Daily Mail on 8 October:
"The difficulty facing today's defence planners"—
which, of course, is very much the issue facing Ministers—
"is that the nature of conflict has fundamentally changed. While we still need to be able to fight conventional wars using sophisticated tactics and modern weapons systems, we are embarked upon a global war against terrorism. This demands a different mix of military capabilities involving considerably more manpower, the development of human rather than technical intelligence sources and an ability rapidly to project and then sustain force around the world."
That encapsulates the problems faced by Ministers and Members of the House in dealing with those complex and difficult matters.
Two issues have emerged from this afternoon's proceedings—the Select Committee report and the Territorial Army. I remind the House of one of the report's conclusions:
"Overall we have concluded that there has been inadequate central coordination and direction. The Government has not taken the opportunity to conduct a proper and comprehensive examination of how the UK would manage the consequences of a disaster on the scale of 11 September."

1093
The report has been saluted all round, and senior officers recently retired, and some not so retired, have praised it as a comprehensive piece of work. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South said that other Committees had been invited to contribute to discussion of what was clearly an overarching issue that ranged well beyond clefence; but it was the Defence Select Committee that produced the report. It has been extremely well received by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and E well (Chris Grayling) for his praises.
In their response to the Committee's report, the Government say that they have been
"rethinking security across the board to identify the vulnerabilities and tighten existing security measures to make the UK even safer from terrorist attack".
It is true that so far we have been spared a serious terrorist attack, and the vigilance of our armed forces and other agencies has undoubtedly been an important contributory factor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said. Terrorists—as he also said—need to be lucky only once. We know that, and we also know that the chances are that some day they may well succeed. Unlike the United States, we have been fighting a war against terrorism for the last 30 years, and we have not always managed to prevent the damage that that causes. This country has more experience of dealing with such a war than many others; but we cannot be complacent.
Responding to the Committee's suggestion that the Government were complacent, the Minister said that they are not. We accept that Ministers are trying to grapple with the complexities, and they have clearly taken some practical steps. The decision to upgrade quick-reaction alert facilities at RAF Marham, St. Mawgan and RNAS Yeovilton is welcome, notwithstanding the contradictory message sent by the disbanding of 5 Squadron Royal Air Force equipped with Tornadoes. We also welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand to head the civil contingencies secretariat, although I am disappointed by the Government's failure to accede to the Defence Committee's suggestion that it should have a different name. "Civil contingency secretariat" is hardly a sexy title that trips off the tongue. We felt that, for the purpose of reassuring the public, a name suggesting the handling of emergencies would better convey the function of the secretariat.
Having welcomed some of the Government's steps, I regret to say that little progress has been made in other areas. As both the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, there is as yet no civil contingencies Bill to give local authorities a framework within which to organise their civil-emergency plans. Obviously the Minister cannot undertake today to include such a Bill in the Queen's Speech, but local authorities are eager to be given the framework that they need.
A year after 11 September, the Government have failed to give local authorities updated guidance to replace the weak guidance that was issued a year ago. I am told by Hampshire county council's emergency planning officer that the MOD at Winterbourne Gunner in Dorset is training police officers to handle nuclear,
1094
biological or chemical attacks, but I understand that so far only 14 officers in Hampshire have been trained. There is clearly more to be done. I also understand that no decontamination kit is yet available to enable disaster-handling organisations at local authority level to deal with an NBC attack, and that no such equipment is likely to be available before next Easter. If the Minister could tell us something about the extent to which preparations are being made, he would reassure not just us but the local authorities whose job it is to deal with emergencies on the front line.
We all understand that Ministers do not want to give too much information about their detailed plans, but the public need reassurance that those plans are underway. We all saw what happened in Moscow—my hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned it—and we know about the chemicals that were used, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). We all know how leaky the Russian system is. There is always the possibility that some of the chemicals will fall into the hands of terrorist organisations. We could find that chemical being used against us. I heard on the radio—I do not know whether it is true—that the establishment at Porton Down is looking at the clothing of the two British hostages who were released to try to identify what the chemical was. The public need to be reassured. It is a question of striking a balance and not causing undue concern among the public. They want to be reassured that if there is an attack on the United Kingdom, the Government have taken steps to deal with it.
I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to see the article in the Financial Times headlined
"Home Office sought poison gas".
It said:
"Home Office officials have been investigating buying poison gases, similar to the type used in the Moscow hostage raid, to protect high-security government buildings against terrorist attack."
The Home Office has said in reply:
"No specific application is being looked into at this stage. There is no question [gases] are anywhere near use and no question at this stage of any purchases."
The House, or perhaps some of its Committees, needs to be briefed that the Government are alive to the risks and are positively dealing with it.
I turn to the Territorial Army. We welcome the Government's belated recognition that they made a serious mistake in slashing the numbers of the Territorial Army: from 56,000 to about 41,000. I hope that Ministers will accept that it was the official Opposition who warned the Government that their reductions in the TA were a big mistake, and that we were right and they were wrong. The effect of their decision was to close TA centres throughout the country. robbing valuable back-up and support for the regular armed forces, and many hon. Members of the only military facility in their constituencies. Many Labour Members have complained about the withdrawal of TA facilities in their constituencies. It was an appalling assault on an organisation whose members offer complete loyalty, give up their spare time and sometimes even risk damaging their careers to provide an essential service to their country.

1095
At the time, the Defence Committee, on which I did not then sit but which was still under the able stewardship of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said of the cuts in the TA:
"The view of the witnesses from TAVRAs"—
Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations—
"was that the publication of the SDR was 'a black day for the Territorial Army'. We agree."
Now the Government have been forced to heap a raft of new responsibilities on to the TA when it has reached its lowest ebb.
We welcome what the Minister announced earlier today, but it is a bit unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) did not know that the statement was being made. The letter from the Secretary of State went on the board, but my hon. Friend did not see it in time for this debate. I do not want to be too quibbling about the point but it would have been helpful to have a bit more notice.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was not here.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend was here. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has been around all day.
I am not sure how much the Minister's statement today adds to what we already knew from the consultation document. As far as I can see, what is proposed is an additional 280 reserve posts in Army division and brigade headquarters to provide regional planning, liaison, and command and control in defence operations. Clearly, we welcome that, but he said that in the event of an incident they would be capable of providing a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week command structure. They might be able to do that. However, in the new chapter we are told that reservists cannot be called out at less than 36 hours' notice. As several hon. Members have pointed out during the debate, if we are struck by an asymmetric attack, we shall need to react instantly. It cannot be a delayed reaction. Calling out reservists at 36 hours' notice may well be too late to deal with an incident in the most efficacious fashion.
The Minister says that there will be additional training, but that is no more than was promised in the consultation document. It is not clear how the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the necessary skills and training for even the tasks listed on its discussion document are to be found in a volunteer reserve force of 500 people per region and only five or six training days in a year. This is not a very extensive training operation. In a useful submission to the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wrote:
"The central weakness of the proposal seems to me to be that it envisages drawing on groups of individuals, pooled together under such headquarters rather than calling out specific units."
We need trained units. My hon. Friend continued:
"The idea that 'groups of the willing' could be brought up to working together to a reasonable standard in two or three weekends a year (even assuming 100 % turnout, something that will never happen) seems to be highly optimistic."
1096
The Government have to be a little clearer about exactly how their programme will work in practical terms and in terms of facing the challenge of dealing with an attack on the United Kingdom.
Those are two key issues that have been addressed in the debate. A number of hon. Members made the point that there is common ground on defence matters between the Government and the Official Opposition—indeed between all parties. We no longer have the stormy and vitriolic debates that we used to have in the 1980s. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk recalls those happy days somewhat nostalgically. We share an admiration for our an forces. We want the best for them and their families They are admired and respected throughout the world A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), paid tribute to our service men and women and their families.
We share the Government's view of Britain's role in the world as a power for good. We also share their view on a number of procurement issues. We welcome the Type 45 destroyers and the new carriers. Albeit through gritted teeth, I welcomed virtually every dot and comma of the announcement on the carriers and the aircraft that the Government have chosen. They have done well, and we approve.
There are legitimate differences between us, however, on which it is entirely the duty and right of the Opposition to challenge the Government. First, we do not believe that there are enough people to meet the commitments that the Government have taken on. We have the smallest Army since the time of Wellington. A number of hon. Members have pointed out just how stretched our armed forces are. Secondly, we have insufficient resources to do the job and thirdly, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) pointed out, no allowance has been made for the unexpected—what Harold Macmillan undoubtedly would have described as "Events, dear boy, events". As my hon. Friend for Mid-Norfolk said, there is no spare capacity. This is the gravest accusation that I want to make of the Government tonight. They simply have not allowed sufficient resources of men and equipment to allow for the unexpected. Another 2,500 troops have been committed to Northern Ireland. That was unexpected, given the so-called peace process. Another illustration is the Fire Brigades Union strike.
We now have 10 warships sitting idle. As the Minister of State told me in a written answer he gave me last night, seven of them—HMS Exeter, HMS Kent, HMS Lancaster, HMS Manchester, HMS Norfolk, HMS Newcastle and HMS Portland—have been affected by Operation Fresco. Two ships are out of action because of collision damage, and HMS Sheffield is up for sale. The fact is that a third of our major surface fleet is out of action. That simply illustrates the point that the Government cannot do all that they want on the limited, lean and mean machine that they are offering. We need an expansion in our armed forces if we are to meet the unexpected.
I will conclude on a conciliatory note. I hope that the whole House can unite in praising the commitment, dedication and professionalism of our armed forces as they stand by, across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, to protect the lives of the citizens of this country in the event of a Fire Brigades Union strike.

1097
None of us wishes that to happen, but we can be proud of our armed forces and what they are doing. They have left their other jobs and taken to the task in hand with alacrity. They have adapted themselves and shown great professionalism.
I went to Netley on Monday to see Commander Durkin of the Royal Navy, who is in charge of the operations in Hampshire. I was hugely impressed with what they are doing and their capability. I know that the police service of Hampshire is equally impressed with the men and women who have been put in charge of helping them out. On that note of conciliation, I hope that I can unite the House in wishing good luck to our armed forces if they are called upon to stand in for the firefighters.
6.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): This has been an excellent debate. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated when it began, the past year has been marked by both challenge and innovation. In the UK we have been challenged not only by the threat from international terrorism, but from other directions—by the fire dispute as well as dissident terrorism and communal violence in Northern Ireland. The armed forces have responded to these challenges promptly and effectively. We have taken military action, along with friends and allies, to deny al-Qaeda its base in Afghanistan—arguably the most important contribution the armed forces could have made to the defence of this country.
We have done much more than that. We have addressed the policy challenge presented by the events of 11 September. We have been able to do this on the basis of the strategic defence review completed by the Government in 1998, the value and worth of which has been so amply demonstrated by the events of the last year. We have taken a long hard look at our defence posture and plans in the light of the terrorist threat. We are making changes and improvements as a result of that long hard look. We have addressed the issue of attacks by renegade aircraft and ships. We are also making constant refinements to the well-established defence capabilities which respond to specific types of terrorist incident, including those involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear devices.
In his opening statement, my right hon. Friend announced our intention to implement in full our proposals for enhancements to arrangements to involve the volunteer reserve in home defence and civil emergencies. These proposals have been widely welcomed. They contribute to the changes to central Government mechanisms that the Government began last year and to the much wider changes that are taking place in the public and emergency services in response to the threat.
Enhancing the role of the reserves adds another element to the wide-ranging contribution that the armed forces already make in the response to civil contingencies and emergencies. This is not just a question of the response to the threat from terrorism. Our armed forces have a very fine record in recent years of providing support to the civil authorities at times of emergency, whether during the fuel dispute, floods, or
1098
foot and mouth disease. They stand ready and able to save lives should a firefighters' strike take place in the near future. Their capacity to respond to the challenge and the contribution they make to the community has never been greater, and I feel sure that the House will agree that their standing has never been higher. Having said that, however, we must ensure that the armed forces are properly supported and equipped.
Innovation has not been limited to enhancing the contribution that the armed forces make to the community but to wider questions, ranging from the defence industrial sector to the needs of the people who make this remarkable contribution to national life. Indeed, it would be wrong for us to spend our time finding new roles for the armed forces without addressing the wider issues. To do so would place an intolerable burden on the personnel involved.
In this sphere, as in others, we have taken nothing for granted, but we are determined to build upon the firm foundations that already exist, and to innovate, not for its own sake but for improvements' sake.
The need to ensure that armed forces personnel were suitability trained and motivated lay at the core of the 1998 strategic defence review, and that continues to be the case. The policy for people recognises that our defence depends on our armed forces personnel and their families as well as the civil servants who work alongside them. The armed forces overarching personnel strategy ensures that we bring to the armed forces the talent that is needed, irrespective of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, social background or sexual orientation. It helps to ensure that we retain talent once it is recruited, by addressing pay, pensions, training and family needs.
Perhaps most important, we take very seriously the demands placed on our people. Although there may be times when the lives of armed forces personnel are disrupted by an emergency, we can, and do, ensure that the right balance is struck between operational commitments, the need of the families of armed forces personnel—we should not forget their contribution to the effectiveness of the armed forces—and the need for training and personal development between operational deployments.
I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been made today in the time left to me, which is, for a change, ample. Well, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that it is ample in comparison to what I usually get.
It is always unwise to trade statistics with a statistician, which is one of my jobs not mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). His query about international comparators for the statistics that we use was quite interesting, but, alas, his suggestion is not practicable. One might think it shameful in this day and age, but there is no real standardisation of measurement between countries. There is a great paucity of information on many of the indices that we may want to consider.
Of course the appropriate health comparison is with our own general population, and the Registrar-General produces very comprehensive health statistics that provide a sound background against which our own epidemiology and statistics staff can conduct suitable work. Occasionally, as with Gulf veterans' illnesses,

1099
there is also the possibility of comparing those who went to the Gulf with a similar body of members of the armed forces who did not go to the Gulf. Overall, that is an important point, but it is not possible to use international statistics, much as one would like to do so.
I shall have to go through things as best I can arid refer to the notes that I have made as I go. Let me start with Apache. Yes, there have been delays with the Apache simulator. We have made the point that that contract was, of course, started by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—sadly, he is no longer in the Chamber, although he was here when it was first mentioned—but, fair enough, we allowed the contract to proceed, and our intention was to ensure best value for money.
Sadly, the resulting contract has faced delays. and it will cause delays in the full implementation of our capability in that important part of the armed forces, and we deeply regret that. Boeing—the principal actor—also very much regrets it and has publicly said so itself. We are trying to get things back on side as best we can. The simulator is now working in part. I shall reply to the detailed questions that I was asked about that later because they are lost somewhere in my notes. I have no idea where they are exactly. They were rather detailed points, so it is probably better if I answer them very accurately.
The possibly of compensation for cancelling holidays and so on was mentioned in an intervention. I confirm that service personnel who are required to cancel previously booked holidays as a result of changing service requirements are entitled to claim a refund of nugatory holiday expenditure provided that they were not warned of the operational deployment at the time of booking. For Operation Fresco, if service personnel have cancelled holidays as a result of such warning and subsequently have their leave reinstated, they are still entitled to claim for any nugatory expenditure, and I am sure that that will be welcomed.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The specific issue raised with me is that the soldiers are being compensated for uninsured lost deposits, but what about the families as well?
Dr. Moonie: I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Operation Fresco and royal naval issues have been mentioned. Missile defence was mentioned in passing, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I return to it if I have time; it is really a subject for a full speech, rather than a 15-second interjection by a junior Minister at the end of a debate. Yes, ships are tied up—a large number of ships would have been tied up anyway—but we cannot conduct an operation of this size, and devote to it the personnel that we must, without reference to complement. I am sorry that one of the ships tied up is HMS Norfolk, to which my former military assistant, Commander Tony Radakin, went as commander earlier this year. I send him my commiserations and hope that I will still be able to see him in Aberdeen later in the year.
The majority of personnel have been taken from vessels not currently available for operations and in periods of maintenance and upkeep. In total, about
1100
2,400 fleet personnel have been assigned to fire-fighting tasks, of which they are well capable, as I indicated in the debate in Westminster Hall earlier this week. With regard to training and the use of respirators, they also have considerable experience in that area because of the unique dangers of severe fires onboard ship. I hope that that sets some minds at rest.
In relation to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), I am sorry that I must disappoint him. It is not a case of knowing that there will be a Bill in the next Session but not telling him—in fact, I am not aware of whether there will be a civil contingencies Bill. That will be announced in approximately two weeks' time, and he will have to wait in patience like the rest of us to see if such a Bill is part of the Queen's Speech.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and Apache, I want to put him right on one thing. The figure of 130 relates to last year's shortfall in junior fast jet numbers—I think that he probably realised that as he was saying it. As of 1 October this year, that number has fallen to 93, and there is a downward trend. It is an easy mistake to make, adding numbers together, for a year-on-year trend—
Matthew Green: The Chancellor.
Dr. Moonie: I was waiting for somebody to notice that, just as I was saying it. It is difficult to predict. overall numbers for the future, but there is an. encouraging trend. Although it will take some years for us to get back up to full staffing in fast jets, we are on our way to doing it.
On aircrew retention in general, which the hon. Member for Hereford also mentioned, the new professional aviator pay spine is due to be introduced on 1 April next year. Overall, as he knows, I think, although the Royal Navy has a shortage of Sea Harrier pilots, that is of less importance than it was because of the migration towards the new Harrier. Most of those left want to migrate to the GR9 in the fullness of time anyway. I think that that covers as much of that point as he would expect.
Armed forces recruitment remains one of our highest priorities. Recruitment of sufficient people of the right calibre is absolutely critical to the maintenance o f operational effectiveness. It is very easy for us to choose the statistical period that is of most value to our arguments, and I would not dream of doing so on this occasion, except to point out that the last three months have seen remarkably buoyant recruitment into the armed forces, which I hope will continue. A fair amount of time has been devoted to events surrounding Deepcut, and, in my wind-up, I merely want to stress what a distressing experience the families concerned have had, which has been made much worse by some irresponsible people trying to take advantage of it.
etention is of the highest priority, and is the other factor in manning balance. Improving personnel retention is a crucial factor in improving manning levels. Our aim is to maintain excellent levels of retention through policies that reflect those priorities. One of the main factors, of course, which has been mentioned again, is housing, and the void situation. There are just over 9,000 empty properties at the moment in the

1101
United Kingdom, and at least half of those are in the course of disposal or held for future unit deployments. With regard to the specific cases in Norfolk—in West Raynham and elsewhere—married accommodation is now under the ownership of Annington Homes. It is a clone deal. Much as I would wish to revisit what was not the best deal that the Government ever got, I have no option: I am stuck with it and have to live with it. When it comes to the sale of houses, I can make my views known to Annington, but it has no reason—
Bob Russell: No scruples.
Dr. Moonie: That is not for me to say, but there is certainly no need for Annington to take cognisance of what I do.
The welfare of military personnel and their families is paramount and we have to strike a balance. We are trying to upgrade houses. The money from the Annington deal was added to the pot. The maintenance budget is always strained. However, something like 90 per cent. of our families are in grade 1 and 2 accommodation. The picture is not as bad as some would paint it, although I accept that some of the accommodation is not good. We are constrained by the fact that we do not know where houses will be required in future. The last thing we want to do is to sell off houses and find that we need them. That would be stupid and we try to avoid that wherever possible.
I was asked whether Apaches could train together. We are procuring the collective training system and it should be due to enter service early next year, about the time we start training properly in groups with the Apache. We have not purchased a training laser. We are thinking about buying an eye-safe laser, which would enable collective training with ground troops so that we can deliver full air manoeuvre capability. Cape Wrath is the only range on which it could be used and is thoroughly suited to that purpose. I know that that makes some people angry and I have often declared my interest that, as a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I am happy for areas of the country to be denied to human transit because it helps our feathered friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) mentioned chemical weapons. I assure him that we are fully open about our chemical holdings. We declare all our substances in our annual report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We gave up offensive chemical capability a long time ago. Our holding of CS and CR gases is fully declared and fully permitted under the chemical weapons convention for domestic law enforcement.
Hon. Members mentioned the tragic events in Moscow last week. Any country could face a similar problem at any time. It is easy for us to pass judgment with hindsight. The fact is that many people are alive this week who I did not think would be alive. As a medical pedant, I must tell the House that if fentanyl was used, it is not a gas but a liquid and would have been delivered as an aerosol. It is not an anaesthetic. It is largely used as an analgesic. I have used it myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead was right: it is a legal drug that is licensed for use in this country for, I should stress, medicinal use. It is highly effective. The great problem with it is that the difference between the pharmaceutical and lethal dose is small.
1102
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) defended her cause nobly. I did not agree with it, but I can give her some comfort by stressing that we value the contribution defence experts make to maintaining the viability of the UK defence industry, reducing unit costs of equipment and so on. We get huge benefits from that. After all, we have to pay for equipment to be introduced and the ability to sell it abroad reduces the overall cost to us.
On young soldiers, we signed the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict in September 2000. The minimum age for recruitment is aligned with the minimum school leaving age. Everyone who joins the armed forces under the age of 18 must be genuine volunteers and have the written consent of their parents or guardians. We take great care in the deployment of under-18s to prevent their direct involvement in hostilities. For instance, no under-18s have been deployed to Afghanistan. I think that that approach will become the norm in the British armed forces.
I turn., in the minute left to me, to some general points about the TA. Some have implied a distinction between home defence and civil contingencies. We are not working to any dogma, and we do not intend to distinguish between the cause of an incident, whether it is a terrorist attack, a major accident or a natural disaster, in determining how we respond. We will continue to apply the current system using the most appropriate available forces, regular or reserve. Regular forces are likely to be the first choice because CCRFs are designed to cater for exceptional events—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That Standing order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:
In the Table
Item 7, column 2, leave out from 'Office;' to end of entry;
After item 8, insert—

Justice and Constitutional

Lord Chancellor's

11'.

Affairs

Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)

—[Mr. Woolas]
Hon. Member: Object.

PETITION

  Food Supplements
  7 pm
  Valerie Davey: I am pleased to present the following petition, signed by more than 900 constituents, which states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters,
  Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and 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 the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  7.1 pm
  Helen Jones: I speak on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Stanley Ford, and his family to draw attention to his deplorable treatment at Wythenshawe hospital. I do so without any pleasure because this is an appalling case that raises serious questions about the management of both the South Manchester University hospitals trust, of which Wythenshawe is a part, and the strategic health authority.
  Let me say at the outset that the problems experienced by Mr. Ford were caused not by the clinical staff but by management. Indeed, the Ford family have expressed their appreciation of the work of the health care staff at Wythenshawe hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, has the highest regard for the clinical care delivered at the hospital.
  These problems were caused by a management that has shown itself to be incompetent, uncaring and unwilling to take complaints seriously or to learn from them. However, it is a case from which we must learn if we are to ensure that no family goes through a similar experience. I raise this case not because I believe that the NHS is generally like that, but because I have experienced myself, and through my friends and family, the marvellous health care normally provided. When managers act in this way, they let down not only the patients involved but the many good health care staff who deliver excellent care every day.
  Mr. Ford's case was first drawn to my attention in June by his daughter, who sent me an e-mail telling me a very sorry tale. Mr. Ford had had a number of heart attacks and was listed for surgery at Wythenshawe hospital. His operation was due to take place on 22 March, and it was cancelled by the hospital. It was cancelled on a further four occasions prior to his daughter writing to me and then once more on 14 June, after she got in touch with me. Not surprisingly, those cancellations had a devastating effect on Mr. Ford and his family. He and his wife are both 74, and the repeated cancellations were taking a toll on Mrs. Ford's health, both because of the strain that they imposed and in the difficulties that she experienced in looking after her sick husband. Mrs. Ford's daughter wrote to me:
  "I am sick of dragging him off to the hospital, getting all ready for the op, for it to be cancelled at the last minute."
  She also said that her parents
  "have worked and paid their dues all their lives. This is no way for them to be treated."
  She was absolutely right. The test is whether it would be good enough for our parents—it would not be good enough for my mother or, I am sure, the parents of anyone else in the House. If it is not good enough for them, it is not good enough for anyone's parents.
  I expected that because Mr. Ford's case was so bad it would be resolved quickly. After confirming that he wanted me to take his case, I wrote to the hospital, expecting that I would quickly get an assurance that

  1105
  Mr. Ford would have his operation and that the problems that had arisen would be dealt with. I am afraid, however, that the hospital did not take the complaint as seriously as it should have done—it did not appear to be shocked or scandalised. Instead, I got a letter from someone called the assistant complaints co-ordinator-apparently, six cancellations do not merit the attention of senior staff at that hospital—who would not tell me anything and would write instead to my constituent for "reasons of confidentiality".
  I wrote again to the chief executive and told him that if I could not get answers from the hospital I would table questions in the House. Throughout, the chief executive has refused to communicate with me without assigned authority from the patient, a matter to which I shall return. I have not encountered that attitude in any other trust, and it is particularly bizarre in this case because the reasons for the cancellations had nothing to do with the patient's medical condition; they were to do with what was happening at the hospital. In fact, I have had great difficulty in getting information throughout, al though on 2 July, having said that it would not communicate with me, the hospital sent me a copy of a letter to my constituent which was both inaccurate and fatuous. It referred to four cancellations, whereas there had been six—an error that it had to put right in a letter of 12 August. However, the monitoring and management systems in place in that hospital must be called into question if it was not even clear about how often the operation had been cancelled.
  The hospital also made no attempt to address the reasons why Mr. Ford had had to wait so long. Instead, it said that if an operation was cancelled, it was usually rescheduled within 28 days, and added:
  "I am sorry this did not happen for you and I hope this has not caused you additional stress."
  Frankly, six cancellations of any operation, particularly a serious heart operation, would cause anyone a great deal of additional stress and it is patronising in the extreme to suggest otherwise. However, the letter revealed the way in which the hospital dealt with complaints. It was simply a wash of warm words and made no attempt to deal with the issues behind the problem. It treated every cancellation as a separate issue, and nowhere did it recognise the need for systems to be in place to flag up the fact that one patient was experiencing many cancellations of his operation. Its failure to address that problem is another serious flaw in its management systems.
  Let us look at why those cancellations took place. I have accumulated voluminous correspondence from the hospital, the strategic health authority and even from a civil servant at the Department of Health, all of which say that there are issues involving capacity at the hospital. That has the merit of being a good excuse, but unfortunately it has the demerit of not being true. There was only one occasion when it applied —on 29 May, when Mr. Ford's operation was cancelled because there were not enough beds in the intensive care unit. The reasons for the other cancellations were very different. On 22 March, the operation was cancelled because of sickness among theatre staff. We all recognise that hospital staff, like the rest of us, can become ill. I have endeavoured to ascertain how many staff were sick on this occasion and what grades they were. That is not because I want to point the finger at any individual for
  1106
  being ill, but because questions are raised about the hospital's rostering and substitution arrangements in such an event. I was told in a parliamentary answer that five nurses were sick that day but that four worked overtime to compensate. All credit to them.
  If the theatres were only one nurse short, what was happening on that day? What were the rostering arrangements? What arrangements were made to try to fill the gaps in theatre assistants? Most important, what action did the hospital take on that day on cancellations? Did it cancel the list for one theatre, or did it consider the clinical needs of all the patients on the list that day and take decisions accordingly? Did it perform a number of simple operations or were people graded on clinical priority? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider these issues seriously.
  The other reasons for cancellations were perhaps even more worrying. On 31 May and on 12 and 14 June, Mr. Ford's operations were cancelled because of outbreaks of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus in the intensive care unit. We know that it is difficult to deal with MRSA. However, two outbreaks in the hospital in such a short time must raise queries about infection control procedures and hygiene procedures in use at the hospital.
  The Association of Medical Microbiologists makes it clear how MRSA is to be controlled. That is by scrupulous hand washing, isolation of the patient where necessary and regular damp-dusting. I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully examine the procedures that were undertaken by the hospital after the two outbreaks. What review of its hygiene procedures was put in place, and what changes has it made as a result?
  The most worrying reason for cancellation, however, was on 13 May. Mr. Ford was listed for his operation, but before it could be carried out he needed a trans-oesophageal echocardiograph. That can be carried out only by a cardiologist or a trained anaesthetist. Yet the relevant consultant was away on this occasion, and it was known elsewhere in the hospital before the operation was scheduled that the consultant would be away. At best, that is a piece of gross incompetence. At worst, it is a case of booking someone in for an operation when it was known that it could not take place. I hope that the Minister will examine the issue seriously and ascertain what was going on in the hospital, where I know there have been queries about the management of waiting lists on other occasions, and ensure that it does not happen to other patients on further occasions.
  I have said that Mr. Ford was let down by the management of the hospital. I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that. However, he was let down in the management not only of his case but of the complaints that were made afterwards. The hospital did not take his complaint seriously. Instead, it denied the family information, or was very slow in coming back with information. On one occasion it even tried to blame the family for a number of the cancellations.
  There was a cancellation that was separate from those that I have highlighted, when Mr. Ford developed an infection. His family called his GP, who made it clear that he would not be able to have the operation. The

  1107
  family immediately telephoned the hospital to tell it so, so that somebody else could have Mr. Ford's slot, as it put it to me. For behaving responsibly, as we ask national health service patients to do, the family was accused by a member of staff of cancelling several operations. That is the culture that worries me. It appears that there was no culture in the hospital of examining complaints and learning from them.
  All organisations can make mistakes, although in Mr. Ford's case there were serious mistakes. The least that could have been expected was for the hospital to examine its systems, to decide what went wrong and to ensure that it did not happen again. Instead, there was a passing of complaints down the line to junior staff, a failure to deal with them adequately and a failure to address what went wrong within the hospital system. A culture of arrogance prevailed not only in the trust, but in the strategic health authority.
  I have already said that the trust will not answer questions from a Member of Parliament without signed authority. I have never come across that in a trust before, although I understand that that is left to the discretion of the chief executive. I think that the trust is legally wrong, and I asked the chief executive to give me his legal advice on the matter, but he declined to do so. In any case, I know that the Department of Health is looking at the problem. I hope that it will ensure at the very least that trusts cannot hide behind the Data Protection Act 1998 to avoid being accountable for their actions. I believe that that is what was happening in this case.
  I encountered the same problems with the strategic health authority. When I got no joy from the hospital, I telephoned the chief executive of the strategic health authority to raise some issues with him. He was not available at the time, and I asked for a return call. Unfortunately, it took more than a month and two letters to the health authority before I got a return call. The chief executive, Mr. Goodwin, was then, in my view, extremely rude and aggressive. He was interested not in dealing with the complaint, but in getting rid of it. He even said to me in the course of the conversation that one of the problems was that
  "MPs do not always act in good faith in these matters."
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear that such an attitude is not acceptable from senior managers in the health service. It is a slur on all Members of all parties in the House and it is not a way of dealing with matters. If there are managers who deal with Members of Parliament like that, how on earth do they deal with patients?
  I hope that the Minister will ensure that the problem is addressed in future. Our real difficulty is that managers in the NHS are not always held accountable for what they do. Doctors are accountable for their practice, as are nurses. Managers, unfortunately, can send a few anodyne letters and walk away. The Ford family cannot walk away. Mr. Ford is now seriously ill and his family face the burden of looking after him, as well as the additional stress imposed by the hospital's actions. I pay tribute to their tenacity in pursuing the case. Their only motivation has been to ensure that no family goes through the same problem again.
  1108
  I hope that in his reply, my right hon. Friend, who I know will be as concerned about the case as I am, will ensure that proper investigations are carried out, that the necessary action to rectify the problems in the hospital is taken, and that the managers concerned are held accountable for what they do and are made to ensure that no family suffers in the same way in future.
  7.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on drawing the attention of the House to the case of her constituent, Mr. Stanley Ford. I also warmly congratulate her on presenting her arguments so clearly and effectively.
  Let me say at the outset that I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which Mr. Ford and his family have been treated is completely unacceptable and falls well short of the standards that we are all entitled to expect from our national health service. I shall say more about that in a few minutes. The case has rightly raised A set of wider concerns to which my hon. Friend referred, including the question of how confidential patient information can be shared with right hon. and hon. Members who make inquiries on behalf of their constituents. I shall say more about that in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her warm remarks about the nurses and doctors at Wythenshawe hospital.
  I begin by apologising to Mr. Ford and his family for the cancellation of his treatment at Wythenshawe hospital on six separate occasions between 22 March and 14 June. Clearly, that was completely unsatisfactory for everyone concerned, and particularly frustrating and stressful for the patient and his closest relatives and friends. The trust has apologised to Mr. Ford and his family, and rightly so. It is extremely sorry for the three-month delay in treatment that Mr. Ford endured as a result of his operation being cancelled on so many occasions, and the inevitable effect of consecutive postponements on his family. Mr. Ford eventually had his operation on 24 June, and I am sure that the House will join me and my hon. Friend in wishing him and his family well at this difficult time.
  Mr. Ford's experience highlights many of the problems in the NHS that we as a Government, through our investment and reform programme, are determined to tackle. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we are making available a substantial increase in the level of funding for the NHS during the next few years. That investment, coupled with the wider reforms that we are making to the service, should deliver an NHS that is better equipped and enabled to respond much more effectively to the individual needs of its patients, something that should have happened in this case, but clearly did not.
  The NHS is still short of capacity. We need more staff, beds, operating theatres and equipment. Since 1997, we have made some progress in expanding the NHS. There are more nurses and doctors. The numbers of beds in the NHS is rising again for the first time in more than 30 years. We are in the middle of the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, which will see the NHS grow in size as well as capability. In the north-west alone my hon. Friend will want to know that

  1109
  eight new hospitals have been given the go ahead since 1997, and together with the changes that we are making to the way in which we deliver our services—for example, separating emergency cases from elective activity—we shall be able to make faster progress in reducing the number of operations that have to be cancelled at short notice.
  I know that that will provide no direct comfort to Mr. Ford and his family. I accept that. But I hope that Mr. Ford and his family will be able to accept that we are fully committed to improving the NHS, and making sure that the extra investment makes a real difference to the way in which the NHS operates.
  This case raises concerns in a number of areas, including the NHS's approach to cancelled operations and the standards of cleanliness in our hospitals. The Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS takes action to address the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised tonight.
  It is clearly unacceptable that pre-planned operations are cancelled. An operation can be a traumatic enough experience without the added concern of it being cancelled at short notice. That is why from April 2002, under the NHS plan, when a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital must offer another binding date within 28 days, or fund the patient's treatment at the time and place of the patient's choice.
  The NHS also has to improve the way it manages operating theatre lists. The NHS modernisation agency is helping to develop and spread good practice across all NHS trusts, including that in south Manchester, with dedicated support provided to the worst performing trusts. As part of that project, South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust has been given additional resources this year to help it to implement the new guidance and reduce the incidence of cancelled operations.
  As my honourable Friend has mentioned, Mr. Ford's operation was cancelled three times because of an MRSA outbreak at the hospital. MRSA is a serious problem in the NHS, as it is in hospitals throughout the world. The Government are aware of the seriousness of the problem and that is why we have set standards to ensure that there is a managed environment that minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. Recent analysis of how hospitals perform in that area has shown an improvement during the past two years, but more needs to be done and actions are under way nationally, regionally and locally.
  For example, we have taken action to improve the standards of hospital cleanliness including the investment of an additional £60 million over the next two years, and the institution of a nationwide clean-up campaign with unannounced inspections of cleanliness. We recognised that not all hospitals were as clean and tidy as patients wanted and that in some places standards of cleanliness had deteriorated to a point where they were no longer acceptable. The clean hospitals programme has seen significant improvements. The new patient environment action teams have carried out nearly 1,400 inspections in around 500 NHS hospitals during the past 21 months. By September 2001, there were no hospitals deemed to
  1110
  have unacceptable levels of cleanliness. In particular, levels of hospital cleanliness have risen, in particular in the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust.
  Most of us would accept that it might be necessary sometimes to cancel elective surgery for legitimate reasons—for example, the ill-health of the patient concerned. In Mr. Ford's case, staffing shortages and an infection outbreak contributed to a number of the delays. But six cancellations is obviously an excessive number. They could and should have been avoided. I know that South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust has taken the matter seriously and is committed to taking the necessary action to address the problems exposed by Mr. Ford's ordeal.
  My hon. Friend raised particular concerns about answers to parliamentary questions that she has received in relation to staffing levels in the trust on the day that Mr. Ford's hospital treatment was initially cancelled. I assure her that I shall look into the points that she has raised with me this evening because the trust does have a high rate of cancelled operations—too high. That fact was reinforced when the Commission for Health Improvement reported in July. Under its new management team, which has been in place since the events in the spring to which my hon. Friend referred, the trust has re-examined its internal procedures to identify areas of weakness in which immediate remedial action is necessary.
  The trust acknowledged that it lacked a robust and clear system for dealing with cancellations. Too many different systems were in use, with insufficient coordination and understanding. The trust has already reviewed its cancelled operations policy and will take decisive measures designed to make certain that staff are available at all times to carry out trans-oesophageal echocardiograms. The trust has also reviewed the capacity of Wythenshawe hospital and is implementing a plan to increase its number of beds by 36. The majority of those beds are already in place, which will be of particular help in reducing the number of cancelled operations.
  I was encouraged by the trust's own candid assessment that its performance had not been adequate in terms of cancelling and rescheduling operations. It has resolved to ensure that it has a senior manager with overall responsibility for ensuring that the number of cancelled operations is reduced substantially. The trust will also carry out an evaluation of its pre-operative assessment procedures with the objective of reducing cancellations. improving patient care and modernising communication systems in the hospital.
  I can tell my hon. Friend that the trust is now working to a clear objective of an 80 per cent. reduction in cancelled operations on the current rate. I am pleased to note that the number of cancelled operations at the trust has fallen significantly in recent months. However, I will pay close attention in future to how the trust performs in that area. I am sure that the trust and all its staff want the service that they provide to patients to be improved in that regard, as they are absolutely committed to the welfare of all their patients. So do I, and so, I am sure, does she. The trust and the wider NHS in the Greater Manchester area are looking at a number of other ways to improve on current performance, including

  1111
  identifying spare capacity in other trusts in the area, investing in additional capacity and making better use of existing capacity.
  On the problem of MRSA at the trust, in the cardiac intensive care and high-dependency units, new and more rigorous cleaning arrangements have been introduced following the recommendations of the infection control team. The trust's management is continuing to monitor the situation closely and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept informed of progress.
  I am also aware that my hon. Friend has raised concerns with the trust about its willingness to share information with her about Mr. Ford's treatment. We recognise that the matter of trusts sharing information with MPs about their constituents raises sensitive issues. The Department recently issued for consultation a draft code of practice for NHS staff on confidentiality issues. Specifically, the code recommends that where a Member of Parliament states in writing that he or she has a patient's consent for disclosure, that should be accepted without further resort to the patient.
  I am also aware of the exchange of correspondence in the summer between my hon. Friend and the Greater Manchester strategic health authority. Clearly, there was an unacceptable delay in responding to her concerns. Both the director of health and social care in the north and the chair of the strategic health authority have reviewed those events, as well as investigating the reasons for Mr. Ford's cancelled operations. By now, she will have seen their respective conclusions and have had time to reflect on their comments.
  1112
  The trust, the strategic health authority and my officials agree that action needs to be taken, and it is being taken. The South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust is already taking action to reduce the number of cancelled operations at Wythenshawe hospital. The Greater Manchester strategic health authority has instructed trusts to include more information about rescheduled operations in their weekly performance management returns and will monitor carefully south Manchester's rate of cancellations. The strategic health authority has overhauled its own procedures for responding to inquiries from hon. Members. The directorate of health and social care in the north will oversee the implementation of all those performance improvements.
  I reassure my hon. Friend that I believe that lessons have been learned. Action is now being taken. Mr. Ford and his family should not have been put through their ordeal. There can be no doubt about that whatever and I regret very much what has happened. It is now the job of the trust and the local NHS to ensure that, as my hon. Friend has said, such cases are not repeated.
  7.29 pm
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to order [29 October].
  12.13 am
  On resuming—
  Question agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Foreign Policy (Terrorism)
[Relevant Documents: Seventh Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 384, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5589]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
2.30 pm
Donald Anderson: It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, "Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism". It is vital that the parliamentary dimension of the subject be given high priority and it is unfortunate that a similar debate has been timetabled this afternoon in the Chamber. I understand that at least one of my colleagues intends to deliver the same speech both here and there—a speech, I understand, that he was not called to give during our party conference.
I am reminded that today's date has real significance and relevance to our topic. It was on 31 October 1971 that an IRA bomb exploded in London's Post Office tower. We in the United Kingdom have had long experience of terrorism in our cities and are well aware of the nature of the threat, the ruthlessness of the terrorist and our own vulnerability. It was, perhaps, the belated recognition of their own vulnerability that has coloured the debate in the United States since 11 September 2001 and, some would say, has had a disproportionate influence on priorities as if that date were year zero.
Clearly, terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but 11 September marked a defining moment. The world witnessed a most audacious form of terrorism on an unprecedented scale, the goal being mass destruction and casualties. There is much debate about the extent to which the world changed on 11 September, but change it did. We were awakened to new realities and a new form of threat. A new kind of response was necessary. Even today, we learn of arrests in Sydney and Perth in Australia. The Italian deputy Prime Minister told me last week of arrests in Italy. There are outbreaks in peaceful Singapore. It is a worldwide phenomenon.
The war against terrorism is unlike any previous war. Therefore, it was right that the Foreign Affairs Committee put this at the top of our agenda. Indeed, we propose that the inquiry will continue. We hope to produce another report to the House before the end of this year and thereafter to continue with different facets of the same problem. The timeliness of the debate hardly needs mentioning after the outrages in Yemen, Kuwait and Bali, the Moscow theatre disaster and the revelation in the Hamburg court in the past few days of the link between the pilots on 11 September and some of the Chechen rebels. The report provides a platform for what I hope will be a wider debate.
324WH
How did the Committee carry out its inquiry? Obviously, we built on previous work in the last Parliament on weapons of mass destruction and in the first Session of this Parliament on British-US relations, which was debated here in Westminster Hall. That illustrates the importance of continuity in the work of Select Committees. We began our inquiry just after 11 September. We visited Washington and New York, where I had the privilege of laying a wreath at ground zero. The role of the Prime Minister at that time and since has been much appreciated. We made further visits to the United States in March and two weeks ago we were in New York and Washington where we met all the relevant Departments and senior members of Congress such as Senator Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, the leading Republican and Congressman Porter Goss, who heads the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives. We also discussed the topic during meetings with the Spanish and Danish presidencies and with the Turkish Government and during informal meetings with individuals, including Mr. Hamid Karzai and Dr. Abdullah, both of Afghanistan, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our ambassador in New York and Mr. John Bolton, arms control director in the State Department.
We heard oral evidence from academic and other experts that is set out in the report, which was published in June. As with all the reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was unanimous. It is not the Committee's last word on the subject. The Government's response, which was published at the end of August, was generally positive, but issues of contention remain between the Committee and the Government, which this debate may help to resolve.
It would not be helpful for me to go step by step through the Committee's 43 recommendations and key findings as I shall cover most in the course of my speech. It may be helpful to draw attention to one or two of the more significant recommendations. For example, the report states in paragraph (hh):
"We recommend that the Government propose a deadline for Iraqi compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions"
In their reply in August, the Government stated that they would be giving further consideration to that recommendation, which has now been taken up within the United Nations.
Paragraph (kk) of the report states:
"We recommend that the Government follow the precedent which it set in the period leading up to military action in Afghanistan, and publish the fullest possible documentation".
Prior to the debate during the recall of Parliament on 24 September, a dossier relating to weapons of mass destruction was published. Paragraph (qq) ends on the following note:
"But to 'know thine enemy' is not enough. We also need to determine how the conditions that have contributed to the development of terrorism can be removed, or at least reduced."
The answers to those questions will provide a far safer world than even the best intelligence and preparedness can provide. As the war against terrorism proceeds, this country and its coalition allies must seek out these answers and learn about and deal sensitively with the causes of terrorism—to coin a phrase, with "terrorism and the cause of terrorism."
What developments have there been since the publication of the report in June? We have continued our inquiry as a Committee. Since September we have

325WH
had two meetings with the Foreign Secretary, meetings again with academics, lawyers and former diplomats and also have had a session on a related matter—the biological and toxic weapons convention.
We visited the United States from 13 to 18 October. Since then it is fair to say in the context of that war that there have been a number of setbacks and some progress. The setbacks have included the atrocities that I outlined earlier—the oil tanker in the Yemen, the attacks on US marines in Kuwait, Bali and now Moscow—all following what purported to be a call to the faithful, the extremists, from bin Laden and al-Jazeera.
So far as Indonesia is concerned, the writing had been on the wall for some time. It had been recognised that it was a failing state and many warnings had been given. It is perhaps only after Bali that the Indonesian Government have begun to take some serious action against the extremists in their midst by arresting Mr. Bashir, who is alleged to be the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah and cracking down on the work of a number of those extremists. A number are Arabs who are said to have linkage with al-Qaeda, in that they harbour al-Qaeda terrorists and train with them. As we well know, the nature of al-Qaeda is such that it does not hand out membership cards.
Among the setbacks has been the continued negative attitude of the United States Administration to arms-control treaties. That was best illustrated recently by their response to the protocol on the BTWC, and it does not fit easily with the leadership of the US in the fight against terrorism.
On the side of progress, by far the best example of positive regime change in the past year and a half is Afghanistan. However, it must be fully supported, as there are still real concerns about that country. Indeed, an assassin's bullet a month or two ago might have fundamentally set back the progress that had been made. The key questions remain, such as how we can spread beyond Kabul the stabilising effect of the international security assistance force.
There is also a funding problem, in that the international community has made grand declarations, but has not been ready to follow them up with money. Writing this week in the Washington Post, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the Foreign Minister, made the plea that at least $10 billion was needed for reconstruction work in the next five years. It is hoped that, bit by bit, Afghanistan will turn into a successful model of our campaign against terrorism and extremism.
I need hardly say that the position of women in Afghanistan has been radically transformed. I welcome to the Chamber a number of my hon. Friends who have been playing a leading part in respect of the enhancement of the position of women in that country.
It is also fair to say that there has been some progress in dealing with terrorist suspects. A trial of a suspected terrorist is taking place in Hamburg, and Abu Qatada has been arrested in the United Kingdom. In addition, at least some of the Guantanamo bay prisoners have been released. Obviously, those who are responsible for the attacks must be brought to justice.
326WH
The British Government's response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction has been largely positive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in July a commitment of up to $750 million over 10 years to the G8 global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. We have also made an initial voluntary contribution of £250,000 to the International Atomic Energy Agency protection against nuclear terrorism fund.
The United Nations counter-terrorism committee has made significant progress. Indeed, no body other than the UN could have done this task. We have heard glowing tributes to the work of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our ambassador to the UN in New York and our permanent representative, in chairing that committee. It has already received reports from 174 member states and five others. Those that have not replied have tended to be small states, perhaps without the administrative capacity to do the work. Those deficiencies will be identified and there will be an attempt, region by region, to supply the necessary assistance in, for example, combating money laundering. The review of those that have completed their questionnaires will continue.
What happens now? Obviously, the war against terrorism is far from over. No clearly defined end is in sight. In the war against terrorism, there will be no surrender of an enemy, victory parades or peace document to be signed. This is not war in the conventional senses, but more like a war on drugs, AIDS or poverty. Some academic experts are wary of using the word "war" in this context because of the international legal implications. Professor Greenwood, for example, pointed out in an article for Chatham House that the war against terrorism is understandable in political terms, but should not be understood to refer to the concept of war in international law. For him, "armed conflict" is more apposite.
The immediate question is Iraq, which I anticipate will figure prominently in the debate. We are at a turning point, awaiting the outcome of the UN deliberations on the draft resolution. I understand that a breakthrough could occur within the next day or so. If not, it could be put back until after the mid-term congressional elections next week. Clearly, other members are deeply anxious about an easy trigger mechanism to war: hence the case for referral back to the Security Council before any decision on war is taken. Phrases such as "serious consequences" and "material breach" should be examined carefully in the light of how they have been used in the past.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has visited Washington yet again. Some members of the Security Council are concerned about the number of such visits. Did my right hon. Friend hear the former UN arms inspector, Bill Tierney, admitting, when interviewed on Radio 4 on 22 October, to working as a spy for the Pentagon intelligence wing by collecting information on suitable targets? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that that should not happen again? We must have a genuine inspection team, free from the undue influence of the Pentagon.
Donald Anderson: I did not hear that particular interview. I know that the United Nations Monitoring,

327WH
Verification and Inspection Commission has largely learned the lessons of the United Nations Special Commission, but UNMOVIC must have the relevant technical expertise. Sadly, and to be realistic, much of that expertise comes through the defence establishments of individual Governments. That is part of the dilemma. I have heard similar allegations in the past. I have also heard that Dr. Blix is highly respected and is no one's puppet. When he appeared before the Security Council earlier this week, he said that a new resolution would substantially help him to fulfil his task. We should take what he said seriously.
Developments over the summer include military preparations and the UN debate of 12 September. That was particularly significant because of President Bush's speech, which was positively influenced by the Prime Minister in two respects: first, the President and others were persuaded to take the UN track and, secondly, linkage, however indirect, with the middle east peace process was accepted. Progress was made in those respects.
The UK dossier was published on 24 September. It broadly came to the same conclusions as the International Institute for Strategic Studies and CIA dossiers. The international community largely agrees about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. Disagreement rests on how imminent that threat is and how best to deal with it.
Longer-term issues include serious questions about the role of international law. If the international community is to move forward on an agreed and proper basis, it must be set fully within the parameters of international law. Complex questions are posed by the publication on 20 September of the US national security strategy. It eloquently sets out the case for pre-emptive self-defence—or, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd N ant Conwy (Mr Llwyd) might say, borrowing from Welsh rugby, "Getting your retaliation in first."
With the development of chemical and biological weapons, must this concept of imminence and imminent threat in international law be construed in a very different way? There are worrying implications if the doctrine of pre-emptive defence were extended widely. What sort of licence would it give to China in respect of Taiwan, or to India or Pakistan in respect of their dispute over Kashmir? These and other questions raised in our report lead to the question whether international law has in some ways been left behind by current developments and needs to be revisited. In Guantanamo bay, for example, the rights under the Geneva convention had to be re-examined in terms of the non-state actors and the irregulars who are there. What is the appropriate response of international law? International law, in essence, has been the law between nations. Now, so much of the threat comes not from individual nations but from within nations and irregular groups that can be used by nations for their own ends. It is a moot question whether the current system provides an adequate framework. There is no question of scrapping it, but of seeking to re-examine it and adapting it to the changed environment. Having said that, I am, alas, sceptical about the readiness of the international community seriously to consider these questions.
328WH
Another factor, of course, has been the growth in anti-western hostility. There may be no response on the street in areas such as Cairo because of the strong security system there, but it may well be on the streets of cities in western countries. There has been a rise in violence and extremism, which claims to be religiously motivated. I am talking not about the overwhelming number of moderate followers of Islam, but about the extremist groups who are bent on a jihad and for whom no serious negotiation is possible. Indeed, one of the world's most respected scholars of Islam, Professor John Esposito, who is respected equally in the west and in the Muslim world, wrote in his recently published book, "Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam", that the 21st century will be dominated by forces of globalisation and by the global encounter of two major religions, both of which will strain relations between the west and the rest of the world. We need to develop clear strategies to deal with those tensions, and it is imperative that we tackle the growing gap between rich and poor and reduce the potential for misunderstanding between different cultures and faiths as we seek to co-exist. Global engagement and co-operation are the only way forward.
It is not just war or the threat of war that is relevant to terrorism. We must also examine the Doha round, for example, as well as education in Pakistan and Indonesia. The education that madrassahs provide leaves young people wholly unprepared for the modern world.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend referred to two religions, but is it not a fact that this conflict has the potential to involve people in other religions? Even in this country, there are conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. There are also conflicts in the middle east. We must be very clear that we stand against all forms of extremism from wherever they come and from whatever religion. It is dangerous to talk about crusades, a clash of civilisations and conflict between two camps. It is much more complicated than that.
Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Professor Esposito explicitly repudiates Samuel Huntingdon's thesis in relation to a clash of civilisations. Although it is far more complex, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the particular conflicts mentioned by the learned professor relate mostly to militant Islam throughout the world.
Glenda Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the call for the international community to come together to tackle international terrorism arose only after the appalling events of 11 September, when citizens of 30 sovereign states perished in that obscene attack? Until then, I was not aware of any calls, certainly not from my country, that there should be some form of attack by the international community on international terrorism, even after the appalling and equally death-creating terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, certain parts of India, and in Pakistan. I hope that it is not the case, as certain elements in our own society say, that we as a Government care more about white euro-centric deaths than any others
Donald Anderson: The point that my hon. Friend makes is partly true. There is, however, a fundamental

329WH
difference from the terrorism that occurred in Sri Lanka, for example, the Punjab, the Basque country or Ireland, because those terrorists had limited objectives. They operated almost entirely within one regional context. The difference that emerged on 11 September was that not only were the victims from all countries, but the aims were far wider. There had been a degree of complacency and the events on 11 September were, perhaps, a wake-up call, but those events were different in kind from the previous extremism that we had faced.
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to something he said a moment ago? He made the point that international law does not easily cover the detention of people in Guantanamo bay. In paragraph 144 of the report, he calls on the Government, implicitly of the United States,
"to uphold standards of international law and … ensure that prisoners are tried in full accordance with internationally accepted norms of justice."
Is it his view, and that of his Committee, that those standards are being met, following the detention of people without trial for over a year, or are there recommendations that do not yet appear in the report, which he would make to the UK and the US Governments about their future conduct?
Donald Anderson: The Committee did not come to any conclusion about the current methods of detention. Certainly, there was widespread concern about the methods of transporting those individuals, and the initial means of detention, illustrated by those photographs, which were extraordinarily damaging in public relations terms. The British Government have been concentrating on the seven British subjects who are still there, to ensure that, as far as possible, they are treated humanely, that our consular officials have access to them, and that, as far as is practicable, proper legal safeguards are applied.
No one can doubt the threat that the world faces from terrorism today. Last year, more than 3,000 people were killed and in the past few weeks, more than 300 people lost their lives. We have made some progress in the past year, but there is still a long way to go. The war on terrorism may have no end, and will certainly take a long time.
If we were to jump 10 years hence, where would we be in the campaign? Will we have reduced greatly the threat from terrorism or will we be fighting a rearguard action? Can the swamp ever be totally drained? I do not believe so, but I believe that substantial progress can be made. The greatest challenges may well lie ahead, and the stakes are raised by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and particularly of biological weapons.
In some ways, we are in uncharted territory, but we can make significant progress with the existing body of international law as our starting point, and with sufficient international co-operation, focus and commitment, not just in the narrow fight against terrorism, but in poverty alleviation and in the areas that help the terrorists to thrive. Will the international community now get its act together? Many lives will depend on that.
330WH
I assure those hon. Members here who are not on the Foreign Affairs Committee that we take the matter seriously and will ensure that it remains high on the agenda of that Committee.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I commend the Committee on the breadth of its report, particularly for its justification of what the international coalition has done in Afghanistan in response to the events of 11 September. Since then, there have been more recent acts of Islamic terrorism—the atrocity in Bali, others throughout Indonesia, the Washington sniper and the Chechen hostage taking in Moscow—and they demonstrate the varieties of such terrorism.
Although the international community continues to respond with appropriate initiatives, as the Secretary of State said in the closing paragraphs of his response to the report, the roots of terrorism can be eliminated in the long term only by spreading the benefits of globalisation, eradicating poverty, improving human rights, adhering to the rule of international law and promoting democracy and good governance.
I want to make three points in response to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. First, fully support the conclusion in paragraph (s), which is
"that the Government must strive to uphold standards of international law"—
to ensure that detained Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects are given a fair trial—
"in full accordance with internationally accepted norms of justice".
That is why I appealed to the Prime Minister at Question Time earlier this year to convince President Bush that the right place to try international terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden, were he to be alive and arrested, is the International Criminal Court, and not behind closed doors in a military tribunal, as the Americans proposed.
The Rome statute of 1998 was one of the most important events of the last century. It put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. I hope that it will be amended, as soon possible, to include terrorist activity in its jurisdiction. It is a tragedy that the United States and Israel have refused to ratify the Rome statute. I applaud the Government for the opportunities that they have taken to disabuse the United States of its fears. I am particularly surprised that, of all nations, Israel has chosen not to recognise the court, the forerunner of which was the Nuremberg tribunal that brought the Nazi leaders to justice, not least for their crimes against the Jewish people.
We in the House probably meet our American and Israeli counterparts more frequently than other parliamentarians. Many of us are members of the British-American group, and of the Friends of Israel within our respective parties. I am sorry that the Committee does not recommend that British politicians do more to convince members of Congress and the Knesset of the foresight, logic and wisdom of giving full support to the International Criminal Court.

331WH
Secondly, I agree with paragraph (v), which says that the threat of terrorism requires us to press even more urgently for an end to the middle east conflict. Unfortunately, the Committee does not recommend any new initiatives in that respect I have said many times that the humanitarian situation in the 49 refugee camps run by UNWRA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in Palestine—the camps are some of the principal breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism in the world—can no longer remain unresolved. That will require a United Nations-sponsored plan, and the establishment of a fund for the permanent resettlement of refugees similar to that proposed by the Council of Europe in 1998 in resolution 1156. That appears to be much the same as what President Clinton proposed at Camp David. We also require an international conference on the middle east to be held as soon as possible and the final status negotiations to be resumed by the end of the year. That is what the Prime Minister called for at the Labour party conference in Blackpool last month. However, the Government's response to the Committee's report does not mention any of that. I hope that their policy on the middle east will be clarified today.
Finally, to return to the role that democracy and human rights can play in tackling the roots of terrorism, recommendation (g) calls on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to
"provide a full statement on EU-wide co-operation and progress in countering terrorism".
It has done so in its response. However, a Europe that is wider and larger than the European Union exists, and it has responded to the threat of terrorism just as assiduously. The wider Europe has the potential to be more effective by co-ordinating 44 Governments, not just the 15 of the European Union. I refer, of course, to the Council of Europe, whose expertise in human rights is pre-eminent and whose continuing work on democratic structures and procedures continues to assist those who lack experience of them. All that is very relevant in countering terrorism.
I regret that the valuable work that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe carried out in response to 11 September and that was led by its rapporteur, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), and its Committee of Ministers, has not been considered by the Committee. It is therefore ignored in the report and in the Government's response. Yet, the document entitled "Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism", which was adopted by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in July, is a key reference for all those involved in the fight against terrorism.
The Council of Europe has a unique role to play in undermining the causes of terrorism by encouraging respect for human rights and by assisting secular and pluralist democracy. It plays that role by its member states seeking to provide solutions to internal conflicts that have been used to justify terrorism, and the most topical example is the Chechen issue. Whatever bravado the Kremlin displays following the Moscow tragedy, it knows that only a political solution can bring about a resolution for Chechnya.
332WH
The Council of Europe rapporteur, Lord Judd, has been working assiduously and courageously in that context. The entire European Community and the United States, which accept that Chechnya must remain a member of the Russian Federation—we are all committed to that under the Helsinki Final Act—must now give full recognition and support to the work of Lord Judd and his joint working group on Chechnya as it is the only initiative that is under way to resolve the issue peacefully.
Since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the supporters of al-Qaeda have been hitting back from the 60 countries in which they exist in forms ranging from small cells to allied terrorist organisations to guerrilla groups. As well as Pakistan, the situations in north Africa, the central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, Indonesia and the Philippines are of particular concern. Both the European Union and the Council of Europe can exercise a particular influence in north Africa and central Asia, because countries in those regions have a European past and are keen for closer ties today. Co-operation agreements with them, and the status of observer member, offer positive and practical avenues of influence.
We should give further thought to how the successes and best practices of the three European regional institutions—the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—can be applied to the regional institutions that already exist elsewhere, such as the Association of South-East Asian Nations, to which the Philippines and Indonesia belong, and the new African Union. That regional dimension will be the subject of a two-day debate in the United Nations General Assembly on 20 and 21 November. In that debate, I expect that proposals by the Inter-Parliamentary Union to become the parliamentary dimension of the United Nations will be promoted and developed.
Following 11 September, President Bush was right to commit his country to eliminating all sources of terrorism and threat and we are right to support him, especially in those ways in which the British have particular experience. It may therefore be appropriate for the Foreign Affairs Committee, in the report on which the Chairman says it is about to embark, to consider how the regional dimension and the international parliamentary dimension, in which the British have great expertise, can be better harnessed to fight the war against terrorism.
3.9 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I will not detain the Chamber long. I co-authored the report with other right hon. and hon. Members and I am pleased that it is before us. It is regrettable that our long parliamentary recess—it will be the last long recess—and the methods and rubrics of this place mean that it has taken us some time to get round to debating the report and the Government response. When one reads them, one realises how much water has flowed under the bridge since we prepared the report. Indeed, the Chairman and the Committee are about to publish a follow-up volume on the war against terrorism. Given the new disposition, I hope that the House authorities will allow us to begin our deliberations on key Select Committee reports more quickly than in the past.

333WH
Before I discuss the details, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to elaborate on the United Kingdom position on the 1995 terrorist outrage in Paris, for which two Algerians were sentenced to life in prison in Paris yesterday. I understand that a third member of the gang—if that is the correct term—is in the UK, but that he has not been extradited. I believe absolutely in the rule of law, and there may be good reasons why our court process has not allowed us to accede to the request from the Republic of France to extradite him. If things were the other way round, however, and we could not extradite from Paris someone wanted for an outrage in this country, Members of Parliament left, right and centre would be going up the wall, along with the press. An explanation needs to be put on the public record so that our good friends in France understand the position. If the impediment is administrative, rather than judicial, I hope that the Government will get a move on. This is not simply a matter of justice, and I well understand why some people might consider the UK rather hypocritical for expecting every Government to pull out every stop to combat terrorism and bring people to justice.
The more one thinks about the report and about current debates, the more one realises how wrong it is to merge the Iraq problem with the issue of terrorism and al-Qaeda. Both are, of course, extremely grave issues, but the first concerns the relationship between a state and the international community and is, as I shall explain in a moment, a matter of law enforcement. Terrorism, however, does not involve state boundaries or capital cities in which people can be bunkered and which one can seize. It is the biggest single threat to us all, and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who merge it with the issue of Iraq make a political, moral and legal mistake that prevents us from focusing on the matter properly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us a position statement on the progress that has been made on a Security Council resolution on Iraq. I was somewhat disappointed that we did not get one from the Prime Minister yesterday, although he was not asked for one. Incidentally, one of the vacuous aspects of Prime Minister's Question Time is that no one asks the real questions, despite so much sterile, synthetic anger. Apparently, people are also pre-occupied with where hon. Members sit on such occasions; that appears to be extremely important. However, what hon. Members want are facts and answers, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some clarification on Iraq.
I also think that the United States—and ipso facto many other players—has made the mistake of becoming preoccupied with the debate over whether it would be lawful to invade Iraq in defence of the continent of north America. I frankly do not think that there is a legal basis. It is stretching matters and putting a construction on them that cannot be achieved in international law to justify making an armed intervention in Iraq on the basis that there is about to be an attack on the United States. I do not think that it can be justified in law, although I also think that it is bad politics.
We want to enhance the authority of the United Nations—that is what gives us the moral high ground As politicians, we should emphasise that. We want Iraqi compliance with international law. If we had been
334WH
saying that earlier, there would be greater understanding and appreciation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. If we had focused on those things—who knows?—the message might have got through to Baghdad in a different way.
I am deeply concerned about messages getting through. When we visited the committee in the United States with responsibility for foreign affairs, and when our Committee questioned witnesses, I asked whether there was a danger that Saddam Hussein had not been getting the message. I will elaborate on that. First, the issue is serious: he is threatened with armed intervention. Secondly, all the nonsense about regime change is off the agenda now. If he complies, we will not be in the business of regime change.
Incidentally, I think that one of the biggest political mistakes was for President Bush and others to go on about regime change, because it has no legal basis and it makes Saddam Hussein and his colleagues bunker down even more. I think that it was a bad mistake. Some witnesses have confirmed my fear that Saddam perhaps does not understand that we are after compliance and that we are not in the business of regime change as such.
If anybody thinks that that is surprising, I ask them to pause and consider the past century. The great problem for the United Kingdom was that so many of our adversaries did not understand that we meant what we said. The Kaiser to the colonels in Argentina did not understand that there would eventually have to be compliance, yet we had greater communication with them than with Saddam Hussein.
We recently marked the anniversary of the Cuba missile crisis. President Kennedy—and for that matter Chairman Khrushchev—were much more sensible than the people with whom we now have to deal in Baghdad. However, despite the megaphone rhetoric, Kennedy understood that it was necessary to send interlocutors and spell out that he meant business and that the key to unlocking the crisis without anybody being humiliated or there being massive loss of face was down a certain track. The history of how key people secretly went to Vienna and Moscow, and how lines of communications were kept open that allowed Khrushchev to climb down is now coming out. I fear that that is not happening now in relation to Saddam Hussein. True access to him is probably not being achieved, but I wonder whether that is actually being tried in the manner that I outlined.
Glenda Jackson: Surely the issue is that not only Saddam Hussein may be somewhat confused about the messages emanating from the present US Administration. I am as confused as everybody else. It is my perception that Iraq was originally highlighted as a terrible danger because it was one of the three nations in the axis of evil. We were then told that it had to be attacked because it flouted UN resolutions. We were then told that there had to be a regime change, on the ground of affording human rights to the citizens of Iraq. We are now being told that, in effect, there has to be a new resolution. However, the United Nations is now becoming the enemy in the frame so far as the US Administration is concerned, because it will not propose the kind of resolution that they want. One gets the impression that the US Administration want a war with

335WH
Iraq, regardless of what the United Nations does. What is particularly disturbing for this Chamber is that that seems to be what the British Government want too.
Andrew Mackinlay: Heaven forbid that I should defend the position of the British Government, but if nobody else will, perhaps I will have a stab at it. My levity belies the serious point that the communication of this Labour Government—who are often criticised for their reputation for spin and presentation—has been parlous in the case of the big picture. They have not put over the critical issue, which is the enforcement of mandatory resolutions of the United Nations. That should have been the message over and again. I regret that some Ministers have not focused on that—but there is still time. That message, and not the nonsense about regime change that they were in the careless habit of uttering some months ago, would reassure my hon. Friend and others, not to mention my constituents and me. There has been a lack of clarity about the Government's intentions and objectives, and about what our case is.
My hon. Friend's intervention allows me to reiterate something that I said at the Labour party conference. Some people listen, but do not hear. Our greatest chance of avoiding conflict has been the result of the Prime Minister's work on the international scene. Even since the conference season, that has been demonstrated by the fact that the position of the United States has shifted weekly in favour of obtaining a further resolution in Security Council. The Foreign Affairs Committee has, from the outset, attached enormous importance to that. We have said so many times and have questioned the assertion that there will be an attack on the continent of America. Clearly, that is nonsense.
If we obtain a Security Council resolution, when the history of these times comes to be written, a lot of credit will be given to the Government of the UK, and particularly to the Prime Minister. I have been described as independent. I am actually a loyal Labour party person. Independence does not mean knocking the Prime Minister every time. When he is right, I say so. In the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, he receives all-party commendation for going round the world. One or two people have criticised him for that in order to score points, but there is no greater duty for a British Prime Minister than to be engaged on the international scene. That is his primary function and he has not aggravated the grave situation by doing so. He has been able to counsel prudence and buttress Colin Powell, who is, in relative terms, a dove in his Administration, against the Rumsfelds and the Cheneys and, to some extent, the Bush clan, which has a score to settle with Saddam Hussein.
I shall always remember having been in the US State Department when somebody said that there is more battle experience among the doves in that Department than there is in the whole Defence Department. The Prime Minister has been able to buttress the arguments of the doves while keeping up the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We need his compliance and we need him to give unimpeded, meaningful access to the inspectors and to allow any arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that he has to be destroyed. We do not seek to disarm his regular army.
336WH
That is my position on Iraq. I think that al-Qaeda and comparable terrorist organisations pose a great threat. Since 11 September 2001—notwithstanding some of the tragedies that have happened elsewhere—politicians,journalists and members of the public seem to have developed a false sense of security. I do not want to be alarmist, but I think that London and other major cities are under considerable threat. It will not necessarily involve an aeroplane flying into a tall building, but it might be something much more serious, which could dwarf the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. We should renew our vigilance.
I raised the following matter in the House yesterday, and I raise it again today. In the documents that we have from the Government, they keep going on about security at our airports. That is right, of course, but nobody ever mentions our seaports, which are largely unpoliced. I know that because I represent more Thames river frontage than any other Member. The port of Tilbury is secure and has a little, dedicated and highly professional police force, but in many other wharfs along the river and the coastline of the United Kingdom there are no Home Office immigration or Customs and Excise people and no Home Office police force or police force of any kind. People can simply come in at those points.
We must consider the wretched crime of human trafficking, and the danger that materials might be brought in that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. There are technologies for dealing with such matters, but over the summer there was an incident, which has been hushed up, when radioactive material came through the port of Felixstowe and the technology responded but the human response failed. That material travelled many miles—funnily enough, to my constituency—before all the agencies engaged to find the lorry. Apparently, it was not a criminal act, but nevertheless some potentially dangerous nuclear material travelled all that way without being intercepted.
We need to get our act together. Our ports should have a dedicated ports police force, such those in other countries. Sometimes a coastguard fulfills the function. The Ports Canada police provide a very good model, and we used to have the British transport police in our seaports, but they were withdrawn. One or two ports, such as the one in my constituency, have a dedicated police force, but there should really be a proper police force in all our seaports to protect us against terrorism and against other criminal activities that take place in ports, especially human trafficking.
The final point that I wanted to make relates to the reference in the documents to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—the OPCW. The dismissal of Mr Bustani, who was the head of that organisation, remains unexplained, but we know that it was done at the whim of the United States, because he had in some way aggravated the US. I note, too, that the United States pays that organisation's bills; there is obviously a correlation there. I am disappointed that our Government, along with others, seemed to acquiesce in the man's dismissal. No one has been able to give a true or legitimate criticism of his conduct. In fact, he was the subject of cruel slurs and innuendo, which were found to have had no substance. His dismissal was a political act, resulting from the fact that

337WH
he had aggravated the United States, and not only was it unfair to him but it set a bad precedent for other comparable international organizations
Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain why this country supported Mr. Bustani's dismissal? My hon. Friend may not give us an explanation, but he needs to be careful that such behaviour does not become habitual with international organisations funded largely by the United States. Of course, I understand its position—it was annoyed that Mr. Bustani had done something to irritate it when it was paying for the organisation.
I hope that the House found the report useful and that we will have a discussion soon on the report soon to be published.
3.28 pm
Mr. David Chidgey:A number of issues arise from the report, and as always with Select Committee reports, it raises more questions than it provides answers. I shall address three points, on which I hope the Minister will be able to shed further light, over and above the response from the Government.
First, I refer to paragraphs 8 to 26 of the report, which refer to the period before 11 September and are entitled "Why were the attacks not foreseen and prevented?" That is a key issue. It was not as though it was a bolt from the blue, as the previous activities of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were well documented throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Attacks on American embassies in the middle east and throughout Africa left many hundreds dead and many thousands more injured, so it was not exactly a new phenomenon. The plan behind the attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993 was to topple one of the towers into the other. It failed not because the intelligence and security forces discovered the plot, but only because the terrorists had not calculated correctly the very strong structure that supported those buildings.
Perhaps the most chilling attempt at international terrorism, which should have warned us that an attack such as that on the World Trade Centre in September last year was likely, was the 1995 plot to hijack no fewer than 12 American airliners and synchronise them to crash into the Pacific ocean, with the aim of killing 4,000 passengers. That plot was foiled only because it was uncovered by accident. There happened to be a fire in a building in Manila where the bombs were being prepared before being placed on the aircraft.
Clearly, there has been a catastrophic intelligence and security failure. Our American counterparts with whom we have spoken have readily admitted that, so I am surprised that the Government's response to our report fails to acknowledge a deficiency in our intelligence work. I understand the difficulties of penetrating such terrorist groups, and the problem of compromising the personal freedoms that we hold dear with the increased security necessary to protect us from terrorists. I also understand that the intelligence services have foiled many attempted attacks in the past decade that did not see the light of day.
When we are combating the new regime of terrorism in which the death of the terrorist is part of the plan, and in which maximum lethality—killing as many citizens as possible—is the target, however, we surely cannot spare
338WH
any Government effort to protect our citizens abroad and the assets of our economy overseas. I would like the Minister to confirm that it is the prime objective of the Government, services and security forces to focus on protecting our citizens and assets overseas, as that is not especially clear in the response.
The second subject with which I want to deal is the conflict in the middle east. Shortly after the attack on the World Trade Centre, the Prime Minister said:
"now more than ever, we have reason not to let the middle east peace process slip still further, but if at all possible to reinvigorate it".>[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c. 606.]
As members of our Committee will remember, the Foreign Secretary told us in evidence that
"the conflict in the Middle East has unquestionably helped create a climate in which terrorists can both hide and breed."
That is not surprising, given that Osama bin Laden made it clear that one of his objectives was to end the suffering of Palestinians.
It is important to remember the causality of the issue. Militant Palestinian groups have clearly said that their main aims are to end Israeli occupation and establish a Palestinian state. At the moment, in the events leading up to the crisis in Iraq, the response of the Arab states to our concern about Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions is to point to Israel's failure to comply with resolutions that affect it. At the same time, it is equally correct to point out Palestinian failures to comply with those resolutions.
The United States has made its policy clear. It is to support a Palestinian state, support Israel within secure boundaries, and support each at peace with the other. But, as a previous American President would say, "Where's the beef?" We must look to the United States to take a lead as part of our foreign policy. We want positive and firm action to end the bloodshed in Palestine and Israel. It is vital that the US takes the initiative because current perception in the middle east is that US foreign policy is one sided to the detriment of the region's Arab populations. That fuels Osama bin Laden's demand for the removal of US influence from the middle east or, as he would say, "Banishing the invading infidel from Islamic lands." That lends the matter a new urgency.
At the same time, we need to focus our efforts on improving and strengthening relations with Arab and Muslim countries that are affected by international terrorism. Saudi Arabia is a case in point, as are other countries, such as Egypt. All those countries share characteristics. They experience massive demographic growth and social change, and contain archaic institutions that impede economic growth. Those who are educated are often denied jobs and become a new class in those countries: the educated poor. The Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence that the greatest problem in the region is unemployment, not the fear of jihad or Sharia. The high level of popular discontent among those people increases the growth of anti-western groups. If one adds in the facts that public assembly and demonstration are banned in the repressive regimes of most of the countries and that a huge spurt in population growth is creating a new generation of economically excluded, disaffected and repressed young men and women, it is not surprising that recent statistics show that there has been a major

339WH
increase over the past decade in the proportion of international terrorism attacks that are linked to quasi-religious concepts, as I call them.
The Government must make every effort to help the Islamic world address the social, economic and political conditions that cause the growth of extremism. The Government, in conjunction with our allies in the United States, must press for greater awareness that our interests and US interests are best served by playing a full part in international development in its widest sense. Irrespective of the Government's recent claims about stepping up our involvement, we will have to do far more if we are to tackle the causes of international terrorism as well as protect ourselves from its effects.
Hon. Members have spoken about the situation in Iraq. There is overwhelming concern throughout not only our individual constituencies, but the country as a whole, that we will be sucked into a war with Iraq as part of a coalition of two, with the United States as our partner. Any war, whatever the circumstances, must be the last resort and launched only when all other efforts have failed. The most important thing is that a war must have the backing of international law. I hope that the Minister can help us by stating clearly the Government's objectives. Will he confirm that we will abide by the decision of the Security Council of the United Nations on the resolutions on Iraq? Will the Government respect the need to protect the United Nations' integrity as the seat of international law? Is the pursuit of a new UN Security Council resolution a legal necessity or a political necessity?
Given Saddam Hussein's track record, do the Government really believe that the permanent destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stocks and its ability to manufacture them can be achieved without regime change? We only have to remember Saddam Hussein's record. When he was asked shortly after the Gulf war what mistakes he made in getting involved in the conflict, he said that his only mistake was to invade Kuwait before he had acquired nuclear weapons. That gives us a good insight into his mind. If we recognise, therefore, that Hussein's strategy is for regional dominance preserved by having weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against international intervention, we can start to understand the seriousness of the problem. What faith can the Government have that a new inspection regime will find all Iraq's WMD stocks, dismantle and destroy its manufacturing capabilities and ensure that WMD programmes are not restarted as soon as the inspectors tick the right boxes and leave the country? I do not suggest that there is an easy answer to the question. Nevertheless, I believe that, in the interests of the citizens of this country, the Government are responsible for giving us some answers to those questions.
Finally, I should like to deal with the war against terrorism. That key issue will be a problem for us for decades to come. We in the west must understand that we can no longer live by our own interests and promote our commerce, industry and foreign policy solely in our own interests. Unless we recognise that, the responsibilities that we have for the world at large, and the frustration and, often, humiliation that other cultures feel when they are left behind in the globalisation process, I am afraid that we will never find a satisfactory rapport with the wider world.
3.40 pm
Ann Clwyd: About six years ago in this Room I launched a campaign called Indict, which was set up by several Iraqi opposition figures—now leading figures—and various other people who were interested in Iraq. That campaign was launched with the backing of all the great and the good: John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, everybody hon. Members can think of throughout the world.
We had no money. A year went by, however, and the US Congress voted us money under the Iraq Liberation Act 1998. I found it rather interesting that Jesse Helms was one of the people behind that Act. That vote allotted a sum of money to Indict and that has come to us from the US Congress every year since then, although the control of the organisation rested firmly here. I want to make that quite clear, because yesterday in the Washington Post, there was a headline: "US would seek to try Hussein for war crimes."
"The article continued:
The Bush administration is building cases against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and more than a dozen members of his inner circle who could be charged with crimes against humanity if the Iraqi government is toppled, according to U.S. officials."
That shows the difference between the attitude of we who run Indict and the US Administration who fund us. We want to see Iraqi officials indicted before there is any regime change, because afterwards, if that ever takes place, I suspect that most of the people who we would have indicted would already have disappeared, in one way or another, from the surface of the earth.
I notice that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recommended that the Government work with the United States to ensure that any action taken against Iraq, or any other state, in the war against terrorism conforms to internationl law. The Government say that they are happy to confirm their commitment to ensure that any action they take is in accordance with international law.
The United States press has, during the past few weeks and months, continually mentioned the possibility of indicting leading members of the Iraqi regime." An article appeared a few weeks ago in the New York Times, which said:
"The United States should launch an effort to prosecute Saddam for crimes against humanity. This would destabilize his regime at home, encourage more defections of Iraqi officials and military officers and increase the prospect of a coup that, in the best-case scenario, would render an invasion unnecessary."
That idea is referred to
"in books by Richard Butler"
and Kanan Makiya. Those who follow Iraqi history closely will know that Kanan Makiya is one of the leading Iraqi academics writing about Iraq. The article continues:
"Mr Makiya writes that the best way to topple an Iraqi leader is to make him lose face. As an example, he cites the Ottoman-era practice of the people of Takrit (Saddam's hometown) of seizing the governor for the area, humiliating him … and then releasing him unharmed.
The Bush administration is interested in the idea of prosecuting Saddam,"
as were the Clinton Administration before them.
The Clinton Administration made life very difficult for our organisation; there was a difference of opinion in the State Department, with one group of officials pulling

341WH
one way and one group pulling another. Mainly, the idea was to contain Saddam and not cause any upsets. Causing an upset would, of course, include indicting leading members of the regime. The US thinking, now as then, is that the prosecution should begin when Saddam is in custody, rather than before that. Why? I suspect that that thinking also applies to our Government, although I hope that the Minister has other information for me.
A US Administration official acknowledged that there might be an advantage in a pre-emptive indictment, and expressed the concern that a legal effort might detract from the task of regime change. That is one of the fundamental differences between the attitude of our Government and that of the US Government. That is a fair concern, but I am sure that we do not need reminding that in Yugoslavia, Milosevic was indicted when he was still in power, in 1999. The indictment was a factor that helped to result in his being ousted from power in 2000. In 2001, he was sent to The Hague for trial.
Firing lawyers at the regime would bolster, not weaken, our military options. It is a third option, and I think that it is one that will appeal to many in this country who are opposed to war but would like something to be done about the regime. Let me say what has been happening behind the scenes. One of our difficulties at Indict was due to our contract with the US, which did not want us to—in fact prohibited us from—publicise what we were doing in the US. That has not stopped us from publicising our actions in the United Kingdom.
Indict has presented evidence all of which was checked for quality by a leading British human rights lawyer—to the Attorney-General and prosecutors in five countries, including Norway. More than two years ago. I took the evidence to the Attorney-General of this country. Our Queen's counsel said that it would be possible, under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, to prosecute leading members of the regime, including Tariq Aziz and others, for taking British nationals hostage during the build-up to the Gulf war in 1991.
We have located former hostages, acquired signed statements, and detailed the significant psychological damage done both to hostages and their families. We have documentation sent by Saddam Hussein to the UN. We have videotapes of Saddam Hussein meeting hostages and assuring them that they would be released when the attitude of their Government changed. We have testimony from politicians and senior Government officials from several countries who were present during negotiations, when it was made clear that the fate of those hostages depended on the actions of their Governments and that Tariq Aziz was a full participant in the policy of hostage taking.
Our QC says that our researchers at Indict have built up a formidable case. Under a judgment of the International Court of Justice in February this year, heads of state and Foreign Ministers are immune from prosecution while they remain in those positions. Tariq Aziz is no longer a Foreign Minister. Our QC believes that he should be
"made to answer on charges of hostage taking contrary to section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982."
342WH
She says that there is
"more than sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction."
Her opinion concludes:
"I consider there is more than enough evidence to justify the issue of a warrant of arrest should … Tariq Aziz enter the United Kingdom or any country in which the United Kingdom warrant for arrest could form the basis for a request for extradition."
Saddam Hussein does not travel and, for the moment, we must take it that he may be immune from prosecution. Tariq Aziz does travel, and so do other leading members of the regime. Ali Hassan al-Majid, who was responsible for the chemical attack on the Kurds, and various others travel.
As I said, evidence was provided to the Attorney-General in September 2000. In March 2001, the Attorney-General refused an arrest warrant but referred the evidence to the Metropolitan Police because he thought that Tariq Aziz might have a case to answer. The police were also referred to Operation Sandcastle. People do not seem to want to talk about Operation Sandcastle too much. It was set up in 1991 to establish an investigation and inquiry team to collect and collate evidence of war crimes that had been committed by Iraqis against British citizens or that had been witnessed by British citizens in the Gulf from August 1990 until the cessation of hostilities. The operation found—although this was never published—considerable evidence of systematic and continuous grave breaches of the fourth Geneva convention by the Iraqi authorities and by members of the Iraqi armed forces and their collaborators, against the personal and property rights of British subjects.
In December last year, the new Attorney General said that the police investigation had not altered the evidential position and referred to the war against terror taking priority. We were not told whether any hostages had been interviewed by the police. Our legal advisers challenge that judgment. They believe that an indictment can be made. I hope that the Minister will not give me the same reply that the Secretary of State gave me in September, because one does not physically have to have hold of the people whom one wants to indict. They can be indicted in their absence. It is wrong to suggest that indictment is a silly idea because one can never get hold of people.
The case in support of the hostages involves a wide coalition of nations. There are former hostages in many countries, including Muslim countries. One successful case in the United Kingdom could lead to copycat cases around the world, helping to isolate and de-legitimise Iraq's leaders and make it more difficult for them to repair relations that could, in the longer term, help them to re-arm and develop weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror is a priority. The issuing of arrest warrants could be presented as part of a multidimensional campaign against terror. That idea could be attractive to those who are against war; it could be a non-violent alternative to military action against Iraq. It could be attractive to others as a device to unsettle the regime and further de-legitimise its leaders. Lack of action encourages others to perpetrate such acts of terrorism in future.
The hostages are British citizens and MPs' constituents who suffered and continue to suffer. I assure hon. Members that it is very difficult to interview

343WH
some of the victims of the regime. Even the victims in this country are still fearful of talking about their experiences.
The United Kingdom has already paid for an investigation into hostage taking—Operation Sandcastle, which answers much of the argument about police resources and public expenditure. Action would help to combat criticism that, at the time, the Ministry of Defence wasted taxpayers' money on an operation that appears not to have been followed through.
Hostage taking is also a grave breach of the Geneva convention 1949. In such cases, all state signatories, including the UK. have not only a right, but an obligation under international law to prosecute or extradite offenders. If Tariq Aziz visited a country that signed the Geneva convention, that country would have an obligation to arrest or extradite him if a UK arrest warrant had been sent there. If there is a war on terror, why would the UK not wish to arrest a war criminal, or at least send a message to the world that war criminals and those who perpetrate acts of terror should not be allowed free international movement?
We have taken cases to five European countries. The Americans cannot do what we are doing, which was why they gave us the money in the first place. Under the statute of limitations, they have run out of time. European countries, however, can do what we propose. We have taken cases to Norway, Switzerland and Belgium, and one of those other countries may well act before the UK, but we are running out of time. If we want to show what we think of the Iraqi regime, short of waging war against that country, the UK should pursue the option that I propose.
Miss Anne Begg (in the Chair): I should like the summing up to begin at 4.40 pm. If the five hon. Members who have indicated that they would like to speak confine their remarks to approximately 10 minutes each, they will all get a chance to contribute. As for my nomenclature, Miss Begg or Madam Chairman will do.
3.57 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I want to concentrate on the intelligence aspects of the report from the standpoint of the Intelligence and Security Committee on which I serve. Last week, we were in Australia, where the impact of the Bali incident cannot be underestimated. The effect was devastating on people and communities. Entire football teams on their annual excursions were caught up in the horror of Bali.
In some areas of Australia, it is easier to get to Bali than to Sydney, so the impact cannot be underestimated; nor, indeed, can the commitment of the people and Government of Australia to play their full part in tackling terrorism. They look at Indonesia, a country with a population of 200 million that is significantly unstable; there are more unstable countries in the region. Australia's population is 20 million and its people are conscious of the dangers that they face. Our co-operation with them is, rightly, very close.
While we were in Australia, the Foreign Secretary asked us to begin the process of examining the intelligence evidence available prior to the Bali attack. He wants us to assess whether the Government gave the
344WH
right travel advice or whether they should have altered it, or whether any other action should have flowed from that intelligence. We will shortly embark on that task.
Our work is different from, and complementary to, that of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is our job to ensure that the intelligence and security services have the resources that they need and use them effectively, appropriately and lawfully to fulfil their role of defending our free and democratic society. For that purpose, we have access to intelligence material and assessments to which the Foreign Affairs Committee does not have access. Our job is different. Conversely, it is not our job to make judgments about or examine the wider foreign policy issues that the Foreign Affairs Committee has so helpfully explored in the extremely useful report that we are discussing. There are a number of points where our paths cross and it would be helpful to refer to them. The first concerns resources. The first recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee report states:
"We recommend that in its response to this Report the Government state whether or not the British intelligence agencies on which the security of the United Kingdom depends have the human, financial and other resources they require to offer the best possible protection against terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom or on British posts and facilities overseas (paragraph 26)."
We drew attention to that in our report when we said:
"The Committee believes that reductions in the Agencies' funding during the 1990s, together with staff shortages that were being addressed after the SR2000 settlement, meant that the Agencies were resource limited and operating under financial pressures prior to the 11 September attacks."
Mr. Chidgey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was a massive intelligence failure leading up to the events of 11 September? Does he not find it strange that the United States agencies accept that and yet our own Government do not appear to do so?
Mr. Beith: Much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend. I do not agree with his proposition. First, this was much more a security failure than an intelligence failure. There is an important distinction between the two. That distinction is drawn by most of those with whom I have discussed the matter in the United States. Secondly, the report relates specifically to the UK's involvement, although there is a significant overlap in the relationship between the two. On other grounds too, I will argue that to describe what happened as a massive intelligence failure is significantly misleading and might lead one to draw the wrong conclusions about what to do next.
Donald Anderson: It might interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, said this morning that in his view the British Government's response to Bali was wholly appropriate.
Mr. Beith: That is a wise comment, as I would expect from a former student of mine whom I am glad to see doing such a good job. Indeed, we had useful discussions with him while we were in Australia. I will return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) shortly. I wanted to make the point that in their response the Government quite

345WH
rightly referred to the increase in resources made available to the intelligence and security services since 11 September. The increases are enumerated in the Government's response. They are necessary and they are welcome.
It remains the case that capacity has been diverted from other intelligence requirements and it will take time to restore that capacity. Even if the money is sufficient to do so, it takes time to develop the facilities or to train and recruit the personnel that may be necessary to fill gaps that are created by moving resources into an area of such urgent need. The longer-term funding of the agencies has to be maintained at levels that will meet the threat and avoid the situation that we think existed before 11 September. Our Committee did not go so far as to conclude that had the agencies had no financial problems at all prior to 11 September, the outcome in this instance would necessarily have been different, even with hindsight. It is impossible to draw that conclusion.
Was there an intelligence failure in the UK? I was interested in what the Foreign Affairs Committee said on that. The key point in paragraph 23 is:
"It would appear that before 11 September, both the US and the United Kingdom failed to gather or share good intelligence, or they failed to interpret it correctly, or they failed to act on it. We are not in a position to judge which was the case".
I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), but that is a rather curious wording. It implies that at least one of them was the case. We had failed to gather or share good intelligence, failed to interpret it correctly or failed to act upon it. It is not entirely clear that any of those three things was the case. I refer instead to the judgment that we made, having looked at all the relevant material. That took some time. Not all the material arrived in the first instance, but it had by the time we reached our final judgment and so we made our judgment with hindsight.
We referred in paragraph 65 of our report to the Joint Intelligence Committee paper published in July 2001, which is essentially what Ministers were looking at when they considered, at that stage, prior to September 11, whether any significant further or different action was required by the mounting threat posed by bin Laden and his associates.
The July 2001 JIC paper concluded that
"plans for attacks were in their final stages but that the timings, targets and methods of attack were not known. This assessment was not a stark warning of immediate danger to the UK. The shortage of specific intelligence and UBL's record could have warned all concerned that more urgent action was needed to counter this threat. Whether this could have forestalled any of UBL's actions can only be a matter for conjecture. The Committee concludes, with hindsight, that the scale of the threat and the vulnerability of Western states to terrorists with this degree of sophistication and a total disregard for their own lives was not understood."
That judgment was toiled over very carefully and was a unanimous judgment by the Committee. It reflects a broader failure by the community at large, and the political community, to recognise what was going wrong in Afghanistan and the power that al-Qaeda was exercising there. The issue could not have been dealt with in terms of its intelligence consequences by the
346WH
sudden rapid deployment of massive resources into intelligence in the area. Had Ministers read that report as suggesting that that were so—they cannot be criticised for not doing so—I do not believe that the sudden rapid deployment of intelligence resources would have been at all likely to gain the intelligence needed to forestall that attack. The danger was more generally seen to be to American assets and, potentially, to British interests scattered around the world, which is where a number of the more recent incidents had taken place.
There was undoubtedly a security failure, which is apparent from the most basic things, such as the lack of airport security at United States airports on domestic flights. But for it to be a massive intelligence failure there would have to have been a failure to use available intelligence—we did not conclude that that had happened—or a failure to use available means of gaining intelligence effectively. That was not so as far as the UK was concerned. The jury is still out; indeed, some of the bodies that are considering the matter are still out in the United States, particularly in respect of the sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA and the extent to which the American system compartmentalises information that, if shared, might conceivably have led to different conclusions.
One of the lessons we had to learn was the broader failure that was summed up by the Foreign Secretary when he told our Committee that the west had walked away from Afghanistan. We had failed to appreciate the significance of Afghanistan being a failed state and the Taliban's consequent control of it. I refer to paragraph 58 of our report, where we refer to the effort that had been going on in dealing with the drugs problem in Afghanistan, which had been the major United Kingdom priority of interest in Afghanistan; it was the source of a very significant drugs traffic. Paragraph 58 states:
"However, the now publicly known links, particularly in funding, between UBL and the Taliban. The Taliban taxed the flow of drugs from Afghanistan and this, together with direct funding from Osama bin Laden as payment for allowing him to operate on their territory, represented the majority of their income."
Basically, Osama bin Laden had bought the Taliban; that, combined with their drugs income, was how they ran the country, insofar as they did run it. We should perhaps have been more aware of the political consequences of that situation. It is arguable that the west could have done more in a variety of ways to tackle it, although it is not an easy task nor one that could be dealt with by military intervention, regime change policy or anything like that. However, there might have been ways in which it could have been addressed.
The developing anxieties were noted at the Weston Park conference in July 2001. Prior to that, there had been agreement at the JIC to raise the order of priority for Afghanistan, so it cannot be said that either British Ministers or British intelligence agencies were unaware of the significance of work in Afghanistan, but perhaps not in that wider sense.
Another issue in which the paths of the two Committees cross is in paragraph 191 of the Foreign

347WH
Affairs Committee report, which refers to weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by them. It states:
"We recommend that the FCO, through GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service ensure that the highest priority is given to identification and prevention of attack on the United Kingdom or on British interests overseas by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction."
I entirely agree with that. It is reflected in present priorities and it also reflects what we said in the 1998–99 report, paragraph 57 of which stated:
"The threat to our armed forced deployed overseas from these weapons is very real, and we believe that the Agencies play a vital role in establishing the threat to our service personnel."
That is fully reflected in the agencies' work.
Finally, I happily endorse the view of the Foreign Affairs Committee that, if we are to protect our citizens from the terrible threats that have come to fruition in the twin towers, the Pentagon and in Bali,
"priority must be given to the gathering, assessment and use of high-grade intelligence information".
The United Kingdom is achieving that in a way that is generally respected and admired by the intelligence communities and political leaderships of some of our key allies. Indeed, one of the results of 11 September is a renewed interest in the manner in which the United Kingdom organises and assesses intelligence and communicates it to Ministers and political leaders. Definite advantages are acknowledged in the way in which our system operates, despite the small resources at our disposal in comparison with the United States. The fact that we achieve so much from limited resources is widely respected.
To inflict death and destruction, the terrorist needs to succeed only once. To prevent acts of death and destruction, the intelligence and security forces have to succeed every time; a well nigh impossible task. It is right that the Foreign Affairs Committee challenges the political and intelligence community from its standpoint of examining the foreign policy implications of having good intelligence. We seek to complement that work. Sometimes we can make a more accurate judgment about what happens, but much of what the Foreign Affairs Committee says and what the Intelligence and Security Committee says on the same subject is complementary.
4.12 pm
Mike GapesI began preparing this speech for a debate in September. In that sense, it is the single transferable speech to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) referred. I promise that I will not go too far.
I am delighted to have the opportunity at last to speak on this international crisis. It is a tribute to the new system at Westminster Hall; those who are not Privy Councillors, ex-Ministers or current members of any Select Committee at last have a chance to make a speech.
I speak the day after the fall of the Israeli Government. I do not accept the facile argument that events in Israel and Palestine somehow justify crimes and terrorism in other parts of the world. However, all who care, as I do, for a secure state of Israel while wanting a viable Palestinian state living alongside it in peace will view the possibility of change in Israeli politics with some apprehension, but perhaps more
348WH
optimism. In the short term, it probably sets back the prospects of a middle east conference. If an election is called within 90 days, we shall face difficulties until at least February or March, or whenever a new coalition finally comes together after the election. A potential Palestinian election may be in the offing, which also complicates the possibilities of a comprehensive middle east peace settlement.
I want to put on record—largely because of misrepresentations by some people in my constituency—that because I chose not to vote against a motion for the Adjournment of the House, or to take part in mere gesture politics, that does not mean that I am a warmonger, that I support war or that I should be the target of abuse by people in my constituency who are planning demonstrations today to protest against the war. It does not mean that those of us who have not gone along with glib slogans are somehow in favour of war. I place that on the record in the strongest possible way.
I support the United Nations; in fact, I am vice-chair of the UN parliamentary group after several years of chairing it. We need a UN Security Council resolution to ensure that the obligations placed on the Iraqi Government under mandatory chapter VII sections of the UN charter are fulfilled. The international community faces the problem that there has been systematic leakage on the sanctions front, and that for a long time the Iraqi regime has been receiving money for smuggled oil. It has not been sold though the oil programme sanctioned by the UN, but has gone out through Turkey, Iran or other means, including Syria.
Is containment working? We do not know. No-fly zones are one part of containment. When I visited the UN monitors on the border in 2000, the operation was a combination of Bangladeshi, Irish, Argentinian, Canadian, American, Chinese, Russian and British people working together. It has protected Kuwait from a further invasion, but has not succeeded in returning the 603 disappeared Kuwaitis to their families. Nor can it—that is, if they are still alive; no one knows whether they are. The operation has not succeeded—combined with the no-fly operation, it is not designed to do so—in assisting in the democratisation and the liberation of the people of Iraq from the tyranny that is Saddam.
My constituency is very mixed. Among my constituents are British Muslims who were held hostage when they went on a pilgrimage in 1991. I helped to make representations about them at that time. In fact, one was not released until after I was elected to Parliament in 1992. Iraqi Kurds who have been tortured and whose families have been gassed and Iraqi Shias live in my constituency, as well as people who believe that we should take no action against Iraq, because it is a Muslim state and launching an attack would constitute colonialist imperialism.
An Iraqi Kurd came to my advice surgery a few months ago. He said—I have no way of knowing whether this is true—that once the Iraqi people began to understand that, this time, the international community was serious, it would be only three or four days before we had a Ceausescu scenario in Iraq. The people would take matters into their own hands with regard to members of the regime. I suspect that, in that sense, it might be easier for regime members to be indicted than to be strung up, but I do not know whether that view is

349WH
right, and I do not believe that anyone else can. People in opposition often make exaggerated claims about internal situations in countries.
Let us be clear that we are talking about a despicable regime. The question is what the international community will do to enforce the resolutions that we have adopted over the years. In an interesting article in The Guardian on 18 September, a former UN weapons inspector, Tim Trevan, described the cat-and-mouse, cheat-and-retreat policy operated by Saddam's regime for a number of years. He said that the real question was not inspections, but disarmament.
The real test is in the resolution that I hope the UN Security Council will adopt this week, because I am against United States unilateral action. I hope that we can have a robust UN Security Council resolution. However, the real test is not the wording of the resolution, but what will happen in a few weeks or months when the cheat and retreat happens again. At that point, in January, February or March, will the Security Council be prepared to grasp the nettle of enforcement of its decisions?
I do not believe that we are imminently about to go to war in Iraq, but we are facing a real test of the credibility of the international community. We face a problem, in living in a world with one superpower. Since the end of the cold war, one state has global military capabilities, intelligence and surveillance, along with a defence budget equivalent to that of the next-ranked 15 countries in the world added together; it has increased its defence expenditure for one year by an amount equivalent to the whole Russian military spend.
In the days of the cold war we used to go on about the rouble and the dollar exchange rate, and we believed that there was great equivalence. It was clearly not true; not then and certainly not today. That will get worse, not better, because the technological drive in the United States will go on and on. In Britain and in NATO we have a choice. Will we work to use what influence we can, as I believe the Prime Minister has done?
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was correct. If the United States Administration had followed the line put forward by the hawks, we would not be at the United Nations now. The United States would not have paid its debts after 11 September, and would not have rejoined UNESCO. Let us just think about that. In 1985, Reagan and Bush took the Americans out of UNESCO. Clinton did not get them back in. Bush junior got them back in, reversing a policy that his father's Administration had adopted 17 years previously. That is quite significant, yet it has not had the publicity it deserves.
I was for several years on the committee of the campaign to get Britain back into UNESCO. I am proud that one of the first acts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) as Secretary of State for International Development was to make that visit to Paris in 1997. Now the American Administration are back, too, and they are not unilateralist now. They are confused and divided and things are changing.
As a permanent member of the Security Council and a close ally of the United States, we must strengthen the process and the involvement. We must avoid a situation
350WH
in which the United States cherry-picks allies on particular issues or acts independently to the detriment of the world. That approach will require sensitivity and careful management. The Government are following the right course, which will make us much stronger in fighting the global terrorist threats that have arisen in recent years.
In conclusion, I have something to say that is probably pessimistic; I do not believe that it is possible to win wars against terrorism. I do not believe that terrorism can ever be defeated. It can be managed, minimised and, in certain circumstances, obviated by political action. However, if we are dealing with people who are campaigning to destroy what Osama bin Laden in September 2001 termed the "Zionist crusader alliance" and all its allies, we are in for a very long haul. It does not matter whether we are dealing with people in Karachi, Bali, Moscow, Jordan, Tunisia, India, Kashmir, Yemen or London; I strongly agree with what has been said about the dangers to this city.
We will face atrocities. They will happen. People will die. The reason is asymmetric warfare and the fact that there are totally ruthless people who are prepared to commit suicide because of their belief that they will go on to some greater life. Those things will be with us for the foreseeable future. We will never eradicate them totally, so we must be vigilant and work together politically and intelligently. Foreign policy, diplomacy, the intelligence services and our civil society must all work hand in hand.
Miss Anne Begg (in the Chair): I repeat my plea to hon. Members to be considerate to those hon. Members who are still to speak.
4.25 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I was one of the hon. Members who voted against the Adjournment motion of the House, but I certainly did not regard others who did not as warmongers. That is a very strange construction to put on not voting. I therefore fully support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes).
Today is, of course, "Don't attack Iraq" day, a day of protest organised by the Stop the War Coalition. Its resolution states that
"any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties."
I agree with that statement.
Hon. Members have already raised concerns about the possible, and possibly unilateral, action against Iraq. It is important to stress that hostile action against Iraq would undoubtedly be a war against the people of Iraq, not against the despicable tyrant, Saddam Hussein.
Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that in no conceivable circumstances could war be justified, whatever Saddam Hussein did, whatever an affront his actions were to the United Nations, whatever was known about weapons of mass destruction or whatever his defiance?
Mr. Llwyd: No.

351WH
We cannot and should not underestimate how the terrorist attacks of 11 September have changed defence, foreign affairs and home affairs policies of Governments throughout the world. No one could disagree that Saddam Hussein leads a brutal and callous regime with a total disregard for human beings. The cult of personality that he manifests is designed to protect only him, and is a facsimile of almost every other tyrant in the previous century. However, that does not give us the right to demand regime change. I support the Select Committee's recommendation in paragraphs 204 to 209 for a further definition of the Government's position on "regime change."
In the immediate aftermath of 11 September, when the eyes of the world were on military action in Afghanistan, the President of the United States made his intentions clear, at least inasmuch as they appertain to Iraq. He wanted to see Saddam Hussein removed from power and was ready to use unilateral military action to remove him from power if necessary. I share the belief that Saddam Hussein heads an evil regime and leads murderous attacks on his own people. However, that was not the view until very recently. Things seemed to change when the United States' economic interests were threatened, and perhaps Iraq must now become an enemy. I do not know. I am not an appeaser, and my single-word answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was not meant to be curt; I am merely limited by time.
There is a danger that the world could be heading towards adopting a totally different approach to security, with the notion of the pre-emptive strike replacing the old doctrines of deterrence and containment, and thereby flouting what appears now to be international law. That in turn undermines the authority of the United Nations, and calls into question the very credibility of that body. President Bush signalled that change of approach in a speech in June last year at the United States military academy. He said that the doctrines of deterrence and containment would no longer hold true in all circumstances in today's world. It is most worrying that he now feels entitled to promote a new doctrine; the pre-emptive strike.
I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation in paragraph 224 of the report, which again calls on the Government to set out its view on the circumstances in which pre-emptive strikes could be justified. What is alarming about the notion of a pre-emptive strike is that it was introduced without any debate or discussion in the international community. I am afraid that President Bush believes that because the United States has substantial military might, it may simply change the rules as a matter of course. That is a dangerous concept, and there has been an international outcry against President Bush's plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Worries were compounded when the Prime Minister made it clear that he backed the President, and said that Britain was ready to pay a "blood price" to maintain its relationship with the USA. That phrase is most disturbing.
Over the past century, many dictators have posed a specific and direct threat to both the UK and the USA. However, from all the evidence provided so far, my party, Plaid Cymru, believes that Iraq poses no direct threat to either UK or US interests.
Based on the threadbare dossier published by the UK Government last month, to which hon. Members have referred, I fail to see that there is currently a justification for war against Iraq. We were treated to that long-awaited dossier on 24 September. It was probably the most unconvincing
352WH
document in recent political history. It is full of suppositions and ifs and buts, but it did not inform the debate, and certainly did not provide any justification for urgent military action.
I do not know whether Mr. Bush wants to settle old scores for his father, or to make a mark in the history books, or whether, perhaps, he is motivated by the economic downturn and his re-election chances. However, we do need to know about the "special relationship" that binds the UK Government to Mr. Bush's stand, about which there is great concern. If the USA wants to go it alone, that is all well and good. However, I do not want to see young people from these islands losing their lives in what I perceive to be an unjustifiable war, thousands of miles away, which could be protracted and without boundaries.
We know that a dubious justification for a full-scale military assault has been given. It will be necessary to persuade the hearts and minds of the people of the UK and the USA, and that has signally not yet happened. Recent polls showed that 58 per cent. of the people of Britain opposed a war on Iraq, and there is a similar groundswell of disapproval in the United States. Last week, there were protests in Washington, Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Rome and Tokyo, as well as in London, Cardiff and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of people were opposing an unjustifiable war, many waving banners saying, "Drop Bush, not bombs."
Not only are individuals opposing the war, but entire Governments are also opposed to the attack. That is evident in the UN's current failure to agree on a new resolution. I hope that such a resolution will be forthcoming shortly, and that it will be robust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He condemned Saddam Hussein, and seems to accept that there has been some development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although he does not take the view that that is a direct threat. The hon. Gentleman accepts that Saddam has committed massive human rights abuses and has breached UN resolutions, so he cannot seriously argue that Saddam is complying with international law. I wait to hear what he wants to do about that. So far, we have heard that he wants to do absolutely nothing.
Mr. Llwyd: I was coming to that. I did not say half of what the Minister claimed. I did not mention the breaches of UN resolutions, nor several other points. The Minister seemed fairly excited in intervening.
My suggestion goes along with the French way of looking at the situation. They want a robust, belt-and-braces resolution, and I fully agree with that. We urgently need a robust and strongly worded resolution. There should be a return to the Security Council in, say, six months' time, to see what has happened and whether Iraq has been playing cat and mouse, or whether it has fully complied with the resolution. At that stage, we should re-examine the situation. That is my direct answer to the Minister.
It seems strange that Iraq is currently perceived as a threat to the United States, when Iraq has 10 per cent. of the military strength that it had prior to the Gulf war of 1990, and we are told that its range of attack is 650

353WH
km. I am not an appeaser for Iraq, but we should not rush into something until all the other options have been carefully explored. It is obvious, however, that they have not, since the Security Council is now discussing what I hope will he another option. I fully support that action; there should be a strong, robust resolution, and I hope to heaven that it will be observed. If not, the matter will have to be revisited.
I do not want to be unfair to other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I shall make another brief point about war with Iraq. The Oxford research group says that at least 10,000 innocent Iraqi citizens would be killed in a conventional war. That could escalate, which would create further problems worldwide. These are matters that we need constantly to bear in mind.
The former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, said that an attack on Iraq to overthrow its Government would be
"a flagrant violation of the UN charter, the Nuremberg charter and international law."
I am no expert on international law, but we live in a world that is unsettled by many international disputes, and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are being lost. The United States is the world's greatest superpower, and it should be fighting for peace and justice. The Israel-Palestine situation has been referred to, and the India-Pakistan conflict is another; there are plenty more. We all know about the problems caused by the arrogance of imperialism. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has yet to learn the lessons of history.
4.36 pm
Joan Ruddock: I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the members of the Committee on the report, with which I wholeheartedly agree. My right hon. Friend introduced the debate by quoting from the report's final paragraph, which stated:
"To 'know thine enemy' is not enough. We also need to determine how the conditions that have contributed to the development of terrorism can be removed".
My right hon. Friend will also be familiar, as I am, with the Government's response, which I wholeheartedly endorse. All the Government's recommendations need to be put into the international arena to attempt to prevent terrorism recurring and to remove it where it exists. However, I believe that we need to pay a little more attention to the situation in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was and is a failed state. Terrorism took hold there and has since flourished. We believe that we have defeated it, in that al-Qaeda has been dispersed, but there is plenty of evidence that this is in no sense a final solution for that country or the end of the al-Qaeda network. I believe that the reconstruction of Afghanistan is in every sense a test of the new world order of which the Prime Minister has spoken.
I was in Kabul last month, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was there even more recently. When I arrived, it was only a matter of days since the attempted assassination of President Karzai—an attempt that he escaped only narrowly—and a bomb in Kabul had killed 26 people. I was there
354WH
on 9 September, the anniversary of Masood's death, and on 11 September, so it was a particularly tense and difficult time.
While there, I talked to many ordinary people to find out how they felt about what was going on. They were fulsome in their praise of the ISA F, and they accepted that the situation in the city was so much better. None the less, people in the city had a constant sense of insecurity; but said that was much more so in other parts of the country, where 80 per cent. of the population lives.
The insecurity among those who lived in the city resulted, for example, from the fact that when people were blown up by the bomb in Kabul, no significant medical aid was immediately available. People had to go to one ill-equipped hospital, because the emergency services do not exist as we know them. Everyone who might be involved in an incident feels incredibly insecure and worried about what could happen to them.
Outside Kabul, it is acknowledged that warlords are still active. There is the drugs trade, which our Government are attempting to assist in eradicating, but in many ways people admit that the security situation outside the capital is worse than on 11 September. We have a huge job to do there, and I believe that security is a prerequisite for rebuilding the state. Without it, we will have no hope of reconstructing—or constructing for the first time—a viable state with the Afghans.
To examine the difficulties with security further, we must consider what is happening to women. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East spoke optimistically about the gains that women had made, and they are indeed great. Women can work, girls can go to school and the burqa need not be worn on the streets. However, the situation is still difficult. Many women still wear the burqa because they suffer harassment on the street, and I have talked to such women. There is also considerable violence against women. Furthermore, if women are present in cars that are being searched, the occupants will be asked whether there are cassettes in the car. Women are seeing the old Taliban mentality again on the streets, probably because the people in uniform—they are called the police and may or may not be Taliban—are untrained and have power without responsibility.
I have enormous concerns about the position of women. In the past four days, four girls' schools in Wardak province, near Kabul, have been burned down. What is the significance of those attacks? Were they initiated by al-Qaeda or the Taliban? They send a serious signal, which we cannot ignore if we are to ensure that there is no resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special representative for Afghanistan, spoke to the Security Council yesterday. He said that security remained a priority concern and that sporadic fighting continued to erupt from time to time, particularly in the north and the south-east and, to a lesser extent, in the west. The limited means of the Government and of United Nations interventions allowed them only to put out, rather than prevent local fires. He said that there would be no long-term solutions until a well-trained, well-equipped and regularly paid national army and police force were put in place, and that international support was needed in the meantime to provide security.

355WH
Mr. Brahimi has called repeatedly for the expansion of ISAF, and the issue is raised in paragraph 117 of the report. The Government response states:
"The key will be security sector reform and the development of Afghanistan's own security structures."
The Minister and I have debated the issue before, and he knows that that reform and the building of security structures by the Afghans are proceeding very slowly. Training is being offered only to a few elite police officers, and regular police personnel on the streets have had none. The formation of the Afghan army is proceeding in several ways, but I am concerned about the lack of cohesion. It will take five years before a fully fledged army is available. We must consider the issue of security outside the capital and the possibility of expanding ISAF.
I want the Minister to make clear what is meant by the reference in the Government response to the ISAF effect. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in an interview at the BBC, spoke of new arrangements as regards the ISAF effect, saying that they would be based on coalition forces. However, those forces are engaged in war fighting, and there could be a conflict between that role, which I have supported, and a role that might drift into humanitarian activities. We need to know what is meant in the Government response and what the Secretary of State meant in yesterday's interview.
The Minister may know of the concerns of non-governmental organisations and UN delivery services about the difficulties that they may face if they approach a community at the same time as coalition forces. Those forces might be searching people or, in other cases, handing out assistance. That needs to be clarified. What are we up to? What is going on?
Finally, I want to refer to Mr. Brahimi's suggestion that long-term security will require a well-equipped and regularly paid national army and police force. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that, unless things have changed in the last few days, the police in Kabul have not been paid for the past three months. That is no way to guarantee a trustworthy police service. If one is burgled and stabbed in one's home— as a woman whom I know in Kabul was recently— one does not call the police because it is thought that they might be involved in such criminal activities. The police are not trusted; how can they be when they have had no training, they do not have a code of conduct and they are not being paid? How do they live and provide for their families?
That is also a consideration when it comes to the national army. People are still being recruited through the Afghans— rather than through the French and American operation— and I believe that these raw recruits are not paid and cannot support their families. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to all my concerns. If we are to reduce, contain and tackle international terrorism, we must at the very least demonstrate to the world and to the Afghans that this time we will not walk away; we will assist in every way properly to reconstruct that country.
Miss Anne Begg (in the Chair): I inform Members that I wish to start the summing up speeches at 4.50 pm.
4.46 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Once again, the Committee is to be congratulated on an excellent and well-balanced report, and this has been an excellent and well-balanced debate.
There has been a positive verdict on the basic response to 11 September, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has said— on the role of the Prime Minister in bringing about restraint and multilateralism in the campaign. There has also been a positive response to the military campaign in Afghanistan and I acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). However, we have to recognise that al-Qaeda has been massively damaged; it has not been destroyed. We do not know the fate of Osama bin Laden and I hope that our concentration on the campaign against terrorism will not be diverted too much by the prior agenda of the hard right in the United States.
While the report rightly commends Britain for having accepted and advocated the International Criminal Court, there has been concern about Britain's role in the European Union with regard to bilateral deals relating to US exemptions. Can the Minister explain Britain's position? The report raised the issue of nuclear weapons first-use, which we have discussed before. It is reassuring that the Government recognise that negative security assurances under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty should be observed.
However, I am slightly concerned about what is meant by the remarks of Ambassador Broucher, to the effect that the negative security assurances would not be applicable if any beneficiary were in material breach of its non-proliferation obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I hope that it does not mean that if we believed a state to be seeking nuclear weapons, although it had not obtained them, we would be justified in a nuclear weapons first-use. That would not be consistent with some of the Government's statements. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister.
Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism are the major threats of this century, yet there is a danger— not in the report, but elsewhere— of vague language leading to imprecise thinking. There is talk of problems of weapons of mass destruction as if the situation can be resolved by dealing with one or two so-called rogue states and as if the situation were not as complex as it really is. The term "weapons of mass destruction" dangerously confuses the different threats posed by biological and chemical weapons and by nuclear weapons, the most dangerous of all.
We need to distinguish between unconditional terrorism and what might be called politically targeted terrorism. There is a difference between groups like al-Qaeda, which might be inclined to use weapons of mass destruction because such groups are unconditional and, say, paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, who would not be interested in such weapons. That is important when we consider the terms used by the United States in referring to states that have weapons of mass destruction and relations with terrorism.
The United States itself has weapons of mass destruction and undoubtedly has had relations with organisations such as the Contras and even al-Qaeda. However, not even the wildest anti-Americans would

357WH
suggest that the United States would be likely to supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organisations. There is a danger that the United States has been arbitrary in the way in which it has assigned threats.
The threat must be dealt with by multilateral arms control and non-proliferation, and the Government have recently done some excellent work on the biological and toxic weapons convention. The threat should not be dealt with by unilateral counter-proliferation pre-emptive attacks. Pre-emption should only be considered in the most exceptional circumstances and not as policy, as suggested by the national security strategy. It can be justified against terrorists, against a state supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or when there was a real intent to attack.
The implications of any precedents are so worrying, however, that action must be taken multilaterally not unilaterally. It must not result from paranoid delusions. President Bush said in Cincinnati that Iraq might send unmanned aerial vehicles to attack the United States with biological weapons; as if those aircraft had the range even to reach the Atlantic ocean, let alone cross it, as if they could not be shot down, and as if that were really Saddam's intention.
I do not know what United Nations resolution we shall have, but I hope that we shall go by what we said, which was that we regard war as a last resort. War should be multilateral and not unilateral, or "unilateral plus posse". Otherwise, it could increase terrorist threats and reduce the strength and unity of the international coalition, which we will need if we are to achieve what the Committee Chairman said must be our major objective; to be tough on terrorism and the causes of terrorism.
4.52 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: The introduction to the report states:
"The war against terrorism has changed the priorities of the United Kingdom's foreign policy."
As the report notes, that is true of many other states in the United Nations and the European Union and, above all, of the United States.
The events of 11 September 2001 are seared on the memories of us all. Recent events in Bali have widened our concerns, and recent estimates suggest that more than 50 people have been killed in terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia and other countries in recent months. In all parts of the globe, the new realities of terrorism are being confronted.
The Committee recognises the fluidity of the situation, and refers to a continuing inquiry. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), another report will be published, and we look forward to that publication. This report is comprehensive and offers a broad sweep, and today many of the issues have been thoroughly debated.
The Committee, rightly, began its work in Afghanistan. It is important for us to recall and reflect on the fact that the campaign carried out in that country was by and large successful. There is some unfinished
358WH
business, notably the uncertainty about the fate of Osama bin Laden and the ongoing requirement to complete the work against al-Qaeda. It is also important that the new regime in Kabul is given full support. Will the Minister say something about the future of ISAF? Will it be continued, and could its remit be increased beyond the narrow areas around the capital, over which it has some authority? Afghanistan needs financial assistance and, for many years. there will be an ongoing international obligation and responsibility to that country. The United Kingdom must be commended for playing a central role in that regard, but we must not lose sight of that priority as events move on.
The report covers the issue of terrorism more widely. Undermining the causes of terrorism is a vital theme in the report, and those causes must be tackled as broadly as possible, perhaps in terms of conflict resolution.
Frequent mention has been made of the situation in the middle east, and I agree that we must continue to seek a solution that offers a secure Israel and a viable Palestine. The only way for us to do that is through dialogue. We must not lose sight of the prospects of a middle east peace conference, which perhaps have been lessened by the collapse of the Israeli Government in the past 24 hours.
If we are to undermine the causes of terrorism, we must focus not only on conflict resolution, but on continuing to examine how we offer development assistance to different countries. The European Union as a whole has a central role to play in that, and I hope that the Government will be part of such efforts.
Coping with terrorism in a technical sense is important. We have heard about the intelligence and security services. It is worth stressing the importance of the counter-terrorism committee of the United Nations. I especially commend the work of the United Kingdom ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and his team, which is central to that committee. The committee is another drain on UN resources, and it is important that it be fully supported.
An important and recurring theme of the debate has been the role of international law, on respect for which much of our moral authority depends. Our political credibility would be impossible without it. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East was right to highlight the change in the nature of terrorism, the fact that there might be a need to review the legal mechanisms and ways of combating terrorism, and the shortcomings that doing so might reveal in international law. Our international law must be upheld and supported. We must be absolutely clear about that. The depressing failure of the United States to support the International Criminal Court does not help in that regard.
We have had frequent and proper mentions of Iraq. Since the "axis of evil" speech, it has been a major factor in the international political scene. The link between weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and terrorism can or cannot be made, depending on one's point of view. Regardless of how we got here, the situation in Iraq is now serious. We all must want weapons of mass destruction removed, and we certainly do not want to see them in the hands of terrorists. We must also not be squeamish about pointing out the evil nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

359WH
The UN and international law must be at the heart of the solution to the serious situation in which we find ourselves. The return of weapons inspectors must be the objective. The US and UK attitude on that has at times appeared at variance with a United Nations approach. The new US doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, which has been commented on this afternoon, sits ill at ease with the UN. There has been a "Will they, won't they?" saga in recent weeks, and threats that action will be taken regardless if the UN does not pull its finger out. That is a dangerous doctrine. Too often, Britain has appeared closer to the United States than to those who support the United Nations and its approach. I hope that the Minister will give us further assurance that we will not lose sight of the importance of international law as the dangerous situation progresses.
We cannot allow double standards to apply. The response to North Korea has been in stark contrast to the rhetoric on how the UK and US seek to deal with Iraq. North Korea is another country listed in the "axis of evil", and one that has now admitted to having nuclear weapons capability.
The world is still coming to terms with the impact of 11 September and the subsequent events. As many have pointed out, the war is not a normal war. The nature of the responses will continue to evolve. The Committee has properly focused on the political, legal and other aspects of the Government's actions. It is absolutely right in its conclusion that we must also determine how the conditions that have contributed to the development of terrorism can be removed, or at least reduced. In the world community, understanding each other and working with one another is crucial. The coalition after 11 September was absolutely right, and that approach is vital to the future of our actions against Iraq. We have frequently heard that the United Kingdom can be the bridge between Europe and the United States of America. We must not forget the span that goes from Britain across to Europe.
In building the largest possible coalition in the war against terrorism or efforts to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, we must ensure that international law is our starting point. The belief that the UN must be the centrepiece and not a sideline must underpin any coalition. To be effective and to retain our moral authority, we must keep those principles at the forefront at all times. Likewise, we must also ensure that Parliament is allowed a proper role in deciding what part the UK plays in the ongoing war against terrorism.
5.1 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: The report is excellent and a credit to the workings of the Select Committee system. It is thorough and has brought the sides of the House together in a broad measure of agreement. A unanimous report is always a more powerful one.
I will take a rapid canter through some of the observations that the Conservative party has on the report in order to give the Minister at least 20 minutes in which to give some answers.
Everyone agrees that rather than simply glorying with the benefit of hindsight, we must learn the lesson of the need for better intelligence for the future. Intelligence should not simply be electronic, but, increasingly,
360WH
involve people with knowledge of local languages and contacts on the ground. Our intelligence services received a much-needed injection of funds after 11 September. As I said in the debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, that is welcome.
The men and women of our intelligence services are much more on the front line than many people realise. I hope that they and the Minister appreciate that in addition to the world of defence and politics, the world of commerce is an important source for many of the facts that they need to learn. As such, I think that everyone here will want to pay tribute to the Joint Intelligence Committee for co-ordinating all our intelligence services under the able chairmanship of John Scarlett. We must make sure that those people will have the tools to do an ever more difficult job for many years to come.
I do not want to dwell on the events in Bali, but I want to make one point to the Minister that he can perhaps answer. It is not a criticism of the Government. I think that there are lessons be learned about the nature of advisories. Clearly, some advice given to British citizens was different from that given to Americans. Does the Minister think that there should be a greater measure of international consistency in the advice given, so that confusion can be minimised and the direction can be as clear as possible? Can the Minister likewise assure the House that in the aftermath of an atrocity like that in Bali, henceforth there might be better efforts to make sure that those who are bereaved can claim the bodies and get them home with the sort of direct assistance on the ground that may have been lacking in Bali? I am aware that there have been some private meetings on that matter. No one is to blame, but there are lessons to be learned.
During the period between 11 September and the fall of the Taliban on 14 November, it was important to set out clear objectives, as the report has noted. Informing the public is crucial in a democracy, and is something that we are fighting to preserve. Paragraph 46 of the report, and paragraph (c) of the Government's response, set out the steps taken to build the international coalition. The Conservative party has always been clear in its support for the Prime Minister in seeing that an international coalition was the only way forward that offered the required flexibility, speed and international legitimacy.
I take slight issue with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) in that the European Union's cohesion in that respect has been lacking. It has shown that the common foreign and security policy has been extremely lacking, and has shown itself unable to respond in practical terms to such a challenge, except in the most dilute and watered-down form. Again, it has been largely Britain, hand in hand with America, that has proved sufficiently effective in coming to terms with such a threat.
Paragraph 55 of the report and paragraph (f) of the Government's response are about NATO. The invocation of article 5 was important in bringing together the international coalition, but we must take a long-term view of how we would like NATO to operate in future conflicts of this sort. In that context, the Prague summit next month will prove very important. I hope that the Minister will assure us that due thought has been given to the need to expand NATO's membership

361WH
eastwards, and to the need to modernise its structures and role so as to meet the strategic requirements of the changing world. I hope that he will reassure us that he still thinks of NATO as an important weapon, and that he will not for any reason be diverted further towards the CFSP, which is a much less effective mechanism for facing our challenges.
We all pay tribute to the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff on the ground. A big effort was made to persuade the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden voluntarily. Sadly, it did not work, but in many circumstances that kind of effort can prove to be of enormous value, and time spent on diplomacy is never wasted.
The work done to support the Afghan Administration after the fall of the Taliban was important and is to be commended. However, I should like to hear the Minister's assessment of the stability of the Afghan regime in light of the assassination of the Vice-President and the attempted assassination of President Karzai earlier this summer. On an issue raised by two other hon. Members, what on-going efforts are the Government making to help the Afghan Administration ensure their long-term stability and order, not just in Kabul but in outlying areas? Could the Minister let me know—in writing if necessary—about the staffing levels of the dedicated Foreign and Commonwealth Office Afghanistan unit referred to in the report, with its knowledge of local languages and customs? The unit is something that many of us would want to advertise, and we would be interested to know about it.
I welcome paragraph 137 of the report, which is about Guantanamo bay, and the Government's response to it. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on a number of points relating to the prisoners held there, particularly those who are British. Will the Minister outline the position regarding the on-going detention of British prisoners held there without any charges being laid? What is the Government's policy on the continued detention of those prisoners, more than one year on, with no deadline for charges having been set? Will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to due process for all detainees? May I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—Not yet, perhaps. May I ask the Minister what provisions are being made for the trial of those who may in due course be charged? That is an important point, and I sense that many hon. Members would like to hear a definitive and more specific answer than any we have heard so far on the Floor of the House.
I was particularly interested to read paragraph 161 of the report, which comments on the perceived link in many middle east countries between the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and terrorism, or attacks against western countries, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) mentioned. I do not think that there is any disagreement among hon. Members present about the continuing link between the two. We are all agreed—it seems to be cross-party policy—that there must be a secure Israel living alongside a viable Palestinian state.
It has always been clear that we are engaged in a war against terrorism, not Islam, and it is important to develop our understanding of, and relationships with,
362WH
Arab states throughout the Gulf. I spend a lot of time travelling, as do many other hon. Members present. It is only by visiting countries and speaking to people that one gets a feel for what is going on and truly understand it. I hope that the Minister will allow me one gripe; it is a minor disgrace that during six years of the Labour Government, there has not been a serious ministerial visit to Yemen, where we have had consular problems that are a potential flashpoint. People there are increasingly resentful of what they perceive as Britain's neglect of a long-standing and genuine friendship between our countries. I hope that the Minister will visit Yemen as soon as possible and that he will alert the House to tell us that he is going.
I shall canter on quickly. We are in favour of continuing dialogue with Iran and we welcome the reforms that President Khatami is trying to implement against much opposition. I think that all of us would wish to encourage that, without making his life more difficult.
The main issue that looms is Iraq. Our policy is simply to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the development programmes for them. We support the Government's assessment of the threat posed by the weapons and the need to tackle that. It is vital that any action is in accordance with the principles of international law, and I welcome the Government's commitment to that in their response to the report. We should pursue a mandate through clear UN Security Council resolutions.
The Prime Minister has done an enormous amount of good since 11 September. I have congratulated him on much that he has done, which I imagine has upset Labour Members more than me. [Interruption.]—Only because of the source of the praise.
Paragraph 242 of the report and paragraph (qq) of the Government's response sum up the scale of the challenge that we face. If we are to eradicate the scourge of terrorism, action that works politically, economically and diplomatically must be taken. We need to understand with sensitivity the root causes of terrorism, whether they are poverty, international conflicts and disputes, internal instability, a disregard for human rights or the rule or law, or a combination of all those things. We can avoid more terrorist outrages only by addressing and understanding those underlying issues.
While pursuing the war against terrorism with vigour, we must pursue a dialogue of civilisations with vigour, avoiding, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) said, the clash of civilisations, which is an ill-conceived concept to which I hope none of us adhere. We can begin to build a safer world and tackle the root causes of terrorism only by increasing our understanding of other cultures and countries and building the tolerance that comes from greater knowledge.
5.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The report before us is excellent, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said. It is well balanced, well argued and shows good judgment throughout. I congratulate members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the report and I offer

363WH
special congratulations to the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who has led the Committee to a standing in the House that is higher than ever. He deserves enormous credit for the Committee's work.
Many questions were raised during the debate. I cannot hope to answer them all, but if I cannot respond to Back Bencher's points in the time available, I shall try to write to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) praised Sir Jeremy Greenstock's chairmanship of the United Nations counter-terrorism committee. I agree with that and I intend to pass on the congratulations to him. Certainly, that work is enormously important and we must ensure that it continues. Some countries have not had the opportunity to develop the systems of intelligence and counter-terrorism that they need for protection. The work of auditing and looking at what is available and determining what information is required by those countries is important.
Recent terrorist acts are a tragic confirmation that the war against terrorism must continue. In Bali we saw how the indiscriminate targeting of tourists and the ruthless tactics of the terrorists led to the deaths of large numbers of people. We do not yet know whether al-Qaeda was involved in that atrocity, but there are strong historical links between its members and extremist groups in south-east Asia. In Moscow, we had a reminder of the life-and-death dilemma posed by brutal terrorists who threaten to massacre hundreds of people for their cause.
The shooting of an American diplomat in Amman and an American marine in Kuwait are reminders of the vulnerability of individuals, who, in both cases, were working to safeguard and enhance Arab and Muslim interests. That is important, because I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that we should reject the notion put forward by Samuel Huntington that there is a clash of cultures. However, we must stress the need to find a vocabulary in which we can distinguish the vast majority of Muslims in the world who have no truck with terrorism and hate it. Muslims are often victims of terrorism—as many were on 11 September—and despise those who commit terrorist acts.
There is a threat that al-Qaeda seeks to pose as a group with a Muslim identity. We must find a vocabulary to distinguish those militant extremists who should be no part of any religious set of values—the terrorists—from the vast majority who do not agree with them. We must develop that vocabulary in the months to come.
We must expect terrorists to continue their attacks and recognise the evolving nature of the threat if we are to meet it over the long as well as short term. The terrorists that we now face are targeting our values—political and social—as well as our economic systems. They will attack any of us, anywhere and at any time. They will kill thousands or pick off individuals. They have no interest in negotiation or accommodation. Their objective is total destruction. Their own deaths often seem to be part of their achievements.
364WH
The means of destruction available to terrorists are varied. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said, they can turn modern implements to their advantage. They can turn planes, boats, trucks or cars into missiles and themselves into bombs. They sometimes use against us technology that we have developed. They are prepared to use chemical and biological products as weapons. They use our own modern electronic communications and financial systems to plan and support their terrorist acts.
If we do not respond, we face al-Qaeda-inspired networks across the Islamic and non-Islamic world; al-Qaeda operatives working within our societies and intent on destroying them. Disaffected youth provides foot soldiers and public support for the terrorists. Our objectives remain as we have consistently set out over the past year. First and foremost, our priority is to protect the United Kingdom, its overseas territories and its citizens overseas.
The campaign was and is about eliminating terrorism as a force in international affairs. We have not acted alone. Tackling these challenges has required the closest co-operation with our international partners. We have made progress. However, the challenges are huge and, to meet them, we must be prepared to take steps that are as daring as those of the terrorists. Our security services must be alive to the threat that faces us.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton praised our intelligence services and the Joint Intelligence Committee under John Scarlett; I endorse his praise. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked why we had not foreseen the events of 11 September. He could also have asked, although he did not, why we had not foreseen the events in Bali. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. No one predicted the scale and nature of the events of 11 September. No one had specific warning, and no one had specific warning of the atrocity in Bali. It is entirely fair to ask such questions after events such as those of 11 September or Bali. It is right that we should ask whether there was an intelligence failure. In my view, there was not an intelligence failure in either case.
I will try to be brief, but I want to say something about these points because they are important. In the world, in any month, 300 to 400 pieces of information may raise the possibility of a threat. It is very difficult for professionals to assess the quality of those pieces of information. Most of them lead to no terrorist event. In other words, in any month, one could receive 300 to 400 pieces of information that could lead one to think that something was about to happen, but nothing then happens. However, sometimes something does happen. Assessing the information is a very difficult task indeed.
In both the cases that I have mentioned, I do not believe that there was an intelligence failure. Assessing the available information is difficult and I cannot say that somebody will not make a misjudgment in future. The advice that Ministers receive therefore may not be as clear as we would all hope. However, we must bear in mind the difficulty of intelligence operations and not create a culture of blame in which people in the intelligence community are constantly worried that, if they make a misjudgment, they will be blamed for the deaths of large numbers of people. If a misjudgment is culpable then, yes, there may be a need to deal with it,

365WH
but people are not infallible. They may not always get it right, and we must be careful about seeking recriminations.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred to advisories. Advisories are important. The United States tends to issue a different kind of advisory to that which we issue. The US issues general worldwide advisories, or advisories for wide regions, to their tourists; our advisories tend to be much more country-specific. As I say, no specific warning was given for the incident in Bali. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are lessons to be learned, especially to do with consulates. We are considering those lessons and I will be happy to discuss them with the hon. Gentleman in more detail later.
In what I thought was an excellent contribution, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether the intelligence services were adequately financed. A well-resourced intelligence service is important. From 2002–03 to 2005–06, there will be an average real-terms increase of 7.1 per cent. each year, which will bring total spending up by £291 million from 2002–03 to 2005–06. That increase is considerable. One can always do more with more, but we believe that the intelligence services are funded to meet the objectives that we have set them.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that an issue has arisen over security failures in some areas. Those failures are being addressed. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that there was culpability on the part of our intelligence services. The Americans will have to speak for themselves.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked about Afghanistan. Let me say briefly, I have just come back from Afghanistan and my assessment is that the situation there is still precarious. The international community is working very well with the new Afghan Government. Several Afghan Ministers are quite impressive and we are lucky that they have found their way into senior positions. I would not endorse all of them, but many are very capable people. The Afghan Government are serious and they are seeking to address the relevant issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked whether the international community was paying to Afghanistan all the money that was promised at Tokyo. Our view is that the money is coming, but slowly. We think that countries will pay, but we wish that some of them would pay a little more quickly. We have sought to achieve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) raised the matter of extending ISAF from Kabul. It will not take five years to have an army capability to deal with some of the threat. Several battalions of the Afghan army are already trained and we hope that some of them will be deployed outside Kabul this year. We will have to wait to see how that training goes and how the authority of the Afghan Government can be extended. My hon. Friend knows that my view is that it is better if the Afghan army is seen to be establishing the authority of the Afghan
366WH
Government in the country at large, rather than troops from outside. That is better in the long term for the authority of the Afghan Government.
I want to turn to Iraq, because fighting terrorism does not excuse us from our responsibilities and challenges elsewhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, it is important that we deal with the threat of terrorism as well as the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council is working intensively on a new draft resolution on Iraq. Our objective is the complete disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means; ensuring that that takes place lies in the hands of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In 1991, following the Gulf War, the Security Council set out the conditions governing the ceasefire. More than 11 years later, Iraq remains in breach of its obligations. Iraq's unrelenting efforts to frustrate inspections and intimidate inspectors are well known. Those efforts are underlined by the testimony in August 1998 of the then head of the United Nations Special Commission, in which he said that he found it impossible to do his job, by Iraq's succession of increasingly implausible and supposedly final declarations after inspectors discovered some new incriminating fact, or evidence, by the unaccounted-for weapons of mass destruction and by the multiple warnings that have been sent to Iraq by the Security Council in successive resolutions and statements.
Iraq could, at any time, have invited the inspectors back without conditions attached. Sanctions could have been lifted and Iraq would have been restored to normal. It is only Baghdad's insistence on retaining its weapons of mass destruction that has blocked that. It was only under intense diplomatic pressure and, particularly, the threat of military action that Iraq offered, on 16 September, to readmit the inspectors. That offer, while necessary, is not enough.
Even now, Iraq believes that it can hide its weapons of mass destruction, rather than declare them, and that it can fool the inspectors again. Our dossier on Iraq spells out that it still possesses chemical and biological materials, continues to produce them, has sought to weaponise them and has active plans for their deployment. Iraq has, in recent years, tried to buy multiple components that are relevant to the production of a nuclear bomb, retained extended-range missiles and employed hundreds of people to develop missiles with a range of more than 1000 km.
It would be an abdication of responsibility to ignore Iraq's defiance of the international community and international law. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem does not exist. We cannot accept Saddam's word at face value, knowing what we know. We are, therefore, working to ensure that the Security Council expresses very clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, a strong message that Saddam cannot continue to develop weapons of mass destruction. Saddam must comply with international law and we must ensure that we have a resolution that sends the clear message to him that the development of weapons of mass destruction must stop.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  2012 Olympics
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what commitment she has received from the Mayor of London to provide support for the staging of the 2012 Olympics in London; [78565]

  (2) if she will publish the Ove Arup report on the likely cost of a bid to stage the 2012 Olympics; [78566]

  (3) what commitment she has received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide public funds to support the staging of the 2012 Olympics in London. [78564]

  Mr. Caborn
  The summary of the Arup report on the costs and benefits of bidding for and staging an Olympic games in London 2012 will be published on 1 November 2002. Copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report estimates the cost of staging the Olympic games at £2 billion and the cost of bidding at £13 million. We have learnt that the risk associated with hosting an event of the magnitude of the Olympic games is significant and it is our responsibility to the tax payer that this risk is properly assessed.

  All stakeholders and relevant Government Departments, including the GLA and the Treasury, are analysing this report and the Government will give careful consideration to the costs, benefits and risks involved before we announce our decision on whether to support a bid to host the games in 2012. We aim to make that decision by the end of the year.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to publish the ARUP report on the costs and benefits of staging the 2012 Olympic games in London; and if she will make a statement. [79204]

  Mr. Caborn
  The summary of the Arup report on the costs and benefits of bidding for and staging an Olympic games in London 2012 will be published on 1 November 2002. Copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This report has been commissioned jointly by my Department, the London Development Agency, the British Olympic Association and UK Sport.

  The report estimates the cost of staging the Olympic games at £2 billion, and the cost of bidding at £13 million. We have learnt that the risk associated with hosting an event of the magnitude of the Olympic games is significant and it is our responsibility to the tax payer that this risk is properly assessed.
  886W
  All stakeholders and relevant Government Departments are currently analysing this report and the Government will give careful consideration to the costs, benefits and risks involved before we announce our decision on whether to support a bid to host the games in 2012. We aim to make that decision by the end of the year.

  Departmental Logo
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the design of her Department's logo. [78346]

  Dr. Howells
  The logo, and the visual identity of which it is a part, was introduced in February 1999 following the Department's name change. The identity was designed to improve the consistency and distinctiveness of DCMS communications and to achieve better value for money in design and print purchasing.

  The introduction of the identity resulted in year on year savings of over 25 per cent. on the procurement of the Department's printed stationery.

  Gambling
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent estimate she has made of the level of problem gambling in the UK. [77517]

  Mr. Caborn
  The most recent authoritative estimate remains that noted in the report of the Gambling Review Body (Cm 5206), that between 0.6 per cent. and 0.8 per cent. of the adult population of Great Britain are problem gamblers.

  Job Advertisements
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many non-devolved posts were advertised in the press in each year from June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76850]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has not advertised any post in the press since June 1999 which deals exclusively with departmental responsibilities which extend to Scotland.

  Radio Industry
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her assessment of the impact of the Communications Bill on the independent radio industry. [76428]

  Dr. Howells
  Our general approach to the radio industry, and to communications markets in general, is deregulatory. Format controls and ownership restrictions will both be relaxed. However, we recognise the importance of maintaining the distinctive local basis of commercial radio. We therefore propose to retain key local ownership rules, and to give Ofcom a duty to protect and promote local content.
  887W

  Rate Relief
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with(a) charities and (b) sports clubs on rate relief; and if she will make a statement. [78410]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government announced in April that community amateur sports clubs will now be eligible to apply for charitable status, under which they would receive mandatory 80 per cent. rate relief and other tax advantages. The recent Finance Act 2002 also included a package of tax reliefs available from the Inland Revenue that will benefit such clubs.

  In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met several of sport's governing bodies, as representatives of community amateur sports clubs, to discuss these measures and other issues. In September, my Department arranged a seminar which was designed to give sport's governing bodies the chance to discuss the tax and charitable status options available to amateur clubs. Since the Budget, my Department has met representatives from Sport England, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. I will continue to work with these organisations and with governing bodies to agree the best way forward for helping these clubs.

  Tourism
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has for the reform of Government support for tourism; and if she will make a statement. [79130]

  Tessa Jowell
  I announced new arrangements for support for tourism in the English regions on 13 May. Since then I have agreed with the Regional Development Agencies that they are ready to implement this, corporate planning guidance has been issued about how the RDAs should plan for the new tourism responsibilities and further planning work is in hand.

  I also proposed changes for the English Tourism Council and to improve the co-ordination of marketing activity for England. I have decided to achieve this by a radical reform of the existing support structures, and there are two aspects to the announcement that I make today.

  The first will result in a strengthening of the marketing of Britain in overseas tourism markets. This will be of direct benefit not only to England but also to Scotland and Wales. I had already asked the new Chief Executive of the British Tourism Authority, Tom Wright, to carry out a fundamental review of strategy and structure of support for British tourism overseas. The emerging conclusions point to increasing effectiveness with a structure based on dedicated new hubs for each major market and less emphasis on central services. More resource will be concentrated where it is needed most, that is in the overseas markets served by
  888W
  the BTA. I will also improve the accountability arrangements for BTA in co-operation with other GB Tourism Ministers.

  The second aspect of my announcement concerns the need for better co-ordination of the marketing of England as a tourism destination in the GB market. We wish to combine some of the day-to-day operations of the English Tourism Council with the BTA. These two organisations have served tourism well, but combining their resources and strengths allows us to develop more quickly the marketing team for England we need. This will also enable us to put more resource into direct support for tourism and less into overheads. We will take this opportunity to develop more effective partnerships with private industry investors to support tourism. We will pursue our commitment to the sustainable development of tourism, particularly in rural areas, some of which are still in recovery following the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

  Accordingly, I am today asking Tom Wright to broaden the BTA reform programme and to draw up detailed plans for a further unit to lead and co-ordinate the marketing of England, promoting destinations to customers within our own country. Funding for this activity, and other activities of the relaunched national organisation in support of English tourism, will be accounted for and reported to Parliament separately from action in overseas markets on behalf of all three parts of Britain.

  In England, I see a major leadership role for both the private sector and the Regional Development Agencies in developing a coherent marketing agenda across the industry. The new marketing team for English tourism within the relaunched national organisation will be guided by a slimmed down English Tourist Board, drawing on support from the private sector and regional and local government. The broad remit for its work has been drawn up by a group drawn from the private and public sectors, which was fully endorsed at a meeting I chaired of a wide range of tourism bodies at the beginning of August. The team will have responsibility for working closely with RDA and other partners to make the most of the public funds available to support marketing and promotion.

  I have asked Alan Britten and David Quarmby, the chairs of the existing boards, to work closely together to ensure the new arrangements are implemented quickly and effectively. Staff from both organisations will be treated on an equal and fair basis, taking full account of their own skills and experience and the requirements of the new arrangements. I have asked them to make recommendations about the new name when they have made further progress on the reforms.

  I am also announcing additional funding for tourism services in England. £10 million over three years is available, but will only be released on the effective implementation of reform, on industry rising to the challenge by coming together with matching funds, and the delivery of increased productivity we are looking for in the tourism industry.
  889W

DEFENCE

  Anthrax
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(1) if the anthrax innoculation programme offered to(a) Navy, (b) Army, (c) Air Force and (d) other Ministry of Defence personnel is compulsory; [78101]

  (2) what proportion of (a) Navy, (b) Army, (c) Air Force and (d) other Ministry of Defence personnel (i) are fully vaccinated and (ii) have commenced a vaccination programme against anthrax; and if he will make a statement. [78100]

  Dr. Moonie
  In keeping with long-standing medical practice, immunisation against anthrax for the Armed Forces and other Ministry of Defence personnel is voluntary and on the basis of informed consent.

  Up to and including September 2002, the period for which most recent figures are available, approximately 46 per cent. of personnel offered immunisation against anthrax had accepted. Broken down by the categories requested this equates to (a) Royal Navy 28 per cent. (b) Army 78 per cent. (c) Royal Air Force 46 per cent. and (d) other Ministry of Defence Personnel 61 per cent. Thus far, immunisation against anthrax has been targeted at a small number of personnel in the most readily deployable units. As approximate proportions of their total strengths, excluding reserves, this equates to (a) Royal Navy, 0.7 per cent. (b) Army 0.4 per cent.;(c) Royal Air Force, 4.5 per cent.; and (d) other Ministry of Defence personnel 0.2 per cent.. Information concerning individuals' current anthrax immunisation status is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Earlier this year we announced a decision to expand the programme so that all service personnel, including reserves, and those essential civilians who are likely to deploy on operations are routinely offered immunisation against anthrax. We plan to expand the programme gradually over the next few years, beginning with those units that are held at the highest readiness. I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 13 June 2002, Official Report, columns 1343–44 to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt).

  Arms Sales
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) countries and (b) organisations outside the UK to whom sale of arms and arms components is prohibited. [76533]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom has arms embargoes in place in respect of the following countries pursuant to European Union sanctions: Bosnia/Herzegovina; Libya; Burma; Sudan; China (not full scope); the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.

  The United Kingdom has arms embargoes in place in respect of Armenia and Azerbaijan pursuant to Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe sanctions. There is also a unilateral arms embargo in place in respect of Iran (not full scope).
  890W
  Although the scope of the embargo varies from country to country depending on the wording of the source instrument, arms embargoes are in general implemented in the UK by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the Military List. The Military List forms Part III of the Export of Goods (control) Order 1994 as amended.

  An up to date list of all export restrictions applicable in the UK is available on www.dti.gov.uk/export. control.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are in place to ensure that arms and arms components sold abroad are not acquired by(a) countries and (b) organisations outside the UK to whom sale of arms and arms components is prohibited.[76534]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Exports of arms and other goods controlled for strategic reasons are subject to export licences issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All individual licence applications are assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Exporting Licensing Criteria. Criterion 1A of the consolidated criteria makes clear that the Government will not issue a licence if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's international obligations and its commitments to enforce UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes, as well as national embargoes observed by the UK.

  The Government focus their efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage. This includes checks made by our posts overseas where necessary. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the surest way of preventing arms from falling into the wrong hands. In addition the Government remain committed to carrying out end-use monitoring of exports in those circumstances where this will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion and where such monitoring is practicable. Our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on allegations of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment. We take these reports into account in our assessment.

  Officials from across Whitehall co-operate to pursue possible breaches of sanctions in the UK and abroad. Breaches involving the sale of UK arms and components sold abroad are thoroughly investigated by the relevant authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 570, when the letter to the hon. Member for North Essex on the relationship between NATO and the European Security and Defence Policy will be sent; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [78102]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to the hon. Member on 30 October.
  891W

  D-Day (60th Anniversary)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations will be made for the 60th anniversary of D Day; and if he will make a statement. [78419]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although preparations have not been concluded, the intention is for the Government and Armed Forces to be represented at ministerial and senior officer level at parades and services in Normandy being organised by the French Comité du Debarquement. The Army will provide a band. Appropriate representation will also be provided at a service of remembrance and thanksgiving which will take place at St. Paul's Cathedral.

  Doctors
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many doctors were serving in(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [78272]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of military trained doctors in the Royal Navy, Army and RAF as at 1 April in each of the last five years are shown in the table:

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1998

  209

  431

  207

  1999

  209

  437

  197

  2000

  211

  452

  185

  2001

  215

  459

  183

  2002

  224

  473

  181

  EU Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the question raised in the note by Mr. M Barnier to members of Convention, CONV 264/02, as to whether an undertaking of collective defence should be enshrined in the Treaty on European Union. [77817]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's policy, and the policy to which the EU collectively committed itself at the European Council of Nice in December 2000, is that NATO remains the basis for the collective defence of its members.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effect of enlargement on military contributions to the EU designated peacemaking and peacekeeping forces. [78117]

  Mr. Hoon
  All the countries which are candidates for accession to the EU have made offers of contributions, with a view to their participation in EU-led operations. These countries could already offer forces to an EU-led operation, if invited to take part. When a country joins the EU, it simply removes the need for a formal invitation for that country to take part in EU-led operations.

  Procedurally, there is also a change. The offers from member states are recorded in the Helsinki Force Catalogue; those of accession candidates in a supplement to the catalogue. This catalogue identifies the pool of capabilities, meeting commonly-agreed
  892W
  requirements, from which forces can be rapidly assembled on a case-by-case basis for particular operations, with the approval of the relevant national governments.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the definitions of(a) European Security and Defence Policy and (b) European Security and Defence Identity. [77813]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 31W.

  Gibraltar
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government on the movements of NATO military aircraft and warships in the vicinity of Gibraltar and in transit between Spain and Gibraltar; and what steps have recently been taken by the UK Government to have these restrictions lifted. [77379]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO Standardised Agreement (STANAG) 1100, sets out the procedures for visits to NATO and non-NATO ports by naval ships of NATO nations. This Agreement contains a reservation, inserted by the Spanish Government, which prevents visits by NATO ships to or from Gibraltar directly to or from Spanish ports. Any request by military aircraft from NATO (or other) nations, which has Gibraltar as a departure or arrival airfield, to overfly or land in Spain is routinely denied by Spanish authorities. We understand that NATO has no plans specifically to discuss the restrictions imposed by Spain on NATO ships and aircraft. Discussions between the British and Spanish Government in the context of the Brussels Process aim to resolve all outstanding issues between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar.

  Health Care Professionals
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) nurses, (b) GPs, (c) medical consultants and (d) other health care professionals working for the NHS are subject to military call-up as reservists in the event of military action. [74650]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although the Ministry of Defence encourages reservists to declare their reserve status to civilian employers, there is no legal requirement to do so unless specified in individual contracts of employment. Reservists are not usually required to provide details of any civilian employment to the Ministry of Defence, until such time as they are called-out. Therefore, no records are available for the number of nurses, GPs, medical consultants and other healthcare professionals that are working in the NHS who are subject to military call-out as reservists.

  However, it is possible to provide the number of volunteer reserve nurses, GPs, consultants and other healthcare professionals in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) as at September 2002, and this is outlined in the following table:

  893W

  Volunteer reserves in the DMS

  Number

  Nurses

  1,278

  GPs

  96

  Consultants

  103

  Other healthcare professionals

  2,065

  In addition, ex-Regular personnel with a reserve or recall liability can be subject to military call-out.

  Joint Maritime Course
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason HMS Marlborough and HMS Northumberland have been withdrawn from the Joint Maritime Course off Scotland. [78658]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Marlborough and HMS Northumberland have not been withdrawn from the Joint Maritime Course. HMS Marlborough is currently taking part in this training. HMS Northumberland was not scheduled to take part in the Course. She is undertaking safety training prior to her planned period of Operational Sea Training which begins in early November.

  Medical Reservists
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the call-up of medical reservists; and if he will make a statement. [78320]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is vital that service personnel deployed on military operations receive the appropriate level of medical support. The use of reservists for operations is fully in line with the tenets of the Strategic Defence Review, namely having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces that support their regular counterparts on operations overseas. The need to call-out reservists is kept under review as part of contingency planning. If reservists are called out, we would select the most suitably qualified individuals for mobilisation by taking into account their relevant skills, fitness and training, and their professional and domestic circumstances. The Ministry of Defence would work closely with the NHS Trusts concerned to minimise disruption as far as possible.

  Medical Specialists
  Mr Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical specialists, and in which specialisations, the Department requires in order to meet operational requirements. [78318]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Operational and Retained Task requirement for medical specialists and the number of consultants we have in those categories, and in which specialisations, as at 1 July 2002, are set as follows:

  Operational and retained task requirement

  Current manning (including command and staff appointments)

  Deficit

  Vocational trained general practitioners

  416

  195

  221

  894W

  Operational and retained task requirement

  Current manning (including command and staff appointments)

  Deficit

  General

  surgery

  43

  18

  25

  Orthopaedic

  surgery

  28

  11

  17

  General

  medicine

  51

  20

  31

  Anaesthetics

  120

  23

  97

  Accident and emergency

  23

  3

  20

  Dermatology

  0

  3

  —

  Paediatrics

  5

  2

  3

  Genito-urinary

  medicine

  0

  1

  —

  Neurology

  1

  0

  1

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  3

  0

  3

  Urology

  0

  3

  —

  Burns and plastic surgery

  10

  3

  7

  Psychiatry

  35

  10

  25

  Ophthalmology

  10

  3

  7

  Oral and maxioolofacial surgery

  10

  7

  3

  Ear, nose and throat

  10

  3

  7

  Rheumatology and rehabilitation

  7

  6

  1

  Radiology

  11

  10

  1

  Pathology

  6

  5

  1

  Chemical pathology

  4

  0

  4

  Haematology

  4

  1

  3

  Histopathology

  0

  2

  —

  Microbiology

  6

  2

  4

  Aviation medicine

  6

  1

  5

  Occupational medicine

  61

  43

  18

  Public health medicine

  2

  8

  —

  Military Crisis Management
  Mr Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been concluded that will allow the non-EU European NATO members and other countries which are candidates for accession to the EU to contribute to EU military crisis management. [77814]

  Mr. Hoon
  The EU is committed to the fullest possible involvement of the non-EU European Allies and the EU accession partners in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). A supplement to the Helsinki Force Catalogue has been drawn up, detailing offers of contributions made by these states with a view to their participation in EU-led operations. The Nice European Council agreed at substantial set of provisions governing consultation with these countries and arrangements for their participation in EU-led operations. As a result, they now attend regular ESDP meetings at a number of levels. In the event of a crisis, this dialogue and consultation will be intensified. In particular, it was confirmed at Nice that "upon a decision by the Council to launch an operation, the non-EU European NATO members will participate if they so wish in the event of an operation requiring recourse to
  895W
  NATO assets and capabilities. They will, on a decision by the Council, be invited to take part in operations where the EU does not use NATO assets. Other countries who are candidates for accession to the EU may also be invited by the Council to take part in EU-led operations once the Council has decided to launch such an operation". More detailed modalities concerning non-EU European NATO members were agreed at the European Council in Brussels last weekend. Thursday 31 October 2002PQ Ref No 5558M

  Military Medical Records
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all service personnel have direct access to their military medical records; and if he will make a statement. [78277]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Data Protection Act 1998, personnel are able to request access to their service medical records by making a subject access request. For access to primary health care records, the request should be made to the appropriate Royal Navy, Army or Royal Air Force Service Records Office. For access to secondary health care records, the request may be sent to either the appropriate service records office, the hospital they were treated at, or to the Ministry of Defence Central Health Records Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to ensure that all military medical records will be accurately maintained and secured; and if he will make a statement. [78285]

  Dr. Moonie
  Every effort is taken to ensure that service personnel medical records are accurately maintained and securely stored. All three services have routine administrative procedures in place to check that the medical records of both regular and reserve personnel are both up to date and accurate.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend the Armed Forces pension scheme to allow benefits to be paid to partners of service men and women killed on active service; and if he will make a statement. [78210]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: In the light of support for change expressed in response to public consultation and to a series of focus groups across the Armed Forces, consideration is being given to introducing pension benefits for unmarried partners as part of our review of the Armed Forces pension scheme. The Ministry of Defence will be seeking to finalise approvals on the new scheme around the turn of the year. Those who decide to remain in the current pension scheme would not benefit from any change. Under a similar review of current compensation arrangements, consideration is being given to extending benefits for attributable deaths to unmarried partners as part of a new scheme.

  Royal Navy Submarine Crews
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) men the Royal
  896W
  Navy requires to crew the submarines in service with an adequate margin of reserve to ensure full continuity of operations; and how many are available. [78314]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 August 2002, the Royal Navy Submarine Arm required 254 officers and 1,959 ratings to man submarines in service.

  On the same date, 834 officers and 3,670 ratings were required to man the Submarine Arm as a whole. The equivalent strength figures were 629 officers and 3,552 ratings. The shortfall is borne by a range of support and training functions ashore and is currently the focus of a range of recruitment and retention initiatives.

  Service Personnel (Illness)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are not serving because of illnesses acquired on deployments in(a) Sierra Leone, (b) Saif Sareea, (c) Afghanistan, (d) Kosovo and (e) Macedonia; and if he will make a statement. [78284]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Army personnel discharged as a result of illness following deployment to Sierra Leone and Kosovo, is one and seven respectively. No Army personnel were discharged as a result of illness to the other deployments listed. No personnel were recorded as having been discharged as a result of these deployments from the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force.

  Suez Campaign (Medals)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) terms of reference, (b) membership and (c) date for final report are of the committee chaired by Lord Guthrie to examine the case for a service medal for veterans of the Suez Canal Zone campaign from 1951 to 1954. [78573]

  Dr. Moonie
  The terms of reference are as I announced in a written response to a Parliamentary Question on 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 1106W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Bob Russell). The sub-committee of the HD Committee under the chairmanship of General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank will report on the case for an exceptional award of a GSM for the Suez Canal Zone without creating a wider precedent or breaching long-standing principles which underpin the making of such awards.

  The sub-committee will consist of the chairman plus Field Marshal Sir John Chapple GCB CBE; Air Vice Marshal K D Filbey CBE FIMgt FRAes RAF; Charles de Chassiron CVO Vice-Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps and Head of Protocol Division, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the military historian Sir Max Hastings and Gay Catto, Ceremonial Officer, Cabinet Office.

  The sub-committee is necessarily independent of the Ministry of Defence and as such I have no visibility or authority over their proceedings. I am advised that the sub-committee has yet to take evidence after which it will fully consider the options. When it has reached a conclusion on the matter, it will report to the HD Committee which in turn will publish the results.
  897W
  The Ceremonial Branch of the Cabinet Office are acting as secretariat to the sub-committee.

  Weapon Thefts
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what category of weapons have been(a) lost and (b) stolen from MOD units and establishments in each year since 1972. [76671]

  Lost, stolen and recovered MOD weapons by type from 1 January 1972 to 28 October (Lost weapons register

  Year

  Pistol

  Mil. Rifle

  SMG

  LMG/GPMG

  Mortars

  Antique/other

  Shot gun

  Baton gun

  Tgt Rifle (Sport)

  Total

  1972

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1973

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1974

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1975

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  1976

  2

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1977

  8

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  1978

  5

  6

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  32

  1979

  9

  4

  17

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  32

  1980

  10

  6

  12

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  31

  1981

  11

  5

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  25

  1982

  4

  2

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1983

  9

  7

  7

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27

  1984

  2

  4

  12

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  1985

  3

  7

  11

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  22

  1986

  0

  7

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1987

  2

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1988

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1989

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1990

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1991

  1

  6

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1992

  7

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  1993

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1994

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1995

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1997

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  22

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2000

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2001

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2002

  3

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Totals

  101

  79

  135

  3

  8

  2

  23

  3

  0

  354

  Stolen weapons register

  Pistol

  Rifle

  9mm SMG

  LMG/GPMG

  Mortars

  Antique/other

  Shot gun

  Baton gun

  Tgt rifle (sport)

  Total

  1972

  16

  44

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  75

  1973

  13

  12

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29

  1974

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1975

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1976

  10

  101

  3

  7

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  123

  1977

  7

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  1978

  6

  12

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  20

  1979

  9

  9

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  1980

  8

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  1981

  6

  15

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  23

  1982

  12

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  1983

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1984

  6

  19

  5

  5

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  37

  1985

  9

  33

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  47

  1986

  5

  20

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29

  1987

  16

  38

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  58

  1988

  11

  14

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  1989

  2

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  1990

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1991

  6

  4

  0

  0

  3

  15

  0

  0

  4

  32

  1992

  15

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  21

  1993

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  28

  1994

  4

  13

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  2

  24

  898W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Ministry of Defence records show a total of 354 weapons to have been lost, and 802 weapons stolen, since 1972. 262 weapons have been recovered during this period. Only the Army and Royal Marines records go back as far as 1972. Royal Navy records go back to 1993 and the RAF to 1991. The detailed year-by-year since statistics were provided is set out in the tables.
  899W

  Stolen weapons register

  Pistol

  Rifle

  9mm SMG

  LMG/GPMG

  Mortars

  Antique/other

  Shot gun

  Baton gun

  Tgt rifle (sport)

  Total

  1995

  3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  10

  1996

  6

  16

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  6

  40

  1997

  1

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1998

  3

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  1999

  0

  9

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  12

  2000

  21

  2

  0

  0

  0

  10

  7

  0

  2

  42

  2001

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  2002

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Totals

  211

  428

  37

  21

  7

  50

  10

  0

  35

  802

  Recovered weapons Register

  Pistol

  Mil rifle

  SMG

  LMG/GPMG

  Mortars

  Antique/other

  Shot gun

  Riot gun

  Tgt rifle (sport)

  Total

  1972

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1973

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1974

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1975

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1976

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1977

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1978

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1979

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1980

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1981

  5

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1982

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1983

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1984

  4

  8

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  1985

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1986

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1987

  10

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  1988

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  3

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1991

  2

  3

  1

  1

  0

  30

  0

  0

  0

  10

  1992

  7

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  14

  1993

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  1994

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1995

  2

  7

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  13

  1996

  7

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  1997

  5

  12

  0

  1

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  39

  1998

  3

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1999

  3

  11

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  15

  2000

  12

  3

  0

  0

  1

  6

  1

  0

  0

  23

  2001

  6

  6

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  14

  2002

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Total

  82

  116

  16

  5

  6

  14

  23

  0

  0

  262

  Note:

  SMG(9mm Sub-Machine Gun. LMG(Light Machine Gun. GPMG(General Purpose Machine Gun

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on affordable housing in villages in rural England in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78406]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information in the form requested is not available immediately. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is collated.

  Education Facilities
  Mr Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he issues to local authorities considering the
  900W
  construction of new educational facilities on (a) green belt and (b) metropolitan open land; and if he will make a statement. [78081]

  Mr. McNulty
  Guidance on all aspects of development in the green belt, including new educational facilities, is set out in planning policy guidance note (PPG) 2, green belts. Designated metropolitan open land has the same status as green belt, and the planning policies set out in PPG2 will also apply to such land. New educational facilities in the green belt will be subject to the same controls as other development in the green belt and proposals will need to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist, which
  901W
  outweigh the harm caused to the green belt by the development, if they are to be granted planning permission.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the use of fireworks on(a) the environment and (b) wildlife; and if he will make a statement. [76958]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do take the issue of fireworks seriously. On 14 October 2002, Official Report, column 890W, my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs announced a package of measures which the Government are introducing to address the problems that fireworks can pose to humans, to the environment and to wildlife.

  In terms of air pollution, a burning firework may produce particulate matter, organic compounds (including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans), and a variety of metal fumes and aerosols, depending on its contents. The effects of bonfire night celebrations can certainly be detected in local air quality, but is very dependent on local atmospheric conditions at the time, and the most significant source of emissions is likely to be bonfires rather than fireworks.

  In relation to wildlife, there is little research evidence on the immediate effects of bonfire night on wildlife. Fires and loud noises can have a disturbing effect on animals of any kind, but bonfire night celebrations are short-lived and relatively localised in nature.

  Housing (Enfield)
  Mr. Andrew Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the amount of brownfield land in(a) the London Borough of Enfield and (b) Greater London for the construction of new dwellings; how many new dwellings could be constructed; and if he will make a statement. [78091]

  Mr. McNulty
  From the 2001 National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land (NLUD-PDL) an estimated 2,500 hectares of brownfield land were potentially suitable for housing in London. On the figures supplied by local authorities and current density assumptions they could provide 149,000 dwellings.

  The most recent information for Enfield is from its return for the 1998 survey. This showed 49 hectares of brownfield land potentially suitable for housing. At densities current at the time they could provide about 2.300 dwellings.

  In 2001 23 out of the 33 London Boroughs returned information to NLUD-PDL. The information has been grossed up to provide the estimates for London as a whole quoted above.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was allocated in housing grants in each year since 1997 to the Housing Corporation; and how many houses were built as a result. [77869]
  902W
  Mr. McNulty
  The table shows the amount of grant paid by the Housing Corporation to registered social landlords under the approved development programme (ADP) and local authority social housing grant (LASHG) together with the dwellings completed in each year for these programmes:

  Approved development programme

  Gross ADP expenditure ££ million

  Dwellings completed

  1997–98

  678

  35,418

  1998–99

  602

  31,960

  1999–2000

  635

  25,040

  2000–01

  715

  22,354

  2001–02

  773

  22,875

  Local authority social housing grant

  LASHG expenditure £ million

  Dwellings completed

  1997–98

  363

  10,152

  1998–99

  335

  9,929

  1999–00

  328

  8,678

  2000–01

  400

  8,419

  2001–02

  410

  6,971

  Because of the length of time to complete development, no comparison can be made between funding and completions in any one year.

  Housing Developments
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he intends to bring forward to raise the density of new housing developments in London and the South East. [78711]

  Mr. Prescott
  In my Parliamentary Statement of 18 July on sustainable communities I announced the Government's intentions for tackling the housing shortage in London and the South East. The Statement explained that the Government expects the housing numbers already agreed in regional planning guidance for the South East to be delivered, working within the presumption of making better use of land by improving design, increasing densities and using brownfield sites to the full. In the Statement, I announced I would intervene in planning applications for housing that involve a density of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net. 1 am publishing today the Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) (London and South East England) Direction 2002 which gives effect to this announcement. From 2 December local planning authorities in London and the South East will have to consult me before giving planning permission for low density housing developments.

  Local Authority Lettings
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department has made available to implement a more flexible lettings policy by local authorities; and how much each rural local authority received in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78395]
  903W
  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently funding 27 local authority pilots of choice based lettings. £13 million was allocated in April 2001 towards the pilots which are expected to finish in April 2003. Out of these, four rural authorities are being supported and payments to date are as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Payments to all 27 pilots

  4,208,532

  1,724,377

  Harborough

  167,371

  114,199

  Herefordshire

  49,283

  18,818

  Kennet

  145,612

  32,179

  Restormel

  82,097

  18,845

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether(a) planning permission and (b) public consultation is needed in order for phone companies to erect antennae on buildings; and if he will make a statement. [78033]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) (as amended) grants a general planning permission for licensed telecommunications code system operators to install specified telecommunications apparatus without the need to apply for planning permission to the local authority, subject to certain conditions and limitations.

  The installation of an antenna on a building, where the antenna does not exceed the height of the building by 4 metres or more, would normally be regarded as permitted development and would not therefore require an application for planning permission or statutory public consultation.

  All mobile phone antennas are registered with the radiocommunications agency. Information on the location and ownership of the antennas is available on the Agency's Site Finder database at www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk The site is updated every three months.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government has to introduce regulations restricting the ability of phone companies to erect base stations close to residential properties, schools and hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [78034]

  Mr. McNulty
  Mobile phone mast development close to residential properties, schools and hospitals is subject to the normal telecommunications planning arrangements in place throughout England, set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). Following publication of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health in May 2000, these arrangements were significantly strengthened and include improved requirements for consulting local people about mast proposals. The changes to the GPDO were underpinned by revised guidance, set out in planning policy guidance note 8, telecommunications, published in August 2001.

  The Stewart report did not recommend that the erection of mobile phone masts should be restricted in such areas and we have no plans to introduce specific restrictions. However, in respect of masts near schools, PPG8 advises that before an operator submits an application for planning permission or prior approval
  904W
  for a mast near a school or college they should discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school or college.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received on health issues relating to mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [78035]

  Mr. McNulty
  Between January and October this year, the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received centrally 166 letters from Members of Parliament and 165 letters from members of the public and local planning authorities about the amenity or health aspects related to mobile phone masts.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's Annual Review. [78712]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have today published the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's annual report, copies have been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those parish and town councils which have reported to him that they have had councillors resign rather than sign the new Standards Code. [76993]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Standards Board for England together have been informed of 95 resignations of parish councillors who were unwilling to accept the new Code of Conduct. A list of those parish councils is as follows:

  Authority

  Number of resignations

  Aiskew parish council

  1

  Arborfield and Newland parish council

  1

  Ashby Woulds town council

  1

  Baschurch parish council

  1

  Boddington parish council

  2

  Bradworthy parish council

  1

  Brenk Knoll parish council

  1

  Brockdish parish council

  4

  Bunwell parish council

  1

  Butleigh parish council

  2

  Chineham parish council

  1

  Credebhill parish council

  2

  Cutcombe parish council

  1

  Easebourne parish council

  2

  East Carlton parish council

  3

  Epsom and Ewell borough council

  1

  Fowey town council

  1

  Frensham parish council

  1

  Great Notley parish council

  1

  Hampstead Norreys parish council

  2

  Haversham cum Little Linford parish council

  1

  Holcome Burnell parish council

  2

  Holt parish council

  2

  Hungerford town council

  3

  Idmiston parish council

  1

  Kings Ripton parish council

  2

  Little Waltham parish council

  5

  Melsonby parish council

  1

  Mereworth parish council

  2

  905W

  Authority

  Number of resignations

  Midgham parish council

  1

  New Romney town council

  1

  Northchapel parish council

  3

  Norton parish council

  1

  Old Windsor parish council

  1

  Over Haddon parish council

  1

  Potton town council

  2

  Purton parish council

  2

  Ringmore parish council

  1

  Shinfield parish council

  3

  Snarestone parish council

  1

  Speldhurst parish council

  1

  St. Bees parish council

  2

  Stebbing parish council

  2

  Streatley parish council

  1

  Sulhamstead parish council

  1

  Swanton Morley parish council

  3

  Tittleshall parish council

  1

  Tiverton parish council

  2

  Town council of Frinton and Walton

  1

  Warfield parish council

  1

  West Ilsley parish council (the whole council)

  6

  Westleton parish council

  1

  Wookey parish council

  1

  Wysall and Thorpe-in-the-Glebe parish council

  3

  Unnamed parish in East Suffolk

  2

  Unnamed parish in Kendal

  1

  Total

  95

  There is no requirement for parish councils to inform us of resignations, for whatever reason. There are over 8,000 parish councils in England.

  Parish Councillors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many parish councillors there are in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency; and how many have notified his Department that they have resigned from their parish councils as a result of the introduction of a code of conduct for parish councillors. [77152]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally. Nine parish councillors from four parish councils in Essex have told the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Standards Board for England of their intention to resign.

  Planning
  Mr Cameron
  10. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he currently expects to implement proposals in the planning green paper about public consultation; and if he will make a statement. [77870]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government is developing its plans for implementing the planning reforms including in public consultation, which were set out in the policy paper Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning. Some of those plans require primary legislation and we will be seeking to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to streamline the procedure governing planning enforcement appeals. [79203]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend will tomorrow lay before Parliament five statutory instruments to improve the handling of planning enforcement appeals 906W
  under each of the three main procedures: written representations, hearings and inquiries. These are the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement Notices and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2002; the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2002; the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2002; the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002; and the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002.

  A departmental circular (ODPM 02–2002), "Enforcement Appeals: Procedures", which explains the new procedures, is to be issued to accompany the new statutory instruments. Copies are to be placed in the House Libraries. The changes implement the conclusions of a consultation exercise announced in August 2000.

  The new arrangements, due to come into operation on 23 December 2002, implement the Government's commitment to improve the Planning Inspectorate's service to its customers, and to increase the efficiency of the enforcement appeals process by reducing both the cost and time taken. In introducing these changes, the Government recognise that it is vital to maintain a system which ensures that there is fair and open decision-making and that all parties have the opportunity to put their case, resulting in decisions that are legally sound and of the highest possible quality.

  We have already set tough targets for the Planning Inspectorate to turn round enforcement appeals more quickly, and they have made a good deal of progress in improving their own performance. However, improving service to the benefit of all concerned is not just the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. All parties to the enforcement appeal process have a responsibility to meet the deadlines set and to co- operate with the inspectorate in agreeing dates offered for hearings and inquiries. The new procedures will put in place a regime of discipline for all parties involved in the process by setting clear timetables and deadlines for the various stages. In future, representations sent after due dates will normally be disregarded. We intend to monitor the impact of the changes, and will review their effectiveness to help us decide whether any further action is needed.

  Post Offices
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to protect post offices in areas of urban deprivation. [76424]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government announced their commitment to set up "a £15 million fund to sustain and improve post offices and associated retail facilities in deprived urban areas" in the 'Urban White Paper', which was published in November 2000.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to launch the scheme in the autumn of 2002, with receipt of first applications early in 2003.
  907W
  The proposed scheme will seek to contribute to the regeneration and renewal of urban deprived areas through sustaining and improving sub-post offices. Where sub-post offices face risk of closure, it is expected to support:

  improvements relating to core post office services;

  improvements relating to the development of non-post office facilities; and

  improvements to a sub-postmaster's working conditions, particularly to deter violent and other crime.

  Public Sector Contracts
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he plans to publish the code of practice covering the recruitment of new staff on public sector contracts; [77955]

  (2) what progress he has made towards ending the two-tier workforce in local authority services; and if he will make a statement. [77990]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government recently consulted on a code of practice and new statutory guidance which will ensure that all local authority service contracting takes proper account of the need for a high quality workforce in order to deliver high quality services. The consultation period ended on 6 September; we are currently considering the responses, with the aim of publishing the code and guidance shortly.

  Public Spaces
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish his report on public spaces; and when he will respond to the report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. [78710]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am today publishing "Living Places—Cleaner, Safer, Greener", the Government's report on public space at the Urban Summit. The report draws upon the work of six government departments. The report also includes the Government's response to the report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. Copies of the report have been placed in the library of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce financial incentives and penalties to encourage achievement of regional targets for renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [78143]

  Mr. McNulty
  These targets are regionally owned. Advice on achieving them in the context of land use planning will be included in the proposed Planning Policy Statement 22 (renewable energy), on which we will consult fully. We are examining more generally the role of local and regional bodies in delivering energy policy objectives as part of the on-going work for the Energy White Paper, which is due to he published in the new year.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, (1) how the costs on the District Auditor's Office inquiry 908W
  into the sale of dwellings by Westminster Council will be distributed; how much other local authorities will be charged to cover the costs; and if he will make a statement. [76860]

  (2) what he estimates the cost of the inquiry into housing sales by Westminster City Council will be to the Office of the District Auditor; and if he will make a statement. [76861]

  Mr. McNulty
  The auditor's investigation leading to his decision in 1996 that six individuals had caused a loss, through wilful misconduct, of some 31million to Westminster City Council. and to issue surcharge certificates against those individuals, cost approximately 3 million. Those costs were met by Westminster City Council.

  The auditor's costs in the subsequent litigation (during which the Divisional Court set aside the auditor's surcharge in respect of four of the six individuals) leading to the decision of the House of Lords in December 2001, to uphold the surcharge against Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks, were met by the Audit Commission. The total of the auditor's litigation costs to this point was around 4.5million. Westminster City Council is currently taking legal action to recover the amount of the surcharge and costs. The final costs of the investigation and litigation will not be known until the outcome of those proceedings.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each local authority will receive from the £200 million Challenge Fund as part of the Starter Home Initiative. [78198]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Challenge Fund (which is not part of the Starter Home Initiative) has been set up within the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 2003–04 to provide 4,000 homes for rent and low cost home ownership in south-east England. Bids for the Challenge Fund were invited from registered social landlords by 18 October. Dependent upon the bids received, a proportion of the homes will be for key public sector workers. We hope to announce the outcome of the bidding process in November.

  Public Relations
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [74689]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley to the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden on 28 October,Official Report, column 735–36W.
  909W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  National Tests (Cheating)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to gather evidence about cheating in national tests for 11-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [78376]

  Mr. Miliband
  The QCA reports to the Department each year on the incidence of malpractice and maladministration in national tests. Both the Department and QCA take all complaints about malpractice very seriously. QCA works closely with LEAs to investigate and monitor reported incidents. Even anonymous complaints are recorded and monitored. QCA works very closely with LEA inspectors who conduct thorough checks throughout the test process. Investigations of malpractice can involve a review of scripts from a school, interviews with teachers, talking to children and drawing on advice from experts in the field depending upon the nature of the allegations.

  In 2002, 479 cases of alleged malpractice or maladministration across the three key stages were reported, leading to the annulment of the results of seven schools. Of these seven schools, four had the results in one subject annulled, two the results in two subjects and one the results in all three subjects.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent guidance his Department has given the QCA on preventing cheating in national tests for 11-year-olds. [78380]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department's remit to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority includes the maintenance of a robust, reliable and credible examination and assessment system. As part of its role in overseeing the administration of statutory assessments, it is for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to approach the Department with proposals for minimising the incidence of malpractice and maladministration in the national tests.

  The QCA will continue to keep its processes under review and to advise the Department accordingly.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set up an inquiry into the levels of cheating in national tests for 11-year-olds. [78377]

  Mr. Miliband
  No. The QCA continues to keep its processes for detecting and investigating malpractice under review.

  QCA works closely with LEAs to investigate and monitor reported incidents. Anonymous complaints are recorded and monitored. QCA works very closely with LEA inspectors who conduct thorough checks throughout the test process. Investigations of malpractice can involve a review of scripts from a school, interviews with teachers, talking to children and drawing on advice from experts in the field depending upon the nature of the allegations. There has been no evidence presented to Government of widespread malpractice in the administration of the Key Stage 2 tests this year.
  910W

  Child Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in improving access to child care for working parents. [76459]

  Maria Eagle
  A new unit, led by Baroness Ashton, accountable for delivery to the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions, will administer a budget of £1.5 billion a year by 2005–06. This represents a doubling of child care spending in real terms.

  By March 2004, new child care places for 1.6 million children will be created. New places for a further 450,000 children will be created by 2006. There are specific initiatives—like the establishment of children's centres and neighbourhood nurseries— which will provide more good quality, safe child care in disadvantaged areas.

  Substantial help with child care costs is provided to lower income families through the child care tax credit element of the working families tax credit. This assistance will continue in an improved and more flexible form as part of the working tax credit from April 2003.

  GCSE Pass Marks
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the average mark required to pass GCSE(a) maths, (b) English and (c) history for each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [75259]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The GCSE is not a pass/fail examination. The GCSE grading system is criteria-related and grade boundary ranges for each subject are established each year by awarding bodies, making reference to candidates' work from the previous year, grade descriptions, past papers and statistical data. Each boundary is set by individual awarding bodies using both professional judgment and key statistical evidence. Information on grade boundary marks is not routinely collected.

  The information on grade boundaries in maths, English and history will be lodged in the House of Commons Library in due course.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average mark needed to attain a grade(a) A, (b) C and (c) G in GCSE mathematics was in each year from 1987 to 2002; [75263]

  (2) what the average mark needed to achieve an (a) A grade and (b) A* grade in GCSE mathematics was in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [76548]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Information is not routinely collected on grade boundary marks in GCSE mathematics, across individual awarding body specifications. Grade boundary ranges for each subject, including mathematics, are established making reference to candidates' work from the previous year, grade descriptions, past papers and statistical data. Each

  911W
  boundary is set by individual awarding bodies using both professional judgement and key statistical evidence.

  The information on grade boundaries in Maths GCSE for the period requested will be lodged in the House of Commons Library in due course.

  National Grid for Learning
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much government funding is available to connect schools to the National Grid for Learning; and how much was spent on rural schools in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78398]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Government are committed to investing £1.8 billion on ICT in schools in England over 1998–2004; this covers equipment, content and training as well as connecting schools to the National Grid for Learning through the internet. Allocations to schools in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were £205 million and £245 million, respectively. A further £355 million is being allocated in 2002–03. This funding is not disaggregated for connections to the internet or for the amount allocated to rural schools. However, latest survey data published on 30 October indicate that average school expenditure on ICT has risen from £18,100 in 2000–01 to £24,800 in 2001–02.

  PE Teaching (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of PE teaching in primary schools. [73936]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) is responsible for monitoring, reporting and advising the Secretary of State on the quality of teaching and learning in schools, including Physical Education (PE).Ofsted published-in February 2002—a primary subject report on PE for the academic year 2000–01. This reported that in one in four primary schools there had been a significant improvement in the quality of PE since their previous inspections. Ofsted also reported that teaching was good or better in about half of schools; this maintains recent trends. The report has been placed in both libraries.

  School Exclusions (West Kent)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have been excluded from(a) state primary and (b) state secondary schools in West Kent at each of the key stages, in each year since 1997. [77503]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the key stage of the pupil; a breakdown of the figures by age is given as a proxy. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.
  912W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in Kent local education authority: number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils —England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Age of pupils

  Primary schools2

  6 and under

  7 to 10

  Total

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  18

  61

  79

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  22.8

  77.2

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.03

  0.08

  0.06

  1997–985

  Number of permanent exclusions

  9

  32

  41

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  22.0

  78.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.04

  0.04

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  7

  26

  33

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  21.2

  78.8

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.04

  0.03

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  5

  28

  33

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  15.2

  84.8

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.04

  0.03

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  6

  63

  69

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  8.7

  91.3

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.10

  0.06

  Age of pupils

  Secondary schools2

  13 and under

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  167

  189

  9

  365

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  45.8

  51.8

  2.5

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.31

  0.54

  0.06

  0.35

  1997–985

  Number of permanent exclusions

  138

  152

  9

  299

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  46.2

  51.0

  3.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.25

  0.44

  0.06

  0.28

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  134

  134

  20

  288

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  46.5

  46.7

  7.0

  100.0

  Percentage of

  913W

  Age of pupils

  Secondary schools2

  13 and under

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  school population4

  0.28

  0.47

  0.15

  0.32

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  94

  107

  6

  207

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  45.4

  51.7

  2.9

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.20

  0.37

  0.04

  0.23

  2000–01

  Number of permanent exclusions

  6—

  6—

  6—

  296

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  6—

  6—

  6—

  100.0

  Percentage of school populations4

  6—

  6—

  6—

  0.32

  1 Permanent exclusions data for 2000–01 have been estimated as they are known to be incomplete.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  colspan="5">3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number.

  4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  5 After Local Government Reorganisation.

  6 Not available (data at secondary school level are incomplete for this LEA and are therefore not available).

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Schools (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from state(a) primary and (b) secondary schools at each of the key stages in each year since 1997 in Somerset. [77764]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the key stage of the pupil; a breakdown of the figures by age is given as a proxy. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in Somerset local education authority: number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils(England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Age of pupils

  Primary schools2

  6 and under

  7 to 10

  Total

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  4

  14

  18

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  22.2

  77.8

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.02

  0.07

  0.05

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  2

  9

  11

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  18.2

  81.8

  100.0

  914W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in Somerset local education authority: number of permanent exclusions by age of pupils(England 1996–97 to 2000–011

  Age of pupils

  Primary schools2

  6 and under

  7 to 10

  Total

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.04

  0.03

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  1

  5

  6

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  16.7

  83.3

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.01

  0.02

  0.02

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  12

  12

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.06

  0.03

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  5

  10

  15

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  33.3

  66.7

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.03

  0.05

  0.04

  Age of pupils

  Secondary schools2

  13 and under

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  1996–97

  Number of permanent exclusions

  37

  41

  0

  78

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  47.4

  54.7

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.21

  0.42

  0.00

  0.27

  1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  31

  32

  1

  64

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  48.4

  50.8

  1.6

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.18

  0.32

  0.06

  0.22

  1998–99

  Number of permanent exclusions

  26

  29

  0

  55

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  47.3

  54.7

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.14

  0.29

  0.00

  0.19

  1999–2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  24

  25

  0

  49

  Percentage of all permanent

  915W

  Age of pupils

  Secondary schools2

  13 and under

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  Total

  exclusions3

  47.9

  52.1

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.13

  0.25

  0.00

  0.16

  2000–011

  Number of permanent exclusions

  23

  15

  0

  38

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  60.5

  39.5

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.12

  0.14

  0.00

  0.12

  1 Permanent exclusions data for 2000–01 have been estimated as they are known to be incomplete.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number.

  4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [76019]

  Margaret Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 14–15 October. The Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development also attended.

  The Council considered three proposals on food safety, covering the monitoring and control of zoonoses and genetically modified food and feed. Some clarification of positions emerged but it was not possible to reach agreement on this occasion. Further work will be undertaken by officials before Ministers reconsider these dossiers.

  The Council assessed the agricultural priorities flowing from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and agreed conclusions accordingly.

  The Council continued its consideration of the mid-term review of the CAP with a discussion concentrating on the proposals concerning rural development, farm audits and three commodity sectors: nuts, rice and milk. My hon. Friend was supported by a number of other Member States in stressing the importance of a shift from production-linked support under the CAP to rural development programmes and he recalled the importance of a fair distribution of funds between Member States. On the commodity proposals, he opposed the introduction of new market measures for
  916W
  nuts and supported the Commission's proposals on rice which would complement improved access to the EU market for third countries. On milk, he reiterated UK support for action that would eventually enable milk quotas to be phased out, and indicated that we would be prepared to consider favourably the possible acceleration of certain measures agreed in the Agenda 2000 package.

  Ministers also discussed the agricultural aspects of the WTO round negotiations. My hon Friend strongly supported Commissioner Fischler in emphasising the importance of CAP reform in general and decoupling in particular if the EU is to participate constructively in the round.

  Under other business, the Commission dealt with enquiries about olive oil promotion, aid to Greek cotton producers and negotiations with third countries over grain imports.

  On fisheries, the Council held a further debate on the Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, this time covering access to waters and resources, enforcement, and the Commission's proposals for Regional Advisory Councils: the presidency noted the various views expressed and reiterated that its aim is to conclude this dossier at the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council.

  The Council also debated the Commission's proposal for a cod and hake recovery plan based on limitations on days at sea, which was originally submitted to the Council in December 2001. There was a divergence of view on the desirability of a plan, with one significant group of member states, including the UK, supportive of the need to act, and another group markedly less so. For the UK, my hon. Friend recognised the seriousness of the state of the stocks and emphasised that all possible approaches, including days at sea, warranted consideration. He stressed also that it would be important, when determining what measures to adopt, to recognise the varying structures and circumstances of national fleets.

  Commissioner Fischler gave a first presentation to the Council on his proposed action plan for Mediterranean fisheries. The Council will discuss this substantively at a later date.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on areas of outstanding natural beauty in each region in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78391]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency, which manages the expenditure on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has provided the following figures:
  917W

  Region

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North East

  407,692

  133,748

  (545,000)

  North West

  216,126

  108,001

  (310,000)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  80,358

  13,677

  (189,000)

  East Midlands

  69,400

  (10,570)

  (75,000)

  West Midlands

  492,998

  109,916

  (449,000)

  East of England

  369,966

  78,227

  (308,000)

  South East and London

  1,227,573

  406,730

  (1,555,000)

  South West

  923,526

  362,617

  (1,805,000)

  Nationally

  1,108,429

  412,077

  (970,000)

  Total:

  4,896,069

  11,635,563

  (6,206,000)

  1Actual spend to date for 02/03 as at 29 October 2002 is given along with, in brackets, the expected total spend based on current commitments.

  The Agency advises that figures for 2000/01 are not available in this format because the programme for areas of outstanding natural beauty that year was part of a wider theme on protected landscapes, taking in national parks, Heritage coasts and Heritage landscapes. The total spend on the theme was £4.4m.

  TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions her Department and the Bourne Group have undertaken to investigate the incidence of bovine TB in those areas which have been restocked with cattle since the culling and movement restriction policy following the foot and mouth outbreak last year. [77388]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has commissioned an extensive research project with Warwick University to study the transmission of bovine TB in restocked herds. The first part of this project investigates the incidence of bovine TB in herds in the badger culling trial areas which have been restocked since the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, compared with herds in the same areas which were unaffected by FMD. The second part of the project is a case control study of restocked herds in all parts of Great Britain which become infected with bovine TB within two years of restocking.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the timetable is for the implementation of the amended TB Order. [77391]

  Mr. Morley
  The original public consultation on the amended TB Order was interrupted by the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Additional policy considerations have come to light since the initial exercise was carried out and a further consultation on the amended TB Order is planned for the first half of next year. A timetable for implementation of the Order will be drawn up following consultation.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the European Commission's proposals on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. [75960]

  Mr. Morley
  I welcome the European Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP which are a good basis for discussion. The Government supports the proposed shift in support from production-linked payments to 918W
  wider agri-environment and rural development measures as well as the proposal to remove the link between production and support. In a number of key areas we would have liked the proposals to go further, notably by offering real budgetary savings and firm proposals for reform of the dairy regime. We will need to ensure that the reforms offer a fair deal for UK producers.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she expects on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy as a result of the mid-term review; and if she will make a statement. [75248]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]Formal legislative proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy are not expected until December at the earliest. Negotiations will therefore continue into 2003. It is too early to say what the outcome of discussions will be, but the UK will continue to argue that reform is essential if we are to meet our domestic objectives and international obligations.

  Community Development Work
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the fund for community development work was spent in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78404]

  Alun Michael
  The proposal to support community development workers was announced in the rural White Paper in November 2000. I understand from the Countryside Agency that bids from rural community councils to employ additional community development workers to work with small rural communities to tackle the problem of social exclusion were invited in October 2001 for the three year period from April 2002. 37 posts have been approved. In addition, the Community Development Foundation has been contracted to develop a network of rural community development workers, including the posts funded through the Agency, to build capacity among the network, to spread good practice and to promote training. Total spend in the year to date is £385,691. There was no expenditure in 2000/01 and 2001/02.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) recent discussions she has had and (b) representations she has received regarding the Countryside Agency; and if she will make a statement. [78614]

  Alun Michael
  I have regular meetings with the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Countryside Agency and we exchange correspondence frequently. Most recently I met the board of the agency on 16 October where we discussed how best we could work together to deliver the Government's objectives of securing prosperous rural economies, vibrant rural communities and a countryside which all may enjoy.
  919W
  Officials in the Department also work closely with officials in the Agency to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of rural policy.

  Departmental Logo
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much it cost to redesign the Department's logo; and which outside bodies were involved in the creative process. [78200]

  Alun Michael
  Our current expenditure on redesigning the Defra Logo is £24,000, with a further £8,000 of expenditure on research and refinement.

  The outside body involved in the creative process was the brand design agency, Bamber Forsyth-Fitch.

  Environmental Action Fund Grant
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding is available through the Environmental Action Fund Grant; and how much was spent through it in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78392]

  Alun Michael
  In each of the financial years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03, £4.2 million has been available through the Environmental Action Fund. Out-turn was also £4.2 million in both 2000–01 and 2001–02. For 2002–03 we have allocated the full resource of the Fund to deserving biodiversity and sustainable development education and awareness raising projects.

  Farm Support
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent and how many farmers have been supported, by category, through the(a) England Rural Development Programme and (b) Farm Business Advisory Service in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [78386]

  Alun Michael
  England Rural Development Programme (ERDP)

  Total amount spent in each year

  £

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  122.61

  167.2

  50.0

  1The ERDP was approved by the European Commission on 11 October 2000. Expenditure recorded against the programme did not start until 16 October 2000. This is the date on which the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (under which CAP payments are Made) year commences.

  The total number of those supported in each year2

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  25,828

  26,089

  7,217

  2This includes farmers and non-farmers in receipt of payments from any of the ten ERDP schemes. Those benefiting from more than one scheme are counted only once. It is not possible separately to identify figures for farmers and for non-farmer recipients, or to break down the figures by type of farm other than at disproportionate cost.

  920W
  Farm Business Advisory Service (FBAS)

  Total amount spent each year

  £

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  4.1

  6.8

  0.95

  Total number of first visits

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  3,480

  3,102

  789

  Total number of action whole farm plans completed (for core and enhanced service)

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  2,012

  2,955>

  916

  It is not possible to identify the numbers of farmers by type of farm in either scheme without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [77665]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Raynesford) on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W. The cost of providing emergency cover will depend on the extent and nature of any industrial action.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessments she has made of the appropriateness of using growth promoters in livestock and poultry. [77624]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government take very seriously the possibility of the development of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria affecting humans as a result of the use of antibiotics in animals. They are satisfied that the four remaining antibiotic growth promoters are not related to any therapeutic antibiotics currently used in human or veterinary medicine but will keep the issue under review. Government policy will continue to be informed by the advice of their specialist committees.

  There is currently a proposal before the European Commission for a regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition. The proposal aims to rationalise existing measures and introduce new controls. One of the effects will be to withdraw the use of antibiotic growth promoters by 31 December 2005. The intended withdrawal is based on a precautionary approach taking into account the impact that antimicrobial-resistant microbes can have on human health. This time scale includes a phasing out period, allowing time for the development of new husbandry methods and for industry to develop alternative products.

  Household Waste (Chelmsford)
  Mr Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the proportion of household waste that was recycled in the Chelmsford local authority area in(a) the last year for which figures are available, (b) 1998 and (c) 1995. [77153]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures derived from the Defra annual Municipal Waste Management Survey show a household recycling rate for Chelmsford borough council, of 7 per cent in 2000–01 and 3 per cent in 1998–99. Data is not available for 1995. Copies of the results from the municipal waste management survey 2000–01 and earlier years, are available in the House of Commons Library and from the DEFRA website: httD.V/www.defra. aov.uk/environment/wastats/ mwbOOOI/index.htm

  LEADER + Programme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been(a) applied for and (b) spent through the LEADER + Programme by area in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78401]

  Alun Michael
  LEADER + is an EU programme which is part funded by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Funding is allocated by calendar year. English LEADER + local action groups have been allocated the following funding for their development plans, grouped by region:

  Region

  2002

  2003

  EU (£)

  DEFRA (£)

  EU (£)

  DEFRA (£)

  North West

  596,479

  258,579

  1,007,033

  480,777

  North East

  273,912

  78,579

  551,815

  126,802

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  304,481

  142,820

  648,359

  316,965

  West Midlands

  129,311

  66,004

  191,694

  91,059

  East Midlands

  214,948

  102,975

  623,928

  272,488

  East

  306,181

  58,612

  450,071

  89,838

  South West

  618,097

  305,384

  1,139,343

  568,422

  South East

  499,020

  125,345

  1,396,003

  427,227

  Total

  2,942

  1,138,298

  6,008,346

  2,373,578

  We do not yet have any figures on expenditure by local action groups as they are currently putting together their first grant claims. These will cover the period 7 January 2002 (when the successful local action groups were announced) to 31 September 2002.

  Management and Best Practice Toolkit
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications were made and how much was spent through the internet-linked management and best practice toolkit in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date; broken down by project. [78394]

  Alun Michael
  Following a commitment in the Rural White Paper the web based best practice toolkit for parishes was launched in September 2002. It was developed by the Countryside Agency working with the 922W
  Local Government Association (LGA), the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the improvement and Development Agency (IDeA). The `Knowledge' website is a free web resource. The address is www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk and is currently used by over 15,000 registered users.

  The editorial management is jointly owned by the IDeA, LGA, NALC and the Countryside Agency. The Countryside Agency chairs and services the editorial management meetings. The toolkit focuses particularly on partnership working between parish and town councils and principal local authorities.

  The toolkit is a resource not a mechanism for application for grants. Therefore figures cannot be provided in the format requested.

  Market Town Regeneration
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been(a) applied for and (b) spent on market town regeneration by her Department in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [78400]

  Alun Michael
  The Market Town Initiative is being taken forward on Defra's behalf by the regional development agencies, working with the Countryside Agency and local partners, and using the £37 million of Government funding announced in the rural White Paper in November 2000 plus such match funding as can be secured from other public and private sources.

  Expenditure on the Initiative in 2001–02 is estimated at some £2.9m by the regional development agencies and some £2.5m by the countryside agency. Information for the current financial year is not yet available but as most towns have now completed their action plans this should result in a substantial increase in project expenditure by RDAs and other partners.

  Mr. and Mrs. Rogers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will ensure that her officials avoid causing the bankruptcy of Mr. L. A. and Mrs. S. M. Rogers of South Milton, Kingsbridge by continuing to demand a penalty for their failure to despatch the appropriate forms to the British Cattle Movement Service in Cumbria in 2001. [77530]

  Alun Michael
  I can assure the hon. Member that following a thorough review of the case his constituents will receive their 2001 Beef Special Premium Scheme payment shortly.

  National Parks
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on national park grants in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78390]

  Alun Michael
  In 2000–01 and 2001–02 the English National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority received £26,166,650 and £27,920,833 respectively.

  In 2002–03 the National Parks and Broads Authority will receive £31,493,8541. Of this, £25,345,978 has been spent to date.
  923W
  1 This includes funding to aid recovery from Foot and Mouth and for implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Core funding for 2002–03 is £29,618,853.

  Pigswill
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received, and what studies have been conducted, into the environmental impact of pigswill being disposed of to landfill; and what assessment her Department has made of the risk of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or swine fever as a result; [76303]

  (2) how many representations she has received concerning pig farmers affected by the ban on the use of pigswill. [76311]

  Mr. Morley
  In March 2001 during the foot and mouth outbreak, the proposal to ban swill feeding was the subject of a full public consultation and Regulatory Impact Assessment. We received over 350 responses to the consultation letter. Subsequently, Minister's have received 51 letters and 33 questions from MPs with regards to the ban on swill feeding. On 20 November 2001 I met with representatives of the Associated Swill Users.

  Before the ban on swill-feeding, only a small proportion of catering waste from restaurants and other catering establishments was fed to pigs as swill. The vast majority was already disposed of to landfill or incineration. As the additional waste was going to landfill under the same conditions as before, no specific assessment was made as to the environmental and animal health impacts from the use of landfill to dispose of material that would otherwise have been fed to pigs.

  Poultry Cages
  Mr. Owen Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is the Government's policy to take decisions concerning the future of enriched cages at EU level. [77360]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Directive 99/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the welfare of laying hens has been implemented through the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000, as amended, which came into force on 25 June. Consistent with the Government's Strategy for Agriculture, the directive has been implemented without adding to it in any way.

  However, we have carried out a three-month public consultation on the future of enriched cages. Responses to this consultation will form part of our consideration on whether "enriched" cages should continue to be permitted. That consideration will be guided by the available scientific evidence and the need to provide egg producers with the certainty they need to enable them to make long-term investment decisions.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the potential change in employment in England as a result of a ban on the enriched laying cage.[77361]
  924W
  Mr. Morley
  A partial regulatory impact assessment was included in the public consultation and will be considered again and revisited in the light of responses received.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will publish the results of her Department's detailed assessment of the competition implications of the proposed ban on enriched laying cages; [77362]

  (2) when she intends to make a decision on the future of enriched laying cages. [77363]

  Mr. Morley
  A partial regulatory impact assessment was included in the public consultation about a possible ban on enriched cages. The impact assessment will be looked at again in light of the responses received. A full regulatory impact assessment will be made available along with the results of the consultation.

  Public Spaces
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the consultation paper on reforming the legislative framework for providing and maintaining public spaces. [78621]

  Alun Michael
  I am today publishing "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities", the Government's consultation paper on options for reforming the way statutory powers, duties and guidance help the relevant service providers to improve our public spaces and the local environment. The paper is being presented at the urban summit to accompany a report on public spaces being published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The consultation paper concerns several Government departments and I look forward to feedback from a broad range of groups. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 annual report of the rural payments agency. [79117]

  Alun Michael
  The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the rural payments agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Street Cleaning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sums she makes available to provide for street cleaners; and what measures she can take if a local authority fails to keep its area clean for the public. [77008]

  Alun Michael
  A number of large mainstream budgets directly affect the safety and cleanliness of local neighbourhoods. Additional investment in real terms for these areas was announced in Spending Review 2002 covering the years 2003–06. General revenue grant to local authorities is up by an average of 3.9 per cent a year after inflation. The Government's general revenue provision for most aspects of public space, including
  925W
  provision for street cleaners, is allocated via the Environment, Protective and Cultural Services grant block, which is up 1.3 per cent. after inflation. A litter abatement order may be applied for if a local authority does not carry out its statutory duty to keep its land free of litter and debris, so far is practicable. This is done through the Magistrates' Court. If successful in obtaining the order it means that the offending authority must clean the area.

  Voluntary Sector
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding is available for the voluntary sector in terms of(a) grants and (b) core-funding by her Department; and how much of that money has been (i) applied for and (ii) spent in (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02 and (C) 2002–03 to date.[78389]

  Alun Michael
  Because of departmental changes in June 2001, the information is not readily available in the form requested. Information is being collated and I will write to the hon. Member within the next week.

  Wildlife-friendly Agriculture
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to direct grant monies towards wildlife-friendly agriculture; and if she will make a statement. [77044]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to improving standards of environmental protection in agriculture, and are pressing for a shift in Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure from production-linked payments towards rural development and agri-environment measures.

  In 2001, the Government introduced modulation, redirecting a proportion of CAP payments into schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, both of which aim to safeguard and enhance wildlife habitats.

  These schemes form part of the England Rural Development Programme, under which £1.6 billion will be invested in the countryside between 2000 and 2006, including £1 billion on agri-environment measures. The Government have committed an additional £75 million to introduce a new entry-level agri-environment scheme in 2005, following successful pilots. This scheme will be available to as many farms as possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the latest estimate is of how much of Afghanistan's poppy fields have been destroyed; and what the UK is doing to help the Afghanistan Government combat the production of opium; [77929]

  (2) what action the UK is taking to help the Afghanistan Government combat the production of opium; [78450]
  926W
  (3) what his latest estimate is of how much of Afghanistan's poppy fields have been destroyed in the last 12 months. [78449]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Government estimate their eradication programme destroyed approximately 17,300 hectares of the 2002 opium poppy crop. The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention estimates that the size of the 2002 crop was 74,000 hectares.

  The UK is co-ordinating international anti-narcotics assistance to Afghanistan. In consultation with the Afghan Government, other donors and international (especially UN) agencies, the UK has developed a strategy for the long term elimination of drugs from Afghanistan. It identifies four key areas where the international community should focus its support: providing alternative livelihoods for opium poppy farmers; improving Afghan drug law enforcement capacity; building up the capacity of Afghan drug control institutions; and reducing drug demand in Afghanistan.

  Bilateral Aid
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assistance the Government has given to each EU applicant country in terms of bilateral aid. [78872]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Europe on 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 636W. The UK pays 19.6 per cent. of EU pre-accession assistance.Bilateral assistance is ongoing and comes from a number of areas. DFID provides significant assistance through its bilateral programme. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides assistance to applicant countries through its bilateral action plans, command programme budget allowances and through functional departments (e.g global conflict prevention fund).

  British High Commission (Singapore)
  Mr Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was informed that the Government of Singapore had made a statement on responsibility for the attempted attack on the British High Commission in that country in December 2001; what assessment his Department made of that statement; what consequent threat assessment his Department has made; what action was taken and on what date; and if he will make a statement. [78326]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government of Singapore informed us in mid-December 2001 of a possible threat to our High Commission in Singapore. The High Commission raised its level of security. The Government of Singapore subsequently announced on 6 January 2002 the detention of thirteen people during December 2001 in connection with plans to mount terrorist attacks against a range of targets in that country.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 15 October 2002, Official Report, column 178, prior to 11 September 2001, and especially afterwards, we identified

  927W
  South East Asia as an area with a real and present threat from groups linked to al-Qaeda. The FCO's travel advice to the region takes account of this threat.

  On 28 October 2002 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid before this House the Statutory Instrument for the proscription of Jemaah Islamiyah in the UK. This issue was debated by both Houses of Parliament on 30 October 2002 and the Order will now come into force on 1 November 2002.

  Child Abduction
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has to raise the case of Catherine Meyer in an international forum; [75652]

  (2) what plans he has to raise child abduction issues in an EU forum. [75651]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 554.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to reconcile the CAP with the coming enlargement of the EU. [77033]

  Mr. MacShane
  At the Brussels European Council on 24 October 2002, the EU agreed to phase in direct payments for the new member states over nine years (2004–2013). To help limit the cost of extending CAP to the new member states, the EU also agreed to put a ceiling on traditional CAP expenditure between 2007 and 2013 based on its 2006 levels. This is without prejudice to possible CAP reform in the context of the mid term review and the Doha development round, which the Government strongly advocates.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts concerning the Common Agricultural Policy. [77944]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with EU colleagues on a number of occasions over the last few weeks. As the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 28 October, the Government remain firmly committed to a thorough reform of the CAP, consistent with the commitments that we and our EU partners made at the Doha WTO Ministerial and WSSD in Johannesburg. The conclusions of the Brussels European Council recall those commitments made at Doha.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the Convention on the Future of Europe Working Group on Defence is; and if he will make a statement. [77818]
  928W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Government welcome the European Convention's decision to set up a Working Group on Defence. The Working Group's mandate is set out in Convention document CONY 206/02 of 19 July 2002 and reads as follows:
  Apart from the Petersberg tasks, what defence remit could be envisaged for the Union?Since the Union has decided that it must have a genuine operational capability, including a military capability, what can be done to ensure that the Member States have the military capabilities needed to guarantee the credibility of the Union's defence policy? Should we seek inspiration from monetary union, and establish admission criteria and a pact to be complied with thereafter?Should provision be made for extending enhanced cooperation to defence matters?What can be done to ensure that decisions can be taken quickly during a crisis management operation?What can be done to ensure coherent planning of the Union's crisis management operations?
  What methods should be used to ensure greater efficiency and economies of scale in arms procurement, research and development? Should the creation of a European Arms Agency be envisaged?

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when UK Visas will reply to the letter of 27 June from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, regarding Mr. AM reference NBI/ 1003564/7/8. [77533]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 30 October 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in replying to my hon. Friend's letter of 27 June. A reply was sent to him on 30 October.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of Cyprus' application to join the EU [77926]

  Mr. MacShane
  Cyprus has made very good progress in negotiations, having provisionally closed 28 of the 31 negotiating chapters. At Brussels the European Council confirmed its determination to conclude negotiations with Cyprus, along with nine other countries, at its meeting in Copenhagen on 12/13 December. It also reiterated its preference for a reunited Cyprus to join the EU. If there is no settlement, it said, "the decisions to be taken in December by the Copenhagen European Council will be based on the conclusions set out by [..] Helsinki" i.e. that the Council's decision will be taken without a settlement being a precondition and that all relevant factors would be taken into account.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards establishing discussions between the communities in Cyprus on property rights as part of a settlement; and if he will make a statement. [77911]

  Mr. MacShane
  Property is one of the core issues, identified by the UN Secretary-General, being discussed by the two leaders in Cyprus as part of efforts to find a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem. The UN Secretary-General has asked that the content of discussions during the settlement talks
  929W
  remain private. I urge the two leaders to do all they can to narrow their differences on property and on the other core issues.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) Turkey and (b) Greece, concerning the prospects of a settlement in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [77912]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Sukru Sina Gurel, Turkish Foreign Minister, on 24 September and George Papandreou, Greek Foreign Minister on 24 October 2002. He discussed settlement negotiations in Cyprus with both, made clear that our aim is for a reunited island to be invited at the Copenhagen European Council to accede to the European Union and urged both to take an active role in supporting the UN on Cyprus.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bicommunal events and activities his Department and the British Council have supported in Cyprus in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.[R] [77913]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are committed to developing practical co-operation between the two communities on and off the island. The then Minister for Europe my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) hosted a reception and gave a speech to an intercommunal gathering on 10 April which was attended by senior politicians from both communities. The British high commission has made a significant contribution to intercommunal dialogue, bringing Turkish and Greek Cypriots together at a wide range of events.

  Mr Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made by the technical committees established under UN auspices to look at aspects of the Cyprus problem relating to constitutional and treaty matters; and if he will make a statement [77915]

  Mr. MacShane
  I welcome the establishment of the technical committees to support the settlement talks on Cyprus, announced by the Secretary-General on 4 October. We hope the committees will start their work as soon as possible. The UN Secretary-General has asked that the content of discussions during the settlement talks remains private to the parties.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Lord Hannay has visited(a) Cyprus, (b) Greece, (c) Turkey and (d) the United Nations in the last 12 months for discussions on the Cyprus problem; and who he met on each occasion. [77916]

  Mr. MacShane
  Lord Hannay visited Cyprus on:17 to 18 December 2001 and met Glafcos Clerides (Greek Cypriot leader), Rauf Denktash (Turkish Cypriot leader) and key players from both sides of the island;
  12 to 13 February 2002 and met Mr Clerides, Mr Denktash, and key players from both sides of the island;
  10 to 11 April 2002 and met Mr Clerides, Mr Denktash, and key players from both sides of the island;
  10 to 11 June 2002 and met Mr Clerides, Mr Denktash, and key players from both sides of the island;
  930W
  30 August to 2 September 2002 and met Mr Clerides, Mr Denktash, and key players from both sides of the island; and,
  24 to 27 October 2002 and met Mr derides, Hakki Muftezade (senior adviser to Mr Denktash) and key players from both sides of the island.

  Lord Hannay visited Greece on:
  26 November 2001 and met Tassos Yiannitsis (Alternate Foreign Minister), Dora Bakoyanni (New Democracy), other key players and also gave a background briefing to Greek journalists;
  11 to 12 April 2002 and met George Papandreou (Foreign Minister), Mr Yiannitsis and other key players; and,
  16 to 18 May 2002 and met Mr Papandreou and close advisers.

  Lord Hannay visited Turkey on:
  27 November 2001 and met Ugar Ziyal, Baki Ilkin, Ertugrul Apakan (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Tachan Ildem (President Sezer!s foreign policy adviser), Volkan Vural (Secretary-General for EU Affairs) and other key players; -
  21 to 22 March 2002 and met Mr Ziyal, Mr Ilkin, Mr Apakan, Mr IIdem, Volkan Bozkir (Deputy Secretary-General for EU Affairs) and other key players;
  5 to 6 June 2002 and met Ismail Cem (Turkish Foreign Minister), Mr Ziyal, Mr Ilkin, MrApakan, Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz (Deputy Prime Minister), Mr Vural and had dinner with a cross-section of MPs and media commentators; and,
  24 to 25 July and met Mr. Ziyal, Mr. Vural, Mr. Ilkin, Mr. Apakan, Ms Tayyibe Guledkl

  Lord Hannay visited the UN in New York on:
  12 to 15 November 2001 and met Alvaro de Soto (UN Special Representative for Cyprus), Tom Weston (US Special Representative for Cyprus), Mr Wittig (German Special Representative for Cyprus), Mr derides, loannis Kasoulides (Foreign Minister of Cyprus), Mr Zackheos (Cyprus Permanent epresentative to the UN), Yigit Alpogan (Turkish Deputy Under-Secretary), Mr Papandreou and other key players;
  25 February 2002 and met Mr de Soto, Mr Weston and other key players; -
  3 April 2002 and met Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-General), Mr de Soto, Mr Weston, Kieran Prendergast (UN) and other key players;
  11 to 16 September 2002 and met Mr Kasoulides, Mr Papandreou, Marc Grossman (State Department), Fris Arne Petersen (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Mr
  Prendergast and other key players; and,
  30 September to 5 October 2002 and met Mr Annan, Mr Weston, Mr de Soto, Mr Clerides, Mr Denktash and other key players.

  Lord Hannay also had meetings with Mr de Soto in;

  Cyprus on 12 to 13 February;

  Cyprus on 10 to 11 April;

  Rome on 8 and 9 June;

  Cyprus on 10 to 11 June;

  Paris on 5 July;

  Vienna on 27 July;

  Paris on 7 September;

  Cyprus on 30 August to 2 September;

  Vevey on 8 October; and,

  Cyprus on 24 to 27 October 2002.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to extend the benefits of EU membership to Cypriot inhabitants of the SBAs, Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [77924]

  Mr. MacShane
  As the Commission noted in its report on Cyprus of 9 October, as part of the preparation for Cyprusl future EU membership, the British government has over the past year held meetings with Cyprus and the European Commission to discuss the arrangements that will come into force in the SBAs
  931W
  when Cyprus joins the ELJ. Our objective has been, as described in the written answer by my noble Friend Baroness Symons of 5 December 2001 (Official Report, column WA 140), to continue with the policy of the SBAs remaining outside the EU, except where necessary to ensure that Cypriots who live and work in the SBAs do not benefit less from Cyprus's membership of the European Union than their compatriots in the Republic of Cyprus. The outcome of these discussions will be considered by the European institutions, including the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus problem [77927]

  Mr. MacShane
  I am pleased that talks are continuing between the two sides in Cyprus to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. Our aim, and that of our EU partners and the US, is that such a settlement should be reached as soon as possible, so that a reunited island can be invited, at the Copenhagen European Council, to accede to the EU. I fully support the UN in its efforts to bridge the gaps between the two sides and urge the two leaders to do all they can to narrow their differences on the core issues.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those organisations funded by committees' money campaigning to end the death penalty; if such organisations campaign in the United States; and what representations he has received from(a) the US Government (b) individual US states thereon. [78124]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is unclear to which committee the hon. Member is referring, but it is HMG policy to lobby for a world-wide abolition of the death penalty.

  The UK took the lead during its EU presidency in formulating new EU guidelines on the death penalty. We have also established a Death Penalty Panel including expert academics and NGO representatives.

  Currently, the FCO is funding the International Justice Project. It is a resource centre in the US that provides information to US defence lawyers tackling death penalty cases.

  We shall continue to lobby States in the US until the death penalty is abolished.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations with the Government of Spain over the future sovereignty of Gibraltar. [78443]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made to the House on 12 July 2002,Official Report, columns 1165–67.

  North Korea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's932W
  Government was informed by the United States Government of the latter's knowledge of the most recent status of North Korea's nuclear weapons programme; and what action has been taken by the United Kingdom as a result of this knowledge. [77221]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Like the US, we have been concerned for some time at reports of clandestine North Korean nuclear activities. The North Koreans confirmed that they were pursuing an enrichment programme for nuclear weapons in a meeting with US Assistant Secretary Kelly on 4 October. We learned of that admission shortly afterwards.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 17 October (full statement available on the FCO website www.fco.gov.uk) that North Korea's actions are a serious violation of its international obligations. We are assessing our policy towards North Korea in consultation with our friends and allies most directly concerned with security on the Korean Peninsula, and with our partners in the European Union.

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those reports produced to date by the EU Institute for Security Studies, with security caveat grading. [78122]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The publication record of the institute, and its official reports are available on its website (www.iss-eu.org). None of its reports has a security classification.

  Resale Rights Directive
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the legal basis of Directive 2001/84/EC on art resale rights; at what point right of veto was waived by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement. [78118]

  Mr. MacShane
  The legal basis of Directive 2001/84/ EC on the resale right for the benefit of an author of an original work of art was Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The directive was subject to qualified majority voting. During lengthy negotiations the Government were, however, able to secure significant improvements to the initial proposal put forward by the Commission.

  Shener Levent
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Turkish Cypriots concerning(a) the imprisonment of journalist Shener Levent and Lavant of "Afrika" newspaper, (b) the outstanding charges against Shener Levent in the military court, (c) the outstanding charges against Ozker Ozkur and Izzet Izcan, political party leaders, in the military court and (d) the use of military court against opponents of the Denktash regime and if he will make a statement.[R] [77925]

  Mr. MacShane
  I am disappointed that Shener Levent is again being tried in court for publishing articles critical of the Turkish Cypriot authorities. I condemn all attacks on press freedom, and call upon the Turkish
  933W
  Cypriot authorities to ensure full respect for the right to freedom of expression of Shener Levent and all Turkish Cypriots. I made a statement on 4 September and the British Government made official representations when Shener Levent and Memduh Ener were imprisoned in August. We will continue to follow this case, and all cases before the military court, closely.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with other government departments, concerning(a) proscribing Jemaah Islamiyah under the Terrorism Act 2000 and (b) freezing the assets of that group; and if he will make a statement. [78324]

  Mr. Straw
  On 23 October 2002 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructed the Bank of England to issue notice requiring all UK banks and financial institutions to freeze the assets of Jemaah Islamiyah. This action was taken in co-ordination with the submission of Jemaah Islamiyah to the United Nations Sanctions Committee in New York. Jemaah Islamiyah was formally added to the United National Sanctions List under Security Council Resolution 1390 on 25 October.

  On 28 October 2002 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid before this House the statutory instrument for the proscription of Jemaah Islamiyah in the UK. This issue was debated by both Houses of Parliament on 30 October 2002 and the Order will now come into force on 1 November 2002.

  Both of these actions were taken after close consultation between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Home Office.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has collated concerning links between Jemaah Islamiyah and organisations(a) based in Europe, (b) with assets held in Europe and (c) with close links to groups resident in Europe; and if he will make a statement. [78325]

  Mr. Straw
  The Jemaah Islamiyah group based in South East Asia is not generally thought to operate outside that region and should not be confused with other Islamist groups elsewhere in the world that bear the same name. Information about terrorist groups and their finances is kept under constant review. We believe that the Jemaah Islamiyah group in South East Asia has strong links with the al Qaeda network and that al Qaeda maintains links with terrorists groups around the world, including Europe.

  On 23 October 2002 the European Union cosponsored the submission of Jemaah Islamiyah to the United Nations Sanctions Committee in New York on the basis of that groups links to al Qaeda. Jemaah Islamiyah was added to the United Nations Sanctions List under Security Council Resolution 1390 on 25 October.

  Turkey
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment 934W
  he has made of the request by Turkey for a date for the commencement of the accession process to the EU to be given at the Copenhagen summit; and if he will make a statement. [77914]

  Mr. MacShane
  HMG has long been a strong supporter of Turkey's EU candidature and we look forward to Turkey's membership of the EU as soon as possible and in accordance with the conditions which all candidates have to meet. The European Council at Brussels welcomed the important reforms undertaken by the Turkish Government and said that Turkey's progress has brought forward the prospect of opening accession negotiations.

  Women, Peace and Security
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security passed on 31 October 2000. [79131]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on 16 October on implementation of SCR 1325. That report included a number of important points that the Government strongly supports: promoting gender equality is not just the responsibility of women; post-conflict reconstruction should be based on full observance of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination; and more effort is needed to address the problems of children associated with armed groups, particularly girls. The Secretary-General also proposed a target of 50 per cent. women in all areas of UN peace operations by 2015.

  The Government strongly supports both the intention and implementation of this ground-breaking resolution. We welcome the UN's efforts to incorporate a gender perspective throughout its work, including peacekeeping and peacebuilding. We are funding a series of projects through the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations, UNIFEM (the UN development fund for women) and NGOs to support implementation of the resolution. We used our Presidency of the Security Council in July to host an open debate on conflict, peacekeeping and gender. We shall continue to work through the Security Council, with the UN and in our peace and development efforts for implementation of this resolution and for the benefit of women and all people striving for peace.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of accident and emergency wards in England; and if he will make a statement. [76255]

  Mr. Lammy
  Improving patients' experience of emergency care is a Government priority.

  The NHS Plan set the target to reduce the maximum wait in accident and emergency (A&E) from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours or less by 2004. By the time of the first milestone in March 2002, 77

  935W
  per cent. of all patients attending A&E in England spent four hours or less in A&E. This slightly exceeded the milestone which was set at 75 per cent.

  To help meet the NHS Plan target, the Reforming Emergency Care Strategy was launched in October 2001. This is a long-term programme of reform and investment to provide fast effective treatment in a modern and safe environment.

  Community Equipment
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the 10 most frequently prescribed items of community equipment are. [78057]

  Jacqui Smith
  Community equipment is prescribed according to local needs and priorities. We do not keep a central count.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new targets have been introduced to speed up the delivery of community equipment and the time taken to make minor adaptations. [78059]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, made a statement to the House on 23 July 2002 concerning services for older people. He announced that by December 2004, all items of community equipment will be delivered within seven working days. This target will also apply to minor adaptations made by community equipment services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him dated 13 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Anne Franke. [78043]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 21 October.

  Draft Mental Health Bill
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will recommend that the Draft Mental Health Bill be considered a Special Standing Committee. [74876]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government would look favourably on the idea of referring the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, as this would be helpful to examine the Bill in detail and enable us to take further evidence from many parties.

  Enuresis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to promote the availability of drinking water and adequate toilet facilities in schools to combat enuresis. [78095]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 specify the toilet facilities required in all schools. They also state that a school shall have a wholesome supply of water for domestic purposes including a supply of drinking water. We are also planning to disseminate good practice advice to schools and local education
  936W
  authorities on drinking water provision in the light of the health risks associated with not drinking enough water.

  Inpatient Treatment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for inpatient treatment in each trust area in England at the latest available date; and of these, how many had been waiting for(a) 0 to 2, (b) 3 to 5, (c) 6 to 8, (d) 9 to 11, (e) 12 to 14 and (f) 15 plus months in each case. [77155]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of patients waiting for inpatient elective admission by months waiting, as at 31 August by national health service trust and primary care trust has been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the forward revenue commitments for each of the next three years for each of the ring-fenced grants paid by his Department to local authorities in 2002–03. [78312]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is for individual local authorities to decide what forward commitments to enter into in respect of ring-fenced grant expenditure and this information is not available centrally.

  Children in Care (Educational Standards)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many looked-after children have obtained(a) no GCSEs, (b) one A-G GCSE, (c) five A-G GCSEs, (d) one A*-C GCSE and (e) five A*-C GCSEs in each year since 1997; and what target his Department has set for educational standards for looked-after children in each of those years. [78427]

  Jacqui Smith
  . The Government has established the following national public service agreement targets.

  Increase to 50 per cent. by 2000–01 the proportion of children leaving care aged 16 and over with a GCSE or GNVQ qualification; and to 75 per cent. by 2002–03.

  Increase to 15 per cent. by 2003–04 the proportion of children leaving care aged 16 and over with five GCSEs at grade A*-C.

  The number of children who ceased to be looked after in England during the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2001, aged 16 and over, by qualifications achieved is set out in the following table. Information is not available prior to March 2000.

  Children who ceased to be looked after during the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2001, aged 16 or over, by level of qualification achieved

  2000

  2001

  No GCSEs

  4,800

  4,200

  1 A*-G GCSE

  2,000

  2.400

  5 A*-G GCSE

  1,300

  1.600

  1 A*-C GCSE

  890

  1,100

  5 A*-C GCSE

  270

  300

  Total care leavers

  6,800

  6,600

  937W

  Mental Health Advocacy
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent advice he has given to PCTs concerning the funding of mental health advocacy. [77107]

  Jacqui Smith
  Final decisions on funding for 2003–04 will be made in the autumn as part of the work on primary care trust allocations and central budgets, as such no announcements or advice on this funding have yet been made.

  NHS Expenditure.
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on NHS magazines, briefings and literature in 2001–02. [75142]

  Mr. Lammy
  A breakdown of expenditure by National Health Service organisations on NHS magazines, briefings and literature could be supplied only at disproportionate cost as the information is not held centrally.

  Nursing Leaders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many structures identifying nursing leaders with responsibility for older people have been developed as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People, page 172. [78424]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about progress against the April 2002 milestones set within the national service framework for older people is currently being collected.

  One-stop Primary Care
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding is available from his Department for investment in 100 One-Stop Primary Care centres in(a) all and (b) rural England; and how much was spent in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date in (A) all and (B) rural England. [78407]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan announced that up to £1 billion will be invested in primary care facilities to substantially refurbish or replace 3,000 general practitioner premises and provide 500 one-stop primary care centres, of which 100 are expected to provide services accessible to rural populations, by 2004.

  In August 2002 an announcement was made that £22 million of public capital was to be used to accelerate 100 one-stop primary care centre schemes for completion in 2003.

  Overseas Surgical Teams
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas surgical teams have been brought to the UK by the NHS; where they have worked; and how many operations they have carried out. [78096]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has brought six overseas clinical teams to the United Kingdom. The 938W
  team at Central Middlesex hospital has carried out 516 general surgical operations. The team at Hillingdon hospital has carried out 350 orthopaedic operations. The team at South Tyneside NHS trust has carried out 39 orthopaedic operations. The team at east Somerset has carried out 12 general surgical operations. The team at Morecambe Bay hospitals NHS trust has carried out 313 cataract operations. The team at mid-Staffordshire carried out two cataract operations.

  Prison Health Care Workers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prison health care workers have acquired an NVQ in custodial care. [77999]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are 36 prison health care workers currently enrolled on the custodial care National Vocational Qualification. They will transfer to the new custodial health care NVQ when this NVQ has been accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the(a) Health Professional Council registration fees for radiographers for each of the last three years and (b) proposed registration fees for the next two years. [76820]

  Mr. Hutton
  Radiographers and other health professions regulated by the Health Professions Council (HPC) are subject to independent self-regulation, which is self-financing. Since 1990 the registration fee has only increased by £10. For the last three years it has remained at the level of £22.

  The HPC's role has expanded substantially since it succeeded the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (CPSM) and the HPC has recently consulted on proposals for the new register. This included the level of fees, which it proposes to set at between £65–£85 per year, payable on a two yearly basis, commencing April 2003.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) radiographers and (b) vacant posts for radiographers there were in each of the last five years, broken down by (i) health authority and (ii) region. [76656]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.between September 1997 and September 2001, the number of diagnostic radiographers has increased by 800 from 10,360 to 11,160 and the number of therapeutic radiographers has increased by 130 from 1,410 to 1,540.

  Redundancy Payments (NHS Executives)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how redundancy payments are calculated for executives of NHS trusts made redundant by trust mergers; and what the average such payment has been.[77242]
  939W
  Mr. Hutton
  The arrangements for the calculation of redundancy payments for National Health Service staff are set out in Section 45 and 46 of the Whitley General Council Handbook. A copy of this document is available in the Library.

  Payments to executives of NHS trusts made redundant by trust mergers are not collected centrally.

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what timetable he proposes for the changes to social services departments announced recently. [76996]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]:At the Annual Social Services Conference on 16 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, set out a number of proposals for changes to the way services are delivered. Our plans for implementation include:
  Children's trusts: We plan to establish pilots for children's trusts during 2003.
  Reimbursement: It is hoped subject to parliamentary time, to introduce legislation, which will allow us to implement reimbursement for delayed discharge from hospital.
  Care trusts: The first four care trusts were established on 1 April 2002. A further five sites are now working to develop care trust proposals locally, to be up and running by April 2003.
  Regulation for direct payments: Regulations to ensure all older people assessed as having care needs are provided with the choice of direct payments will be issued for consultation shortly with the intention to implement by January 2003.
  Strategic commissioning group report: I have asked the strategic commissioning group to report to me in 2003, on how local voluntary and community organisations could play a bigger part in the delivery of social services.
  Less bureaucracy: We have reduced significantly the number of planning documents associated with social services grants from seven this year to two next year, and to one the year after.
  Greater freedoms: From the next financial year the best performing social services departments will have the freedom to spend social services grant on any aspect of social care, the right to carry out resources between financial years, less form filling and less inspection. We are currently discussing with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister further freedoms for the best performing councils.

  Suicide
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what means the National Institute for Mental Health in England will identify suicide hotspots; and who will have responsiblity to take action in respect of them; [78000]

  (2) what action he plans to take in respect of locations at which suicide is frequently committed. [78049]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) will be working with a number of local agencies to develop guidance on identifying and taking appropriate action at suicide hotspots. This will involve close partnership working with a number of local agencies including police and emergency services, local authorities, the national health service and voluntary sector, railway authorities 940W
  and coroners. Specific intervention and prevention measures will depend on the nature and location of each hotspot identified.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is carrying out the suicide and open verdict on the railways report; and when it is expected to be published. [78048]

  Jacqui Smith
  The suicide and open verdict on the railway network (SOVRN) project is a three-year study. SOVRN is co-sponsored by railway safety and the national health service, managed through Doncaster and South Humber Healthcare NHS Trust, and in collaboration with the University of Sheffield, Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham. The report is due to be published in December 2002.

  Truancy
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Department of Health and its statutory agencies will play in truancy sweep. [78028]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health and social services were involved in truancy sweeps in 82 of the local education authorities, which reported on the May truancy sweep exercise. Health professionals, such as community psychiatric nurses and social workers, focus on follow-up work with individual children and/or families.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of people waiting more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months for (i) speech and language therapy, (ii) treatment for depression, (iii) occupational therapy and (iv) chiropody services; and if he will make a statement.[76286]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Waiting times data are collected on in-patient elective admissions and first outpatient appointments following general practitioner referral and are specifically consultant led services with data attributed to the consultant's main specialty function. Data on patients' waiting times are not collected by the categories in the question.

  Audiology Services
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to set national standards for waiting times in audiology services from time of referral to fitting. [77108]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no plans, at this time, to set national standards for waiting times for audiology services. The modernising hearing aid services project is being extended so that by the end of this financial year there will be 50 sites involved, with at least a further 15 equipped to supply digital hearing aids from next April. A new, more streamlined patient process will be introduced at these second wave sites from the outset
  941W
  and at first wave sites over the next few months. In addition we are in the middle of a pilot which is looking at the role the private sector can play in reducing waiting times for supply of digital hearing aids. We will continue to look at ways of reducing the waiting times for hearing aid services as the project moves on.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mrs Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the findings of the investigation into the Criminal Records Bureau; and what changes he proposes to implement.[75019]

  Hilary Benn
  In early September the Home Secretary appointed an independent team to review the situation at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). The review is continuing. The main focus of the team's work centres on what needs to be done to ensure the medium and long-term success of the service. They are taking a fundamental look at all aspects of the CRB's operation and will report to the Home Secretary in due course.

  Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his latest estimate is of the time for each Criminal Records Bureau check on (a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants in England and Wales; [74349]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the time taken for each Criminal Records Bureau check on childminder applicants in England and Wales. [74346]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: The estimated average turnaround of checks processed by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) remains at approximately six weeks. This is measured from the point at which a correctly completed form is received by CRB, accompanied by all relevant supporting details. No distinction is made in relation to the profession of an applicant. They are all subject to the same level of service.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties have been incurred by Capita on the Criminal Records Bureau contract; and if he will make a statement. [74123]

  Asylum applications received in the United Kindom, and initial decisions, excluding dependants, Cameroon, January 2000 to June 20001,2

  Initial Decisions

  Total applications3

  Total initial decisions

  Initial Decisions Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Cases considered under backlog clearance exercise5

  Total

  Grants of asylum (percentage)

  Grants of ELR

  Refusals

  Total

  Grants of asylum or ELR

  Refusals6

  2000

  355

  285

  260

  8

  3

  89

  25

  96

  4

  2001p

  370

  565

  556

  9

  5

  87

  -

  -

  -

  January to June 2002p

  280

  265

  265

  7

  9

  85

  -

  -

  -

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January and March 2000.

  4Cases considered under the normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  5 Case decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  P Provisional data.

  942W
  Hilary Benn
  There is provision for penalties for delay or poor performance. Liquidated damages have been incurred by Capita for delay although the details remain commercial in confidence and cannot be divulged. The main priority is for the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita to collaborate in order to achieve further improvement in the quality of service.

  Asylum Seekers
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which professional organisations were consulted prior to the decision to withdraw asylum seekers' right to work; [77118]

  (2)what representations he received concerning the right of new asylum seekers to get permission to work after six months being removed (a) before and (b) subsequent to the announcement. [77117]

  Beverley Hughes
  We received a number of written representations regarding the general issue of asylum seekers and entitlement to work earlier this year as part of the wider consultation exercise on our White Paper, 'Secure Borders, Safe Haven'. All of these responses have been placed in the Library, with the exception of those respondents who indicated they did not wish their responses to be published.

  We also received representations fromthe Refugee Council following our announcement to end the concession.

  We did not consult directly with other organisations immediately prior to announcing abolition of the concession. Improved timeliness of initial decisions by the Immigration Nationality Directorate had made the concession largely irrelevant in practice so wider consultation would have added no real value.

  Mr Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Cameroon applied for asylum in the UK in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) to date this year; and what percentage was successful in each year. [77628]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table. Data on initial decisions are independent of applications data, and do not all necessarily relate to applications lodged in the same period.
  943W
  Information on appeals is given in the table. Appeals in any given time period do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made by the Home Office. The figures exclude any further appeals (Immigration Appeals Tribunal, Court of Appeal, judicial review, House of Lords).

  Appeals in asylum cases, brought by nationals of Cameroon, determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate authority January 2000 to June 20021

  Total Determined

  Allowed (perentage)

  Dismissed (percentage)

  Withdrawn2

  2000

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  2001

  195

  25

  January to June 2002

  165

  29

  68

  2

  1Provisional estimated figutrse rounded (other than percentrages) to the nearest 5.

  2 Includes appeals withdrawn by the appellant and the Home Office.

  N/A Date are not available for 2000.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the third quarter (July to September) of 2002 and will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers from Sri Lanka have been repatriated in each month for the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [78077]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest 12 months data available for removals of Sri Lankan principal asylum applicants is for April 2001 to March 2002 and are given in the table.

  Month

  Sri Lankan Principal applicants1.2

  April 2001

  10

  May

  10

  June

  20

  July

  15

  August

  10

  September

  10

  October

  15

  November

  15

  December

  15

  January 2002

  20

  February

  25

  March

  25

  1Estimates of asylum removals by nationality—principal applicants removed only. Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under assisted voluntary returns programmes run by the international organisation for migration

  2 Figures are rounded to nearest five.

  I regret that it is not possible to determine how many were repatriated, as persons removed from the UK are not necessarily returned to their country of origin. Information on the destination of those removed is not collated centrally and could only be obtained by examination of individual casefiles at disproportionate cost.
  944W
  Mr Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent information on in-country conditions in Sri Lanka have been received from(a) other Government departments and (b) other organisations relating to the return of failed Tamil asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [78082]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Sri Lanka country assessment was updated in October 2002. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British High Commission in Colombo both contribute up to date information and check the accuracy of the document. A range of other information is used from organisations such as Amnesty International, the British Refugee Council and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. A full list of the source material from these organisations can be found at annex D of the Country Assessment, which will be posted imminently on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list the commissioners of the CRE, their dates of appointment and their remuneration. [77966]

  Beverley Hughes
  The names of the current commissioners of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), their dates of appointments and their remuneration as of 1 April 2002 are listed in the table:

  Number/Position

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Remuneration (£)

  1. Chair (Acting) Beverley Bernard

  Beverley Bernard

  7 August 2002

  1 100.000.00

  as Deputy Chair

  Beverley Bernard

  1 July 2000

  1 55,527

  2. Deputy Chair (Acting) Khurshid Ahmed

  23 August 2002

  2 250.00

  as Commissioner

  Khurshid Ahmed

  1 April 2002

  33,075.00

  3. Deputy Chair(Acting) Ian Barr as Commissioner representing the interests of the

  23 August 2002

  2 250.00

  CBI

  Ian Barr

  1 April 2002

  3 3,075.00

  4. Commissioner representing Scottish Interests

  Scottish Interests

  Kay Hampton

  1 April 2002

  3 4,612.00

  5. Commissioner representing Welsh Interests

  Cherry Short

  1 April 1998

  3 4,612.00

  6. Commissioner representing the interest of the TUC

  Gloria Mills

  1 April 2002

  33,075.00

  7.

  Jagdish Gundara

  1 April 2002

  33,075.00

  8.

  Sarah Spencer

  1 April 2002

  33,075.00

  9.

  Patrick Passley

  1 April 1999

  33,075.00

  10

  Shushila Patel

  1 April 1999

  33,075.00

  11.

  Gita Sootarsing

  1 April 1999

  33,075.00

  12.

  Kamaljett Jandu

  1 June 2000

  33,075.00

  1Pro rata

  2 A day

  3 Per annum(Commissioners are required to commit a minimum 20 days per annum, 30 days for those representing Scottish and Welsh interests

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he last met(a) the Acting Chairman of the CRE, and (b) Mr. Gurbux Singh, in an official capacity. [77967]
  945W
  Beverley Hughes:
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met Beverley Bernard, the Acting Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), on 30 October. This was the first official meeting as, due to diary commitments, previous meetings have not been possible.

  My right hon. Friend last met with Gurbux Singh on 29 May 2002, in an official capacity.

  The Home Secretary has regular quarterly meetings with the Chair or Acting Chair of the CRE to keep each other updated on issues of current and mutual interest with regard to race relations and equality. They also meet on other occasions during the year.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which publications the post of Chairman of the CRE has been advertised. [77965]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The advertisement has appeared in the following publications:

  Daily Mail

  Daily Telegraph

  Asian Times, Eastern Eye, Caribbean Times, New Nation

  Jewish Chronicle

  Scotland on Sunday

  Scotsman

  South Wales Echo

  The Guardian

  The Sunday Telegraph

  The Sunday Times

  The Times

  Voice

  Western Mail

  Websites:

  Muslim News website (the publication timetable did not allow for it to go in the monthly newspaper)

  Office of the Commissioner of public appointments (OCPA) and Home Office Public Appointments

  The Times/Sunday Times

  The Guardian

  Criminal Justice
  Vera Baird:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take to alter public perception found in Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System, Home Office Research Study 245, that crime was increasing. [73782]

  Hilary Benn:
  The Government believe that the key to improving public perception of crime and criminal justice is to continue to deliver reductions in crime and improvements in the way the criminal justice system operates.

  The recently published White Paper, Justice for All, set out what needs to be done to modernise and improve the Criminal Justice System (CJS). The Home Office has been set targets for reducing crime and the fear of crime, improving the delivery of justice and increasing confidence in the criminal justice system.

  The Government are committed to improving the prevention and detection of crime, convicting the guilty and rehabilitating offenders so they do not offend again.
  946W
  Reform will also ensure that justice is seen to serve and protect the interests of the community, and especially victims of crime.

  The presentation of statistical information about crime has been made clearer and more comprehensive by combining publication of recorded crime statistics and information from the British Crime Survey. An objective in all our communication activity is to work with our partners to close the gap between the public perception that crime is rising against the reality of long term falls in crime. The media make an important contribution to public perceptions of crime, and efforts are being made to encourage responsible reporting of crime. We are also exploring alternative ways to provide accurate information about crime to the public.

  The Government have made a commitment to increase the number of crimes that result in the perpetrator being brought to justice, an initiative called `Narrowing the Justice Gap'. A co-ordinated strategy based on: tackling weaknesses in the criminal justice process; targeting types of offender, particularly persistent offenders; and targeting specific types of offence, aims to bring 1.2 million offences to justice by 2005–06. Narrowing the justice gap not only reduces crime but also demonstrates that the criminal justice system is effective and responsive to the needs and concerns of victims and witnesses. The perception that criminals are "getting away with it" is hugely damaging to confidence levels. The Government have made improvement in this area their key aim for the CJS.

  We also have a responsibility to promote confidence in the CJS and we are actively working on a programme of work in this area. This will be based on ensuring that the public are aware of the impact of reform and improvements in the delivery of justice.

  Entitlement Cards
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the consulation is due to end on the issue of entitlement cards. [78352]

  Beverley Hughes:
  The consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud published by my right hon Friend the Home Secretary on 3 July stated that the.consultation period would last until 10 January 2003.

  The Government has decided to extend the consultation period to 31 January 2003 to allow organisations a little more time to prepare their responses.

  Fireworks
  Chris Ruane:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths and serious injuries have been caused by fireworks in the UK in each of the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [76151]

  Miss Melanie Johnson:
  I have been asked to reply.

  The years for which the number of deaths and injuries from fireworks are available are specified in the table. These figures are extracted from the annual DTI firework injuries statistics based on returns from the accident and emergency departments of hospitals in

  947W
  Great Britain. They are collected over a 4-week period in October and November each year. Serious injuries are not separately identified in the statistics.

  Overall firework injuries

  Deaths from firework injuries

  1990

  805

  0

  1991

  723

  0

  1992

  942

  0

  1993

  1,058

  0

  1994

  1,574

  0

  1995

  1,529

  0

  1996

  1,233

  0

  1997

  908

  0

  1998

  831

  0

  1999

  1,056

  0

  2000

  972

  2

  2001

  1,362

  0

  Mal Hussain
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a public inquiry into the case of Mr Mal Hussain of the Ryelands estate in Lancaster and the role of the public authorities in protecting him from racial harassment; and if he will make a statement. [77338]

  Beverley Hughes
  This matter is under consideration and a decision will be announced shortly.

  Registered Charities (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)if he will list community amateur sports clubs that are now registered as charities; [78012]

  (2) how many community amateur sports clubs (a) have applied and (b) are registered with the Charity Commission as a community amateur sports club. [78014]

  Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department that registers charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations of the Charity Commission will write to the hon Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  African Natural Resources
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions her Department has had with the Governments of(a) Rwanda and (b) Uganda regarding illegal exploitation of natural resources by their citizens in the DRC; and what action these Governments plan to take; [77060]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with the Governments of (a) Rwanda, (b) the DRC, (c) Uganda and (d) Burundi regarding border controls and their ability to monitor the flow of natural resources with particular reference to (i) diamonds and (ii) cotton. [77061]
  948W
  Clare Short
  There have been regular discussions with the Governments of Uganda and Rwanda at both ministerial and official levels since the first UN panel report on exploitation of resources in the DRC was published. We have urged both Governments to work openly and constructively with the panel team and take seriously any allegations of exploitation. The final UN panel report was issued on 18 October. The Government of Uganda have already established a judicial enquiry into the allegations in a previous report, and this report is due on 15 November. The Government of Rwanda have rejected this report, as they did earlier ones, on the grounds that it is politically motivated and lacking in corroborative evidence. While we share many of the Government of Rwanda's criticisms of the report, we will continue to encourage the Government of Rwanda to take action to address the panel's accusations in an open manner. We believe the most important focus for future work is achieve peace and work to help the DRC and other Great Lakes countries put trade and the exploitation of mineral resources on to a well-regulated, transparent basis.

  Burundi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the peace process in Burundi and the assistance provided by the British Government to that process. [76899]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting all international efforts to promote an end to conflict and achieve a secure and lasting peace in Burundi, through full implementation of the Arusha Peace Accord, as a necessary prerequisite for sustained economic development. We are at the same time helping to address the immediate material needs of Burundi's people by supporting humanitarian programmes largely through non-governmental channels.

  There have been some positive developments in the on-going peace process. The Regional Summit held in Dar-es-Salaam on 7 October welcomed the recent signing of a cease-fire agreement with the Transitional Government of Burundi by two of the remaining rebel forces not party to the Arusha Peace Accord, CNDDFDD (Jean-Bosco) and PALIPEHUTU-FNL (Mugabarabona). The summit agreed an extension of 30 days to allow for the negotiation of similar cease-fire agreements with the two largest remaining rebel groups CNDD-FDD (Nkurunziza) and PALIPEHUTU-FNL (Rwasa).

  The British Government have been co-ordinating with other donors to help the facilitation efforts of the South Africans, Gabonese and Tanzanians. We have committed £250,000 to this through ACCORD, a South African NGO involved in peace-building in the Great Lakes region and elsewhere. We are also providing support to peace and reconciliation activities in Burundi through other NGOs

  Cote d'Ivoire
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian impact of the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire; what response her
  949W
  Department and the international community have made to those needs; what steps are being taken to establish peace; and if she will make a statement. [76923]

  Clare Short
  We have not undertaken an independent assessment of the humanitarian impact of the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire. However we are monitoring the situation closely and are in regular contact with UN agencies in the field. The UN held an Emergency Regional Contingency Planning meeting in Accra from 17–18 October to discuss the situation. We are awaiting their assessment of likely humanitarian needs.

  We are working closely with the international community to bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the conflict. We consider that the best hope for peace lies in an African led solution and we are supporting the efforts of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) to mediate in the conflict. An ECOWAS mediation team has succeeded at establishing contact with the rebels and gaining commitment from both parties to a ceasefire and the start of negotiations. It is also proposed that an ECOWAS monitoring force be established to replace the French troops currently providing a buffer force between the two sides. The plans for this force are still under discussion. The UK has provided a military adviser to assist ECOWAS in their efforts.

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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 London and (i) the south-east between 1 April 2001 and 31 March; and what is the total employment for each civil service grade. [76551]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The total numbers of staff in each civil service grade employed in DFID's London headquarters is set out in the table. There are no DFID staff employed in the south-east region outside London. Details of vacancies are not collated centrally and are, therefore, unavailable. However, it is worth pointing out that, by and large, DFID does not have difficulty in recruiting staff in London and vacancies rarely remain unfilled for any length of time.

  Total staff. In Grade London—position as at 1 April 2001

  Grade>

  45

  C2 (administrative assistant equivalent)

  137

  C1 (administrative officer equivalent)

  130

  B2 (executive officer equivalent)

  184

  B1 (higher executive officer equivalent)

  39

  A3 (senior executive officer equivalent)

  140

  A2 (grade 7 equivalent)

  164

  above A2 (grade 6 and above)

  950W

  Ghana
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions her Department has had with the Government of Ghana regarding urban street children [76971]

  (2) what initiatives her Department supports to eliminate the poverty of urban street children in Ghana. [76972]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to supporting the Government of Ghana to deliver its priorities against the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS). Children in difficult circumstances, such as street children, are identified as a vulnerable and excluded group in the GPRS. Planned Government of Ghana interventions include slum upgrading and partnership programmes with non-government organisations that seek to safeguard children. The Government are also supporting civil society initiatives that protect children in Ghana and West Africa through the Civil Society Challenge Fund and Partnership Programme Agreements with Action Aid and Save the Children.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights; and if she will make a statement. [76969]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden on 28 October 2002,Official Report, columns 548–49W.

  Overseas Aid (Indonesia)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department(a) has offered and (b) plans to offer the Government of Indonesia to assist with the (i) victims of the terrorist bomb in Bali and (ii) loss of livelihoods incurred by employees within the tourist sector in Bali. [76975]

  Clare Short
  The immediate medical needs of Indonesian victims of the terrorist bomb have been met by the Government of Indonesia and Balinese non-government organisations. Officials from my Department have undertaken an assessment of longer term needs, alongside colleagues from the United Nations, Australia and the United States. Based on this assessment we are considering a range of activities to support victims of the bombing, including post trauma counselling, conflict prevention initiatives and technical support for the Indonesian authorities in Bali.

  In addition, DFID, other donors and the Government of Indonesia, are assessing the impact of the bombing on the national and local economies, and will consider how best donors can support economic recovery. My Department will contribute to the international effort once needs are defined.

  Presidential Meeting
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement
  951W
  on the outcome of the meeting between President Museveni and President Kagame in London last week. [76970]

  Clare Short
  President Museveni and President Kagame recommitted themselves and their Governments to the Understanding they signed last November in London on not interfering in each others' political and security affairs. They agreed to make more regular and effective use of the mechanisms that had been put in place to resolve differences and to avoid recourse to the use of the media. The UK agreed to continue to act as third party in this process.

  Equally importantly, Presidents Museveni and Kagame agreed to work together to achieve pace and stability in the region. They urged President Mbeki of South Africa, as Chairman of the African Union, to convene an urgent regional summit to call on all parties to fully implement the Pretoria and Luanda peace agreements.

  Presidents Museveni and Kagame shared my deep concern at the situation in Burundi and agreed we should all work together, especially with the Governments of Tanzania and South Africa, to get a full ceasefire and support the Transitional National Government under the Arusha Accords.

  Sudan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to help end the war in Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [77038]

  Clare Short
  The UK role in supporting the peace process is led jointly by the FCO and DFID. The UK Special Representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, leads the UK observer delegation at the peace talks. He is supported by a joint FCO-DFID Sudan Unit. He and his team co-ordinate with the mediators and other observers at Machakos so that we can complement each other's efforts to deliver the best results. We carry out intensive consultations with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in Khartoum and elsewhere. We ensure that UK policy and the peace process are fully understood by other interested Governments and co-ordinate with international partners, including the EU; our collective approach to implementing an eventual peace agreement. This year, we have committed over £8 million to support both humanitarian work and the peace process.

  UNHCR
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) assessment her Department has made of safeguards against and (b) discussions she has had with the UNHCR regarding the sexual exploitation of women in refugee camps. [76907]

  Clare Short
  My Department has closely monitored developments regarding the investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) into allegations of sexual exploitation of refugee women and girls by humanitarian aid workers and peacekeepers in refugee camps in West Africa. While the OIOS report found no involvement by UN HCR staff in acts of sexual 952W
  exploitation, from a total of 43 cases of possible sexual exploitation investigated by the OIOS team 10 cases were substantiated by evidence. This finding confirms that the issue of sexual exploitation is a significant one and that it is not just confined to West Africa—but wherever refugees find themselves in similarly desperate and vulnerable circumstances.

  The report crucially identifies several factors which contribute to sexual exploitation in refugee communities including aspects of refugee camp life, camp structure, camp security, food and services distribution, employment opportunities, profiles of camp workers, and the quality and quantities of food and other relief items distributed.

  UNHCR has, in partnership with other concerned UN agencies, instituted a number of remedial measures and preventative actions to enhance the prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence. Specifically, in West Africa these include: increasing the accountability of humanitarian workers through the design of country-specific standards, applicable to all UN agencies and international and local NGOs; raising awareness of rights and entitlements in refugee communities through education and advocacy campaigns; increases in-field presence and improved training in sexual training and gender-based issues for UNHCR staff; improved reporting and monitoring procedures to speed up the identification of victims; building on existing programmes to better facilitate equal access and control of material resources as well as strengthening support to victims and groups at risk.

  There exist additional measures which extend to the rest of Africa which, in turn, complement UNHCR's efforts on a global front, specifically the UNHCR Code of Conduct which aims to guide the behaviour and attitude of all UNHCR international and local staff in terms of the standards of conduct that are expected to be adhered to in the UN Charter and the Staff Regulation and Rules.

  We will, through our close relationship with UNHCR in the field and through our participation at the Standing and Executive Committees in Geneva, continue to monitor progress on all these fronts.

  World Food Programme (Africa)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department has made to(a) the World Food Programme for Saharawi refugees and (b) the additional appeal by the WFP for funding for Saharawi refugees in the last year.[77399]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not contributed directly to the World Food Programme (WFP) funding for Saharawi refugees. Our assistance to the Saharawi refugees is channelled through contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). A new global plan agreed by the EC in May will provide €14.34 million of assistance to the Saharawi refugees over a 15-month period. The total assistance provided since 1993 is over €95 million, including over €79 million in food aid co-ordinated by ECHO, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the WFP. ECHO works in close co-ordination and
  953W
  co-operation with the WFP to provide basic food items to the Saharawi refugees. 19 per cent. of ECHO funding comes from my Department's budget.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what organisations she met on her recent visit to Yugoslavia; and with whom she had discussions. [77295]

  Clare Short
  I visited Belgrade on 7 October 2002, to meet with various Republic of Serbia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) representatives; I then flew to Pristina to have meetings with Kosovo and UN representatives, returning to the UK on 9 October. Meetings held were as follows:

  Separate meetings

  Roundtable discussions

  Belgrade

  Vojislav Kostunica, FRY

  Gordana Matkovic, Serbian

  President

  Minister of Social Affairs

  Miroljub Labus, FRY Deputy

  Dragan Milovanovic, Serbian

  Prime Minister

  Minister of Labour and

  Goran Svilanovic, FRY Foreign

  Employment

  Minister

  Aleksandar Vlahovic, Serbian

  Goran Pitic, Serbian Minister for

  Minister of Economy and

  International Economic

  Privatisation

  Relations

  Dejan Popovic, Serbian Deputy

  Rory O'Sullivan, Head of the

  Minister of Finance

  World Bank Office, Belgrade

  Gordana Lazarevic, Assistant

  Richard Zink, Director

  Minister, Serbian Ministry of

  European Agency for

  International Economic

  Reconstuction

  Relations

  Discussion with DFID funded consultants on Privatisation, Banking, Social Policy an Justice projects

  Pristina

  Ibrahim Rugova, President of

  Jean-Christian Cady, Deputy

  Kosovo

  Special Representative for

  Bajram Rexhepi, Prime Minister

  UNMIK Pillar One (Police and

  of Kosovo

  Justice)

  Charles Brayshaw, Principal

  Gerard Fischer, UNMIK Pillar

  Deputy Senior Representative of

  Two (Civil Administration)

  the Secretary General, United

  Friedhelm Frischenschlager

  Nations Interim Administration

  UNMIK Pillar Three

  Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

  (Institution-Building)

  Richard Zink (Director),

  Andy Bearpark, Deputy Special

  Michael Doyle (Head of

  Representative for UNMIK

  Programming) and Thierry

  Pillar Four (Reconstruction)

  Bernard-Guele (Head of

  Operations), European agency

  for Reconstruction

  Other donors:

  Sidi Boubacar (World Bank), Earl Gast (USAID),Robert Piper (UNDP), Peter Rondorf (German Office), Anna Maria Madsen (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Tamara Sorger (CIDA), Christoffer Sjoholm (SIDA) and Valerie Sluitjer (Netherlands Office)

  Young Kosovar Representatives: Arianit Shehu (National Democracy Insitute), Jetemir Balaj (Forum(NGO), Arieta Emra (British Council), Leon Malazogu (Kosovo Civil Society Foundation), Albin Kurti (student leader) Jehona Gjurgjeala (KACI(NGO), Fisnik Abrashi (Chevening Scholar),

  954W

  Separate meetings

  Roundtable discussions

  Tanja Martic (OSCE) and Vladimir Josifovic ('Just Do It'(NGO)

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77668]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Local Government on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Public Guardianship Office public service agreement contains assurances about the time it would normally take to deal with cases; and if he will make a statement. [77774]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office (PGO) has Service Delivery Agreement targets, (SDAs) supporting the Lord Chancellor's Department Public Service Agreements (PSAs).

  The PGO's targets are as follows:
  by 2004 to complete the review of 100 per cent. of accounts received or have requested further information within four weeks of receipt, with an interim target of 95 per cent. within six weeks by 2002 (to apply to both Receivership and Protection Divisions);
  and by 2004, to collect 65per cent. of accounts within two calendar months of the accounting end date, 85 within four calendar months of the accounting end date, and 100 per cent. within six calendar months of the accounting end date referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients [applies to Protection clients only].

  The PGO is on course to meet these targets.

  Service to the Community
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to encourage employers to enable employees to undertake service to the community for magisterial and other duties without being out of pocket; and if he will make a statement. [78322]

  Yvette Cooper
  Many employers view service as a magistrate as a valuable contribution and allow their employees paid time off to undertake their duties. Where magistrates do not receive paid time off they can claim a financial loss allowance linked to average gross earnings. The LCD is working with the Magistrates Association, with whom it has produced a guide for employers, and through local Advisory Committees, who are in touch with businesses in their area, to encourage employers to support staff who wish to serve the community in this way
  955W

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Huw Edwards
  What she is doing to increase the number of women setting up their own businesses. [76452]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Cross-cutting Review of Government Services for Small Businesses, published earlier this month, reinforced our commitment to encourage more women entrepreneurs. Yesterday I attended the launch of Prowess, an organisation promoting women's enterprise, which is supported by the Small Business Service's Phoenix Fund. The SBS is working with Prowess and key Departments to develop a strategic framework to foster women's enterprise.

  Race and Employment Directives
  Joan Ruddock
  If she will make a statement on the implementation of the Article 13 Directives on Race and Employment and the feasibility study on a single equality body. [76454]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) last week published a summary paper setting out the Government's plans to take forward implementation of the Race and Employment Directives, and a consultation paper on creating the right framework to support equality legislation.

  Equal Pay
  Michael Fabricant
  What proportion of her time was spent over the last month on the pay gap between the sexes. [76453]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the last month I have launched the public consultation on the Equal Pay Questionnaire. My hon Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I have hosted the first annual Castle Awards ceremony, which recognised steps taken by employers to address issues of pay inequality. Because the provisions of appropriate childcare for working parents can help in closing the gender pay gap, I have also been working with my noble Friend the Baroness Ashton of Upholland and colleagues in other Government Departments on developing a delivery plan for childcare.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to introduce legislation to enforce equal pay by criminal law sanction. [76455]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have no plans to enforce equal pay by criminal law sanction. Since the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970 the pay gap has reduced from 37 per cent. to 19 per cent. today.

  We have amended the law to provide for equal pay questionnaires and every Government Department and Agency is conducting an Equal Pay review by April 2003.

  Jim Knight
  What steps she is taking to reduce the pay gap between the sexes. [76456]
  956W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government has set in place a number of measures designed to tackle the gender pay gap. We are leading by example, through our commitment to equal pay reviews in the Civil Service'; we are making it easier for women to get equal pay through changes in the Employment Act 2002; we are making it easier for employers to pay fairly through the work of the Fair Play Champions and the Castle Awards, and we are tackling the wider causes of the pay gap by helping mothers stay attached to the labour market, investing more resources than any other Government in childcare, improving the skill levels of those already in the labour market and helping employers make the most of their female workforce.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Harris
  What progress has been made in increasing the proportion of women appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [76457]

  Ms Hewitt
  At 31 March 2001, as set out in Public Bodies 2001, 34 per cent of appointments were held by women, this is 2 per cent. up since 1997.

  We are determined to deliver on our aim that women should hold 45–50 per cent. of public appointments made by the majority of Government departments by the end of 2005 and to address any constraints on diversity and equal representation.

  Throughout 2002, we have led a national outreach campaign on women and public appointments, we have reached over 2000 women across the country and the vast majority have said they are now more likely to apply for public appointments.

  Political Candidates
  Mr. Graham Allen
  What assistance she offers to political parties who wish to reduce the imbalance between the sexes among their candidates. [76458]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act received Royal Assent in February this year. It enables political parties, if they wish, to use positive measures to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected.

  We are also reforming government to make it a more attractive option to women, through improving the hours and working environments at all levels of government. However, it is for political parties themselves to decide arrangements for selecting parliamentary candidates. The Government has provided the framework and I am encouraged by the level of cross party support we received for the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act. It has galvanised debates within all parties and I very much hope that as a result we shall see more women being selected to stand.

  Greenfield Report
  Dr. Gibson
  When she will release the Greenfield Report. [76460]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am looking forward to receiving the final version of the noble Baroness Greenfield's report on women in Science, Engineering and Technology. I
  957W
  expect to receive the final version of Baroness Greenfield's report on how we can better promote women in Science, Engineering and Technology by the end of next month. The Department will publish the report as soon as we receive it.

  Work-life Balance
  Mr. Crausby
  What action she is taking to enable working women to balance work and family life. [76461]

  Ms Hewitt
  From next April, working women will benefit from the enhanced maternity pay and leave; and mothers, as well as fathers with children under the age of 6, or disabled children under 18, will have the right to apply for flexible working arrangements. Their employers will have a statutory duty to consider their requests seriously. The Government's Work-Life Balance Campaign also encourages all employers to follow best practice and offer flexible working arrangements to the benefit of all working women.

  By 2003–4, annual investment in the Government's National Childcare Strategy will have increased to over £200 million, a three-fold increase on the £66 million in 2000–1, to benefit 1.6 million children in England.

  Two new tax credits will be introduced next April, the Child Tax Credit, income related and paid directly to the main carer in the family; and the Working Tax Credit paid to low income working people with or without children. These will replace the existing tax credits, and simplify the system to ensure that people get financial support when they most need it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made in appointing the new Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. [76301]

  Mr. Browne
  Work is ongoing on a revised Implementation Plan for the Criminal Justice Review, which will include details of progress made on the establishment of a Criminal Justice Inspectorate and the appointment of a new Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. The appointment will be made through open competition. We hope to publish the revised Implementation Plan by early 2003.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the additional organisations to come within the remit of the new Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. [76302]

  Mr. Browne
  The Lord Privy Seal (The Lord Williams of Mostyn) will shortly be writing to Members, following an undertaking at Lords Third Reading stage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, to update them on progress made on the consultation process on which additional organisations might be added to the list of organisations which will come under the remit of the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. We hope to bring forward a draft order, using the order-making power at section 46(6) of the Act, before the Christmas recess.
  958W

  CBI Business Manifesto
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the Business Manifesto issued by the Confederation of British Industry for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [77600]

  Mr. Pearson
  I welcome this Business Manifesto, which sets out how the CBI sees the important interaction between the public and private sectors to achieve a better economic future. The Manifesto addresses many of the issues which are of critical importance to the development of the Northern Ireland economy and which relate closely to the strategic priorities developed by the Economic Development Forum. I look forward, with my ministerial colleagues, to exploring the proposals contained in the Manifesto.

  Down Lisburn Trust
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to improve levels of funding to the Down Lisburn Trust by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. [77596]

  Mr. Browne
  The Eastern Health and Social Services Board is currently reviewing the equitable distribution of resources to its sub-board populations in light of the recently published results of the 2001 Census of population. Based on the results of this review, the Board will develop a strategy to address the locality equity issue. Following public consultation the implementation of the resultant strategy should commence from April 2003.

  Downpatrick (New Hospital)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will announce a new hospital for Downpatrick in December. [77597]

  Mr. Browne
  Decisions on the way forward on the redevelopment of the Downe Hospital will be taken following analysis and consideration of the responses to the consultation paper "Developing Better Services— Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures". While I would like to be in a position to announce the way forward before the end of this year, it is not possible, at this stage, to be definitive about when decisions will be taken.

  Lee James Booth
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason a post-mortem report was not made available to the bereaved parents of Lee James Booth until 22 July; and whether it is the normal practice for fluids to be administered by mouth so soon after major surgery. [76650]

  Mr. Browne
  I understand that in seeking to respond to the high volume of calls from distressed relatives, pathologists were not able to make the report available to the parents of Lee James Booth until that date. The Royal Victoria Hospital has apologised to the family for the distress that this delay in conveying the report caused all those concerned.
  959W
  The Royal Victoria Hospital has advised that it is unable to comment on the reasons for any actions taken in respect of Lee James Booth as these would have been contained in the patient's medical record which is no longer available, having been destroyed after 25 years.

  Post-mortem Forms
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where post-mortem forms(a) signed and (b) unsigned by relatives are stored; and for how many years they are kept in storage. [76631]

  Mr. Browne
  Normal practice is to keep post mortem consent forms with the patient's medical record. In the case of adults these are kept for eight years. Children's charts are kept for 25 years

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during what period Dr. Molloy was the resident heart surgeon/consultant at the Royal Victoria Hospital; and during this time, what his heart surgery(a) death and (b) success rate was. [76632]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the clergy who have officiated at the dignified disposal of retained organs at the Royal Victoria Hosptial since 1972. [76634]

  Mr. Browne
  It was not normal practice for clergy to be present at the disposal of retained organs. The Hospital has advised that none were present under the auspices of the Royal Victoria Hospital.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will initiate an inquiry into(a) the loss of 10 years' records at the Royal Victoria Hospital and (b) the numbers of organs disposed of in clear-outs at the hospital's organ and tissue store. [76635]

  Mr. Browne
  As the Human Organs Inquiry observed, it was never anticipated that the records of post mortems would come under such scrutiny so many years after being written. They are not generally computerised and some of them have been lost over time. The inquiry report drew attention to the inadequacy of record-keeping systems, including difficulties in identifying and tracking organs once they were removed. An inquiry into the loss of these particular records is not considered necessary, and my Department has established a steering group to see that improvements in record keeping will be identified and implemented. The method of record keeping previously used within the Royal does not allow for information on the numbers of organs disposed of in clear-outs at the hospitals organ and tissue store to be collated.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when an organ was last retained following a post-mortem performed at the Royal Victoria Hospital; and what access relatives have to information as to what happened to retained organs. [76639]
  960W
  Mr. Browne
  The Royal Victoria Hospital has informed me that on occasion it is still necessary to retain organs for examination. This is only done with the fully informed consent of relatives who agree in advance on what will happen to the retained organs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Andrew Adonis
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the duties and responsibilities of Mr. Andrew Adonis; what dealings he has directly with Ministers; to whom he reports; and whether he has applied for leave of absence; [78351]

  (2) on what basis Mr Andrew Adonis was appointed; and for how long it is intended he remains in his present post. [78350]

  The Prime Minister
  I appointed Andrew Adonis on 20 April 1998 as a special adviser under the terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers and in line with the requirements of paragraph 50 of the Ministerial Code.

  Mr Adonis is Head of Policy in my office. The duties and responsibilities of special advisers are set out in the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers at Schedule 1 to the Model Contract.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 59(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [79201]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the annual report for 2001 by the right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 60 (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 60 (5) of the Act and in line with the Commissioner's recommendation.

  Lord Justice Simon Brown has served as Commissioner for the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and Government Communications Head Quarters since his appointment on 1 April 2000 under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Since 2 October 2000 his role has continued as Intelligence Services Commissioner by virtue of Section 59 (1) of the regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This is his second report. I am very grateful to him for all his work as Commissioner.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [79202]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the report for 2001, by the right hon. Sir. Swinton Thomas, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 58(6) of the Investigation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The
  961W
  confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 58(7) of the Act and in accordance with the Commissioner's recommendations. Sir. Swinton was originally appointed Commissioner in April 2000 under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, continuing in the role from 2 October 2000 under Section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This is his second report. I am very grateful to him for all his work as Commissioner.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [75578]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The following links, all of which are live, point to my Department's main website (www.privycouncil.gov.uk)

  www.privy-council.org.uk

  www.privycouncil.com

  www.privycouncil.co.uk

  www.privycouncil.org.uk

  www.privy-council.co.uk

  www.privycounciloffice.co.uk

  www.privycounciloffice.org.uk

  www.privycounciloffice.gov.uk

  www.pco.gov.uk

  The cost of registering all these names was £575.75. The information on start-up costs is currently not available as the site has been in operation only since July 2002.

  The site is hosted by XM London who regularly review feedback from users. The Department intends to review the content and style of the website after it has been in operation for a year.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [74984]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has not made use of focus group research since June 2001.
  962W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science and Engineering Education
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the promotion in the workplace of science and engineering education among 16 year olds. [76427]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has lead responsibility for education matters, but I and other Ministerial colleagues, notably my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation, are also interested and discuss these matters with our colleagues as and when appropriate.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the initiatives her Department has been developing to encourage entrepreneurial education for science and engineering students. [76440]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department introduced the Science Enterprise Challenge to establish a network of centres in UK universities, specialising in the teaching and practice of entrepreneurialism and commercialisation in science and technology.

  Thirteen Science Enterprise Centres have been established involving 54 UK universities with £43.9 million of government funding.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans she has to promote the use of the Post Office card accounts in rural and urban post offices. [76426]

  Mr. Timms
  The post office card account is one of a range of accounts which people will be able from next year to receive benefit payments into. Our aim is that people should be able to choose the option which suits them best. Information about all the options is being supplied to customers by the Department of Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ensure that persons with disabilities can make full use of the post office card account. [76449]

  Mr. Timms
  Benefit and tax credit recipients, including those customers with disabilities, will be offered a range of account options to enable them to receive their money once payment directly into a bank or building society account (including the card account) becomes the normal method of payment from April 2003. The post office card account has no overdraft facilities and is limited to direct payment of benefits, pensions and tax credits by Government agencies only but this limited functionality will attract some individuals because of its simplicity. A second card will also be available for use by a nominee for those customers unable themselves to collect their money at the post office. This facility may be of assistance to some customers who are disabled.
  963W
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made as to whether the Post Office card account will pass the Government's proposed CAT standard. [76339]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have no plans to produce a CAT standard for the Post Office card account. The card account is the only account of its type, quite distinct from current accounts and basic bank accounts. It is a very simple account for benefit, pension and tax credit recipients. Its functionality is limited to the crediting by Government agencies of benefits, pensions and tax credits, and the withdrawal by the customer of those monies at post offices.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about business regulation affecting businesses in the North West economic region. [76429]

  Alan Johnson
  I meet regularly with business representative bodies such as the CBI, FSB and BCC to discuss issues, including regulations, that affect them.

  The latest OECD report notes that,
  Entrepreneurs face a better business and regulatory environment in the UK than in most other OECD countries. The Small Business Service (SBS) supports small and medium-sized companies and encourages an environment that fosters enterprise;
  The UK is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD, it has already made major improvements and has planned more. Building on what it has already achieved, the UK now faces challenges as well as opportunities to confirm regulatory reform as a key driver of economic performance.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received concerning the impact of fraud on small businesses, and if she will make a statement. [76446]

  Nigel Griffiths
  An interdepartmental group has been focusing on credit card fraud and my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets looks forward to receiving their findings.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to alleviate the burden of regulation on small businesses; and if she will make a statement. [76447]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since January 2000, we have put in place a number of measures to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses, including:

  employers with four or fewer employees, exempted from requirement to provide access to stakeholder pensions and deduct pension contributions; increased the statutory audit threshold for companies from £350,000 to £1 million. This will relieve up to 150,000 small firms from the burden of a statutory audit, saving them up to £180 million a year; exempted small shops from the new EU unit pricing requirements; exempted employers with 20 or fewer employees from trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act. The Small Business Service has also: secured a 12-week period between regulations being agreed and implemented, allowing SMEs time to adapt to new regulations; secured the right to be consulted on all new regulations, so impact on SMEs is not disproportionate. Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) have to be
  964W
  produced for regulations setting out costs and benefits;produced clear guidance on a number of complex regulations; published the Regulatory Reform Action Plan—setting out over 250 proposals for better regulation and reform; regularly brought together groups of SMEs to express their views to officials, e.g. for Patrick Carter's review of payroll administration; set up an independent office to represent the views of small firms to the European institutions.

  The Business Link Website is now attracting 80,000 users per month— businesses can register to receive alerts about regulations automatically. Further to these measures: around 900,000 SMEs benefit from measures announced in Budget 2002, including 485,000 businesses whose corporation tax bill is cut or abolished, and 700,000 are benefiting from flat rate VAT scheme; regulatory challenge function within the DTI strengthened. A new team created to consider how we challenge existing and future legislation and to ensure all policy makers fully consider alternatives to regulation at the outset of the policy-making process. The UK is not over-regulated compared to other countries: A survey jointly published by Anderson and GrowthPlus benchmarks the business environment in nine EU countries, plus the USA. In this report the UK comes out in first place, for providing the most entrepreneur-friendly environment scoring consistently high in all measured categories.

  The Economist Intelligence Unit (E.I.U.) studied the business environment, including regulation, in 60 countries. Results published in the Economist in August 2001, showed the Netherlands, the USA and Britain in the top three places. Recent OECD report into UK regulation concluded the environment is particularly supportive of market openness and competition. The report noted British entrepreneurs face better business and regulatory conditions than in most other OECD economies, it also highlighted support that SBS gives to SMEs and its role in fostering an enterprise culture in the UK.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the rural post office network. [76432]

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the rural post office network. [76436]

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce her proposals for financial support of the rural post offices network; and if she will make a statement. [77866]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network, and placed a formal requirement on the Post Office in November 2000 to prevent all avoidable closures of rural post offices. We have received advice from Postcomm on the proposals for supporting the rural network from 2003, and details of substantial financial support will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the rural post office network.
  965W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: 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.

  The Government has 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 had also been made.

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

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has on the post office network. [76441]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department receives representations about the post office network from numerous sources reflecting the valuable role post offices play in their communities. The Government are committed to ensuring that the post office network has a thriving future.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Post Office is to be bound by the Urban Counter Cover Obligation; how this obligation will be assessed, and by whom; and if she will make a statement. [77486]

  Mr. Timms
  A condition of the offer of funding for Post Office Limited's (POL) urban reinvention programme is that upon completion of the programme, there is a post office branch within a mile of not less than 95 per cent. in aggregate of the urban population of the UK.

  If POL fails to comply with this obligation, the Government may vary or withhold funding of the programme. POL's implementation of the programme will be monitored by the DTI.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the results of her policies for the promotion of the manufacturing industry. 76433

  Alan Johnson
  We published our manufacturing strategy on 16 May, building on the TUC/CBI work on productivity and the consensus achieved at the manufacturing summit we hosted last December. In partnership with industry and key stakeholders, we have established and identified seven key areas crucial for manufacturing success and driving up productivity. We are taking action in all of these areas to help UK manufacturers fulfil their potential and move up the value chain to high skill, high value operations by promoting investment, skills, innovation and best practice
  966W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage a rise in productivity of the manufacturing industry. [76434]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's manufacturing strategy was published in May. We have established in partnership with industry and key stakeholders and identified seven key areas crucial for manufacturing success and driving up productivity. We are taking action in all of these areas to help UK manufacturers fulfil their potential and move up the value chain to high skill, high value operations by promoting investment, skills, innovation and best practice.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with implementation of the Government's strategy for manufacturing industry. [76435]

  Alan Johnson
  The Manufacturing Strategy we published on 16 May identified seven key areas of activity for manufacturing success. We have made significant progress in all of these areas to help manufacturers fulfil their potential in the UK. For example, we have: provided additional resources for regional development agencies to help them to engage local industry with innovation, develop key business clusters and sectors, and stimulate workforce development among local employers; opened seven regional centres for manufacturing excellence; increased investment in science and innovation; and boosted promotion of best practice with the expansion of the Partnership Fund and Industry Forum.

  Stop Now Orders
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the operation of Stop Now Orders. [76437]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No formal assessment has been made of the operation of the Stop Now Orders Regulations. The Office of Fair Trading in their co-ordination role, monitor the operation of the regulations.

  There have been 148 cases thus far with five Stop Now Orders obtained from the courts. The majority of cases have been resolved through negotiation with the trader without having to take court action.

  Following discussions with Trading Standards Departments we have made available £2.5 million/year through local authority general allocations to fund Trading Standards' new responsibilities in this area. We have also provided funding as part of the Modernisation Fund for projects that support the implementation and use of the regulations locally and supported training events for Trading Standards.

  Energy Supply Market
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the situation in the energy supply market. [76439]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan).
  967W

  Fireworks
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional restrictions are proposed this year on the sale of fireworks. [76442]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 October 2002,Official Report, columns 889–90W, announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of her review of the legislation governing the sale of fireworks. [74853]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 21October 2002]: I would refer my hon Friend to an answer I gave on the 17 October, Official Report, column 889W announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to restrict the sale and use of fireworks to(a) certain days of the year and (b) certain times of the day; and if she will make a statement. [76392]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Consumer Protection Act 1987 allows the Government to regulate the safety of fireworks supplied to the public, but not the periods when they are sold. This would require primary legislation. We have recently written to major retailers of fireworks and representative bodies to urge them to adhere to the voluntary sales agreement. This restricts the sales of fireworks to three weeks before November 5 and a few days after and for a similar period around new year. We have received a positive response.

  As to usage, I would refer the hon Member to the answer I gave on 17 October 2002, Official Report, columns 889–90W announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks. DEFRA are seeking to make it easier for local authorities to use the Night Noise Offence within the Noise Act 1996 which targets excessive noise from domestic premises after 11pm and before 7pm.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on restricting the use of fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [75875]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have received widespread representations from members of the public and hon. Members calling for restrictions on the use of fireworks.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to improve quality and safety controls on fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [75876]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer I gave on the 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 889W announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to restrict the sale of fireworks outside the traditional sales period prior to Bonfire Night; and if he will make a statement. [75877]
  968W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Consumer Protection Act 1987 allows the Government to regulate the safety of fireworks supplied to the public, but not the period when they are sold. This would require primary legislation. But we have entered into a voluntary agreement with the industry and retail trade whereby fireworks are sold to the public for three weeks before 5 November and for a few days after and for a similar period around New Year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government policy on fireworks. [76430]

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what steps she is taking to improve firework safety. [76431]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby).

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on(a) the consultation on measures to tackle the misuse of fireworks announced by the Consumer Minister on 1 March and (b) the proposal to enable local authorities to refuse or revoke a licence of a retailer where the licensee is not considered to be a fit person for the sale of fireworks. [77968]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I would refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave on 17 October 2002,Official Report, columns 889–90W, announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  As part of the package of measures, breaches of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, could be taken into account in deciding whether a person was fit to hold a licence. Under the proposed manufacture and storage of explosives regulations the power to withhold or revoke a licence applies only to breaches of health and safety legislation.

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will discuss with interested parties the possibility of introducing a renewables target for 2020 of 30 per cent. [76443]

  Mr. Wilson
  I share my hon. Friend's desire to see a very substantial increase in renewable energy generation to help us mitigate the impacts of climate change and to create a more diversified energy market. The aim when setting any target must be to ensure that it is realistic and achievable. Our current target for renewables is that, by 2010,10 per cent. of electricity sales within Great Britain should come from sources eligible for the recently introduced Renewables Obligation. This will represent a substantial but attainable expansion over the course of the decade.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report on energy policy which was published last February recommended that the target for the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources should be increased to 20 per cent. by 2020. In the light of the report the Government are carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the new year. The review has included extensive

  969W
  consultation and is including consideration of the possibility of introducing an increased renewables target for 2020.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the discussions between regional development agencies and her Department on the creation of a commercial market for renewable energy and their relative responsibilities. [78483]

  Alan Johnson
  I recognise the important contribution that regional administrations can make in delivering the Government's demanding targets on renewable energy. Regular discussions are held between the DTI and regional development agencies. These discussions involve Renewables UK, the specialist business unit set up earlier this year to help UK industry to maximise their involvement in renewable energy projects. There has been significant co-operation to date, including the establishment of a fund of £2.5 million allocated to the regional Government Office network to support a range of different activities designed to support the planning and promotion of renewables energy projects and developing targets in regions throughout Britain.

  Furthermore, the Government is currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the New Year. The role of renewables, including the role of regional agencies, will be included in the White Paper.

  Textiles Industry
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the future of the UK textiles industry. [76444].

  Alan Johnson
  The UK textiles and clothing industry faces a number of tough challenges to its competitive future. Globalisation has placed increasing pressure on it continually to raise its game to remain competitive and UK manufacturers need to adapt and modernise if they are to respond positively to the pace of change.

  The DTI is committed to building a sustainable future for the industry and strongly supports the industry's own Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group which aims to increase its competitiveness through the development of innovative products, more efficient production methods and by diversifying into new markets.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the trends in inward investment to the UK since 1997 with special reference to start-up companies and businesses which have since gone bankrupt. [76445]

  Alan Johnson
  For the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01, Invest-UK recorded a steady increase year on year of inward investment decisions to invest in the UK from 631 in 1997–98 to 881 in 2000–01. This increase also applied to the number of new projects by either existing foreign owned companies already operating in the UK or by companies locating here for the first time from 192 in 1997–98 to 500 in 2000–01.
  970W
  There is no requirement on companies to notify Invest-UK of decisions to invest in the UK and so the figures are based only on information volunteered by companies. There are no statistics available which show the number of inward investors which have gone bankrupt.

  In 2001–02 there was a drop in project numbers to 827, of which 350 were new projects. This was consistent with the fall in investment levels across the world due to the global economic downturn which critically affected many sectors worldwide. International business confidence was also severely depressed in the aftermath of the 11 September tragedy.

  However, figures for 2001 published in September by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) confirm the UK's premier position in Europe. The UK had $496,776 million stock of inward investment, this figure is second only to the US. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, Invest-UK in British Trade International and the development agencies will continue to work hard to ensure that the UK remains the No. 1 location in Europe for inward investment.

  Urban Post Offices
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the urban post office network. [76448]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Limited (POL) has just embarked on a programme to restructure the urban post office network. The objective of the programme is to provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community. The programme, supported by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, will be taken forward by POL in consultation with individual sub-postmasters, the community, local stakeholders and Postwatch. Parliamentary and European state aids approvals have been received.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary' of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has held with representatives of older people's groups about the proximity of urban sub-post offices to their customers. [76451]

  Mr. Timms
  Plans of Post Office Limited (POL) to restructure the urban post office network will take careful account of customer needs, including those of older people. POL's restructuring programme will involve extensive consultation with local stakeholders and the community in every case. Public consultation will be carried out under the Code of Practice procedures which have been agreed between POL and Postwatch, the consumer body.

  Postwatch will be consulted on individual propositions for change. In addition, on a regular basis, Postwatch meet and consult a range of organisations including those representing older people.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the impact the closure of urban post offices will have on the
  971W
  town of Chelmsford, including Broomfield and Great Baddow; and how many post offices in this area are expected to close. [77151]

  Mr. Timms
  The programme to restructure the urban post office network has only just started and is being taken forward in consultation with individual sub-postmasters, the community, Members of Parliament, other local stakeholders and Postwatch in accordance with the Code of Practice. There is no pre-determined closure list. Under the Code, Post Office Ltd. is required to consult Postwatch and other interested parties on its specific proposals for changes.

  The objective of the urban network restructuring programme is to ensure that ad hoc closures which would leave gaps in the network are prevented. It is envisaged that the restructured urban network will provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to support the expansion of the aerospace industry. [76450]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have been and continue to be supportive of the aerospace industry in the UK. Since 1987 we have committed nearly £1 billion in launch investment for major new large aircraft and engine projects and provided some £20 million per year for civil aerospace research and demonstration. As large investors in R&D, aerospace companies will also benefit from the tax credit scheme for larger firms announced in the last Budget.

  We are conscious of the strong competition faced by the industry, however, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 16 May this year the establishment of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team, led by Sir Richard Evans. This will enable the key stakeholders to work together to produce a shared vision and strategy for the future success of the industry. Sir Richard and his team are currently about half way through their work and a great deal of effort, from industry, Government and other organisations, is being put into the process. I expect the IGT to report by next spring, with recommendations and an agreed action plan to take the industry forward.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of total turnover exports accounted for in the United Kingdom aerospace industry in the financial years(a) 1998–99; (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; and if she will make statement. [77900]

  Ms Hewitt
  The percentage of total turnover accounted for by exports in the UK aerospace industry is shown in the table. Data are sourced from the Society of British Aerospace Companies, but unfortunately, are not available on a financial year basis. Therefore, calendar year figures are supplied:972W

  Export percentage

  1999

  60

  2000

  60

  2001

  63

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on United Kingdom policy in respect of the court case brought by the Irish Republic at the permanent court of arbitration in The Hague on the non-disclosure of documents relating to the operation of the Sellafield MOX plant. [77238]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government of Ireland requested from the United Kingdom Government full versions of two reports about the economic justification of the Sellafield MOX plant prepared by the independent consultants PA Consulting and AD Little. Both reports contain items of commercially confidential information and these were redacted from the versions published by Ministers in 1999 and 2001 as part of the public consultation process. The Government is entitled to protect that information from public disclosure on the grounds that its release would cause unreasonable damage to BNFL's commercial operations and the prospects for its MOX business in particular. Accordingly, the Government has declined Ireland's request.

  In accordance with Article 32(1) of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (the 'OSPAR Convention') Ireland requested that an Arbitral Tribunal be established, claiming that the United Kingdom Government was in breach of its obligations under that Convention by declining to provide Ireland with the information requested. Following the appointment of arbitrators and the constitution of the Tribunal, both sides submitted written pleadings prior to an oral hearing held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague between 21–25 October 2002. The Tribunal will deliver its Award in due course. The written submissions and the transcripts of the oral hearing can be found on the PCA website at www.pca-cpa.org.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which facilities at Sellafield are licensed for the re-dissolution of unirradiated Mox fuel. [77297]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear site licences are granted in respect of sites rather then individual facilities. Under conditions attached to such site licences, HSE requires that for every operation on site that may affect safety, the licensee shall prepare a safety case to demonstrate that any proposed activity will be safe.

  Sellafield currently does not have a safety case for a production facility to re-dissolve unirradiated MoX fuel. However, BNFL is considering various options for reusing the fissile material, including fuel dissolution and fuel pellet crushing into a powder; re-dissolution may involve modifications to existing plant. I understand that in due course BNFL will be submitting proposals to HSE, including any necessary safety case, to gain permission for the proposed activity.
  973W
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation she has received concerning the decommissioning of Sellafield in the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [77546]

  Mr. Wilson
  Many representations have been received from hon. Members, their constituents, non-government organisations and foreign states regarding decommissioning of Sellafield in the last ten years.

  The question of how to manage the whole of the UK's civil nuclear liabilities more effectively—which includes decommissioning at Sellafield—is the subject of the Government's recent White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy For Action". The White Paper proposes fundamental changes to current management arrangements including the establishment of a new strategic body, the Liabilities Management Authority (LMA). The LMA's task will be to ensure that the nuclear legacy is cleaned up safely, securely, cost effectively, and in ways which protect the environment for current and future generations. The Government intends to ensure that the work of the LMA is carried out in a transparent manner.

  Agriculture
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters she received between 1 August and 15 October advocating the inclusion of the Development Box in the Government's negotiations on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture; and if she will make a statement. [77787]

  Ms Hewitt
  Between 1 August and 15 October 2002, my Department has received 270 letters advocating the inclusion of the Development Box in the Government's negotiations on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

  Airships
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work her Department has conducted to evaluate the use of airships as mobile telecommunication platforms. [77063]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government do not distinguish between different platforms for delivery of competitive mobile telecommunications services. British companies involved in the development of airship technology that could potentially be used for a wide range of applications, including fixed and mobile telecommunications, have received some support.

  Biotechnology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that stringent criteria for patenting biotechnology inventions are applied at the European patent office. [77872]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The criteria for patenting in this field are laid down in EU Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The UK was successful in achieving incorporation of these criteria into the implementing regulations of the European Patent Convention, which governs the work of the European Patent Office (EPO), at the end of 2000.
  974W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role her Department is playing in international collaboration aimed at harmonising practice on the patenting of biotechnology inventions. [77873]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The G7 countries have agreed to work together on the issues surrounding the patentability of biotechnological inventions. UK guidelines summarising the Patent Office's current practice based on the existing law and legal precedents from the UKcourts and the European Patent Office (EPO) will be provided to the G7 as a basis for further discussion. Staff in the UK Patent Office have also established and maintained regular contacts with their opposite numbers in the EPO to exchange information about practice in this field. Similar contacts exist with the Swedish, Austrian, Japanese, Chinese and Australian Patent Offices. The Patent Office takes due account of decisions which emerge from the EPO in making its own decisions.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines she has issued on the benchmarks used for assessing the patentability of biotechnology inventions; and what implications these guidelines have for future patenting of DNA sequences identified by data-mining techniques. [77874]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Patent Office published the examination guidelines used by patent examiners for assessing the patentability of biotechnological inventions in October. The guidelines are a summary of the Office's current practice based on the existing law and legal precedents from the UK courts and the European Patent Office. They are available from the Patent Office website at http://www.patent.gov.uk

  Inventions arising from data-mining have to satisfy the usual patentability requirements, including inventive steps. The guidelines state that the 'use of mining to identify a polynucleotide or a polypeptide homologous to a polynucleotide or polypeptide, having a known function or activity, will not normally involve and inventive step'.

  British Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from firms involved in the generation and sale of electricity in the United Kingdom, in response to the funding package put in place to support British Energy; and if she will make a statement. [77479]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has received representations from a number of companies in relation to the Government's financial assistance to British Energy.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on other electricity generators of the rescue package for British Energy; and if she will make a statement. [77482]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's overriding objectives in providing financial assistance to British Energy are to ensure nuclear safety and security of supply while protecting the interests of taxpayers. My Department is
  975W
  currently considering with the company options for its future. Any assistance to restore viability will have to comply with EU rules, including avoiding undue distortion of competition

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what steps she is taking to ensure that the British Energy Trading arrangements work effectively in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [77481]

  Ms Hewitt
  The creation of a wholesale electricity market for GB, as set out in the BETTA (British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements) proposals will mean that the current barriers that independent Scottish generators, along with British Energy, face in selling to the England and Wales market will be removed.

  The Nuclear Energy Agreement (NEA), which was put in place at the time of privatisation, ensures that British Energy has buyers for its generation output. The terms of the NEA have recently been renegotiated and are subject to final approval by Ofgem, who have indicated that they are 'minded to approve the new terms. Under the new terms the NEA will cease to exist on the 1 April 2006 or on the advent of BETTA, whichever is the sooner.

  Government announced in April 2002 that it intended to bring forward legislation to implement BETTA when parliamentary time allowed. Detailed consultations on the new arrangements to create a GB market are already underway and will be ongoing over the coming months.

  Broadband Technology (Aberdeenshire)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government is taking to promote broadband technology in Aberdeenshire. [76651]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The Scottish Executive is implementing its broadband strategy "Connecting Scotland: Our broadband future" and will shortly be publishing an update to that strategy outlining progress to date.

  One strand of the strategy is to identify the need for direct support measures and this has been taken forward through the £4.4 million Scottish programme of projects under the UK Broadband Fund. There are measures to stimulate awareness and demand for broadband via a broadband information website and a network of local demonstration centres for SMEs. On the supply side, there are technology trials in rural areas, such as Power line Carrier and Wireless pilots, which aim to determine the potential of these technologies for delivering broadband in rural communities.

  In addition, the DTI is establishing a network of broadband experts to be located in each of the English regions and the devolved Administrations, to spread best practice in the promotion and take-up of broadband technology.

  All of these measures will help stimulate the rollout and take-up of broadband technologies throughout Scotland, including in Aberdeenshire.

  Cable Networks
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in completing the non-BT cable network, as set out in the terms of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [77348]

  Mr. Timms
  Cable networks currently pass approximately 50 per cent. of UK households. Decisions on whether to extend coverage further are a commercial matter for the cable company concerned, as network expansion is no longer dictated by the build milestones in a cable operator's Telecommunications Act licence. Cable franchises, when originally granted, contained a balance of exclusivity and build milestones. Since 1998, the exclusivity of the franchises has been progressively removed to enable greater competition in the provision of communications services. This process was completed on 1 January 2001. In recognition of this, cable operators' licences are no longer subject to build milestones.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action she plans to take to ensure the target of 10GWe of CHP by 2010 is achieved; and if she will make a statement. [78140]

  Mr. Wilson
  The draft CHP strategy reiterated the Government's commitment to a target of at least lOGWe of Good Quality CHP capacity by 2010. Responses to the consultation on the CHP strategy will feed into consideration of the Energy White Paper. A summary of the responses to the consultation will be placed on the DEFRA website shortly.

  Commercial Kiosk Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding the Government will provide for the Commercial Kiosk Service; and if she will make a statement. [77477]

  Mr. Timms
  The commercial kiosk pilot due to start early next spring will be a commercially funded undertaking. It will not receive financial support from Government. However Government expects to participate by making UK online interactive available on the kiosks.

  Communication and Information Industries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK GDP the communication and information industries represent; and if she will make a statement. [77906]

  Mr. Timms
  The communication and information industries represented about 9 per cent. of total UK Gross Value Added at basic prices in 2000. The estimate has been derived from the ONS Input-Output Analyses and the ONS Annual Business Inquiry.

  Community Development Venture Capital Fund
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which private companies are
  977W
  involved in administration of the Community Development Venture Capital Fund in (a) England, (b)Wales and (c)Scotland. [78147]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Bridges Community Ventures Ltd. administers the Community Development Venture Fund.

  Credit Licences
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the occasions on which credit licences issued by the Office of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were(a) approved, (b)revoked and (c) refused within Scotland, broken down by area; [76541]

  (2) how many credit licences were (a)revoked and (b) refused in each of the last five years. [76542]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: Information on refusals and revocations of consumer credit licences is available only at national level. The figures for the UK for the last five years are:

  Licences revoked

  Licence applications refused

  1997

  34

  18

  1998

  15

  18

  1999

  25

  27

  2000

  31

  35

  2001

  21

  26

  2002 to date

  14

  25

  The number of licences issued to applicants based in Scotland since 18 October 1997 is:

  Licences issued

  1997

  272

  1998

  1,569

  1999

  1,312

  2000

  1,067

  2001

  1,015

  2002 to 30 September

  754

  Figures for licences issued are not kept on the basis of regions within Scotland. The total number of licences issued in the last five years by postcode area is:

  Post code

  Number

  AB

  587

  DD

  310

  DG

  144

  EH

  966

  FK

  279

  G

  1,522

  HS

  19

  IV

  232

  KA

  411

  KW

  47

  KY

  384

  ML

  410

  PA

  331

  PH

  221

  TD

  111

  ZE

  15

  Energy Supply
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Ofgem about guaranteeing long-term security of energy supply; and if she will make a statement. [77483]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is in regular contact with Ofgem to discuss energy security issues. The Joint Energy Security of Supply working group (JESS), chaired jointly by DTI and Ofgem, is the main forum for jointly monitoring security of supply issues over a medium-term timescale of up to seven years. The first JESS report, containing security indicators, was issued in June 2002 and a copy was placed in the House of Commons Library. Long-term energy security to 2020 and beyond is a key subject for the forthcoming Energy White Paper, due to be published in the new year. Ofgem are involved in the inter-departmental steering group, which is developing the White Paper.

  EU Copyright Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the likely effects of the EU Copyright Directive in terms of(a) the ownership of intellectual property and (b) access to information. [76957]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The EU Copyright Directive does not require us to make any changes that will affect the ownership of intellectual property. Moreover, copyright does not protect information as such. Where information is contained in a copyright protected work, then implementation of the Directive in the UK will not make any change of substance to the copyright owner's existing right to control if and how that work is made available to the public by any means.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive (2001/298/EC) (2); and if she will make a statement. [76956]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The consultation on implementation of the EU Copyright Directive has a closing date of 31 October. We will be considering all responses very carefully as we take forward work on implementation.

  Export Control Organisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) target and (b) actual time to complete licence assessments by the Export Control Organisation is for (i) applications where other Government Departments are consulted and (ii) applications not circulated to other Government Departments; and if she will make a statement. [78288]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 399W. In almost all cases it is necessary for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) application to be circulated to other Government Departments for advice.

  Export Credit Guarantees (Gulf States)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual value is of export credit guarantees issued to(a) Qatar, (b) Bahrain, (c) the United Arab Emirates, and (d) Oman since 1995; how many guarantees were issued in each year; what percentage of guarantee value each year was in each export sector; and if she will list each project of more than £10 million supported by those guarantees. [77377]

  Year/market

  Value of guarantees issued (ECGD maximum liability) £million

  Number of issues

  Per cent, value civil

  Per cent, value civil aerospace

  Per cent, value defence

  Project description for guarantees over £10 million issued

  1995

  Bahrain

  64,194,556

  5

  0

  100

  0

  Civil airliners

  Oman

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Qatar

  1,949,647

  2

  0

  0

  100

  UAE

  594,000

  1

  100

  0

  0

  1996

  Bahrain

  20,131,362

  2

  92.9

  0

  7.1

  Civil airliners

  Oman

  40,315,965

  2

  100

  0

  0

  Electricity transmission equipment

  Qatar

  228,625,795

  5

  97.6

  0

  2.4

  LNG project

  UAE

  89,460,804

  2

  8.9

  91.1

  0

  Civil airliners

  1997

  Bahrain

  1,282,500

  1

  100

  0

  0

  Oman

  373,805,127

  3

  99.76

  0

  0.24

  Power plant

  Qatar

  186,240,145

  6

  0

  0

  100

  Armoured personnel carriers

  UAE

  86,529,415

  3

  0

  88.7

  11.3

  Civil airliners

  1998

  Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  21,136,834

  1

  0

  0

  100

  Tanks

  Qatar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UAE

  99,696,601

  6

  7.7

  92.3

  0

  Civil airliners

  1999

  Bahrain

  117,104,123

  6

  0

  100

  0

  Civil airliners

  Oman

  220,745,142

  4

  4.6

  0

  95.4

  Tanks, military radar, aircraft avionics, power plant

  Qatar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UAE

  194,134,273

  7

  0

  100

  0

  Civil airliners

  2000

  Bahrain

  54,768,466

  3

  0.4

  99.6

  0

  Civil airliners

  Oman

  120,564,393

  4

  100

  0

  0

  Power plant, LNG project

  Qatar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UAE

  145,760,930

  5

  0

  100

  0

  Civil airliners

  2001

  Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Qatar

  17,479,948

  2

  0

  100

  0

  UAE

  54,099,675

  3

  50.4

  49.6

  0

  Civil airliners, electricity transmission equipment

  2002

  Bahrain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oman

  57,001,885

  1

  0

  0

  100

  Spares for armoured personnel carriers

  Qatar

  37,945,292

  3

  0

  100

  0

  Civil airliners

  UAE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  980W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The following table lists the ECGD maximum liability for all guarantees issued since 1995 for the specified markets. It also lists the number of such guarantees, the percentage of maximum liability under the civil, civil aerospace and defence sectors and a broad description of the projects for guarantees issued over £10 million.

  Export Publications Catalogue
  Dr Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many titles are featured in the Export Publications Catalogue; what the website address is for the catalogue; what the running costs were for financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [78114]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Export Publications Catalogue is no longer published. Since May 2000, business sector and export market information content previously published as priced books listed in the Catalogue has been made freely available on www.tradepartners.gov.uk

  The specific running costs for the Export Publications Catalogue were not separately recorded. However, based on the staff and accommodation costs the totaladministration running costs for maintaining the Catalogue are estimated as:

  £

  1997–98

  37,983.00

  1998–99

  37,860.00

  1999–2000

  38,713.00

  The Unit was wound-up at the end of the Financial Year 1999–2000 and staff were redeployed on preparing information for the new Trade Partners UK website.

  Financial Assistance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance has been given in each of the last five years to(a) the British Printing Industries Federation, (b) the Booksellers Association, (c) London Fashion Week, (d) the Designer Fact File and (e) the Education Pack for Schools in the Clothing and Textile industries; what assistance is planned for the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [78261]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI does not provide direct financial assistance to the British Printing Industries Federation or the Booksellers Association but has worked with these organisations in partnership with other industry members to support initiatives aimed at raising their sectors' competitiveness and productivity.

  My Department has contributed support towards the above initiatives as follows:

  London Fashion Week:

  1997–2000—£120,000 per annum

  2001—£170,000

  2002—£214,000

  Designer Fact File:

  1997—£22,000

  Education Packs for Clothing and Textiles:

  April 2001 to April 2003—£161,500

  This support relates to specific industry-led initiatives aiming at supporting the UK textiles and clothing sector. The focus for this assistance is the priorities identified by the industry itself, contained in the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group's report: 'A National
  982W
  Strategy for the UK Textiles and Clothing Industry', published in June 2000. DTI will continue to work with the TCSG to support this industry but the level of future support depends on it coming forward with appropriate initiatives to help raise its competitiveness and viability.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [77662]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is already following the fire safety guidance recently published on the the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. My Department is taking the opportunity to remind its staff and contractors of good fire safety practices and what to do in an emergency. My Department does not expect to incur any increase in costs.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what use she and her Department have made of focus group research since June 2001; if she will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if she will publish the research on her Department's website. [74989]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not collect centrally the information sought, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Foresight Vehicle LINK Programme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was invested by the Government, broken down by financial years, in the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme; whether the programme is still live; what assessment of the programme has taken place and at what cost; and if she will make a statement. [77902]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Foresight Vehicle LINK programme is still open. Foresight Vehicle has just published a technology road map identifying critical technology and research themes and this, taken together with the recommendations of the Automotive Innovation andGrowth Team, will be used as the basis for future calls for proposals. Sponsor departments will be meeting in the next few weeks to discuss the timing of the next call. It is too early for a full formal evaluation of the research to date, but on completion, individual projects are assessed against their objectives by the Programme Management Panel. In addition, themed dissemination events are held regularly and papers have been presented at international conferences. Details of the research portfolio and progress are also made available on the Foresight Vehicle website www.foresightvehicle.org.uk

  Government commitment is as follows (these figures include the EPSRC Innovative Manufacturing Initiative Road Transport Programme which has been subsumed into Foresight Vehicle):
  983W

  Financial Years (£k)

  DfT

  DTI

  Highways Agency

  MoD

  EPSRC

  Total

  Earlier years

  —

  1,060

  —

  —

  3,131

  4,191

  1997–98

  —

  646

  —

  62

  3,810

  4,518

  1998–99

  —

  1,544

  —

  —

  4,087

  5,631

  1999–2000

  55

  1,005

  —

  —

  3,903

  4,963

  2001–01

  388

  600

  951

  —

  4,168

  6,107

  2001–02

  622

  1,463

  63

  —

  1,277

  3,425

  2002–03

  992

  982

  400

  —

  1,161

  3,535

  Total

  2,057

  7,300

  1,414

  62

  21,537

  32,370

  Gas Suppliers
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that gas suppliers are complying with Ofgem and Energywatch's Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter; and what enforcement powers are given to Ofgem to impose the Charter's provisions on fraudulent and negligent firms; [75941]

  (2) what measures are being taken to ensure that gas suppliers are complying with Ofgem and Energywatch's Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter; and what enforcement powers are given to Ofgem to impose the Charter's provisions on fraudulent and negligent firms who do not correct an erroneous transfer within the designated time period as stipulated by the Charter. [75942]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). I understand that the Chief Executive of Ofgem will write to the hon. Member on the issues he has raised.

  Industry Forum
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) financial and (b)other support was provided to the Industry Forum in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; what budget there is for 2001–02; and if she will make statement.

  Ms Hewitt
  The Industry Forum Adaptation initiative was supported by a budget of £15 million between 1998 and 2001. Due to the high demand and its growing impact on productivity across a range of sectors, a further budget of £9 million was announced at the Manufacturing Summit in December 2001. This covers FY 2002–03 and 2003–04 and strengthens the overall level of support for best practice activities. An additional £9 million was also announced to include joint activity with the Partnership Fund to integrate people and process development.

  In addition, the Industry Forum Network was established in December 2000 through the Fit for the Future National Best Practice Campaign, which my Department co-funds. The network is made up of CEOs of each industry forum and facilitates cross-working and the exchange of operational experiences.

  Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the development of the Iranian oil and gas industry; and what steps she is taking to encourge UK firms to invest in Iran. [78305]
  984W
  Mr. Wilson
  Her Majesty's Government has supported UK companies investing in the development of the Iranian oil and gas industry and will continue to do so.

  Trade Partners UK, including the commercial team at the Embassy in Tehran, offers a strong package of support for British companies wishing to do business with Iran. In addition to providing up to date information on market conditions, they support a programme of trade missions to the market, help British groups attend key trade fairs, organise inward missions and provide targeted assistance to UK companies in key sectors.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what British exports of material and technology capable of being used in biological weapons production were made to Iraq since 1972; and how many export licences were(a) granted and (b) rejected in respect of such material and technology over this period. [75867]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation records details of all relevant export licences granted and rejected. Since 2 May 1997 these are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Previous administrations have not considered it appropriate to publish information on individual licensing decisions. Information on export licences granted and rejected since 1972, where the end users were in Iraq, is not held centrally and a manual search of all the case files would incur disproportionate costs.

  The Government are well aware of the special risks that exist in relation to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and for this reason gives extremely careful scrutiny to applications that involve potential WMD concerns. A very wide range of items with otherwise entirely legitimate applications can have a potential use in connection with WMD. The Government will not issue an export licence where there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to a WMD programme of concern.

  Israel
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is regarding the export of arms to Israel. [77054]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.
  985W
  All relevant export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking account of the circumstances prevailing at the time and other announced Government policies. Our criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for internal repression or external aggression. The outbreak of the intifada, continued Israeli incursions in the Occupied Territories and the Israeli breach of its assurance that UK originated equipment would not be used in the Occupied Territories have all been factored in to the Government's current export licensing policy. The UK arms trade with Israel is tiny.

  Job Losses
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her Department's policy to collect statistics on the number of jobs lost from the UK to other countries. [76396]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are significant practical and conceptual difficulties in measuring the process of job creation and job destruction and attributing cause and effect. At this stage, we have no plans to collect figures in this area. However, my Department will continue to monitor where possible, the location and relocation decisions of UK and foreign companies as part of our ongoing programme of work on productivity and competitiveness.

  Liabilities Management Authority
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether(a) restrictions and (b) exclusions will apply to the nationality of the licensees contracted by the Liabilities Management Authority to manage (i) individual and (ii) multiple sites. [77296]

  Ms Hewitt
  UK and overseas companies will be able to bid for contracts, reflecting the Government's determination to draw on the best available skills in managing and disposing of nuclear waste. However, contracts will only be awarded to companies satisfying regulatory and security requirements relevant to the site or sites concerned.

  NPower
  Mr. David Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints she has received about the operation of npower. [77856]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: I have received a number of representations about npower and other gas and electricity suppliers. Statutory responsibility for investigating complaints from consumers who have been unable to obtain a satisfactory response from their supplier lies with the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch). Energywatch publishes complaints statistics on website at www.energywatch@org.uk The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) monitors the sales activities of energy suppliers, and may take investigative and enforcement action against any supplier that breaches the terms of its supply licence.

  Parcelforce
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from businesses and individuals about the services operated by Parcelforce; and if she will make a statement. [77478]

  Mr. Timms
  Services operated by Parcelforce are an operational matter for the company. Recent representations I have received on behalf of businesses concerning these matters have therefore been passed on to Consignia plc for attention. I answered an adjournment debate yesterday on a representation raised with me by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty).

  Redundant Building Grant Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been(a) applied for and (b) spent through the Redundant Building Grant Scheme in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date, broken down by county. [78388]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the introduction of the Regional Development Agencies' single budget arrangements last April they are no longer obliged to operate former Rural Development Programme schemes such as the Redundant Building Grant. The Department has not collected this information since 2000–01, when expenditure was estimated at approximately £2.8m. Figures for individual counties have never been collected centrally.

  RICD Fund
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been(a) applied for and (b) spent through the Regional Innovation and Competitiveness Development fund by rural local authorities in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [78402]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2000–01 the Competitiveness Development Fund (CDF) provided a funding stream from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to the nine English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to spend on priorities they identified for increasing competitiveness in their regions. The RDAs were allocated CDF of £9.7 million in 2000–01.

  In 2001–02, the CDF was subsumed within the department's Regional Innovation Fund (RIF), which ran for one financial year before itself being subsumed within the 'Single Pot' financial arrangements applying to RDAs from 2002–03. The RIF similarly provided a funding stream to the RDAs, which was designed to enable them to support regional competitiveness, innovation and enterprise, and to support cluster development and business incubation in their regions. £54.1 million of RIF funding was allocated by DTI to the RDAs for this purpose.

  The RDAs' use of Government funding is described in their audited annual reports and accounts. These are laid before Parliament each year before the summer recess

  Sensors Technology
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance has been given to the sensors technology, through the LINK sensors for industrial applications programme in each of the last five years; what support is planned in the next two years; when the programme is next due to report; what assessment has taken place of the effectiveness of the programme; whether the programme has a website; and if she will make a statement. [78264]

  Ms Hewitt
  Financial support under the LINK Sensors and Sensor Systems for Industrial Applications Programme for the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Spend £k

  1997–98

  244

  1998–99

  727

  1999–2000

  1,187

  2000–01

  1,343

  2001–02

  1,237

  Predicted spend for 2002–03 and 2003–04 is £1,300k and £1,000k respectively. Further support for sensors technology will be available under the new LINK Basic Technologies for Industrial Applications Programme, which was announced by my noble Friend, the Minister for Science and Innovation on 26 July 2002.

  The next progress report to the LINK Directorate on the Programme is due in October 2003. Progress on the programme and individual projects is monitored continuously, but it is too early to carry out a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme as only a few projects have been completed and are now moving towards commercial exploitation. However, the research has already given rise to 80 refereed scientific papers and 12 patent applications. Two seminars have been held at which progress on projects has been reported. The programme website address is: www.dti.gov.uk/sensors. I have no plans to make a statement about this programme.

  Smart South West
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK Online for Business strategy is and the role played by Smart South West in promoting it; and if she will make a statement on the nature of Smart South West's relationship with business in the region. [74935]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The aim of UK online for business is to help make the UK the best place in the world for e-business, with an extensive and competitive broadband market judged using international comparative measures of business uptake and use of information and communication technology (ICT). This will be achieved by assisting companies, through the provision of advice, tools and content, to achieve greater productivity and competitiveness through the deeper, more integrated use of ICT.

  As part of the programme, a UK online for business champion has been appointed for each region and Devolved Administration. The champions work with the RDAs, Business Link Organisations and other
  988W
  regional bodies, helping to facilitate activity that will contribute to the achievement of the targets. The champion for the South West is Colin Bluck, who although Executive Director of Smart South West, performs the role of champion in an individual capacity. Smart South West as an organization is one of over 400 partners with whom we seek to work to promote the use of ICT to business.

  I am not in a position to comment on the nature of Smart South West's relationship with business in the region.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support and assistance she will provide to the UK steel industry in response to the introduction of US tariffs. [69480]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government supported the European Commission's robust response in pursuing WTO action and took the lead in pressing for EU safeguard action to protect the UK and EU steel industry against diversion of trade. The Government have also actively supported UK companies in their efforts to secure product exclusions from the US measures and will continue to do so. To date, 70 per cent. of UK steel exports are not covered by the US tariff increases.

  The Government can only provide support to the steel sector within the strict aid criteria rules that apply to the sector. We continue to provide financial support to the sector representatives for initiatives designed to improve competitiveness.

  Wind Turbines
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact decommissioning nuclear sources will have on the number of wind turbines which will be needed in the British Isles. [77862]

  Mr Wilson
  Energy security and taking action on climate change are key issues for the Energy White Paper which will be published in the new year. The role of nuclear and renewables, including wind power, will be included in the White Paper. The policies and measures in the Government's climate change programme should deliver our Kyoto commitment even with the current planned closure programme for the nuclear stations between now and 2010.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the number of wind turbines which will be needed in the British Isles to meet the Kyoto commitments on sustainable energy. [77863]

  Mr. Wilson
  The policies and measures in the Government's climate change programme should deliver our Kyoto emissions commitment. The climate change programme includes policies and measures impacting on all sectors of the economy and society, which seek to reduce emissions attributable both to the production of energy, and to its consumption.

  Measures to reduce emissions attributable to energy production include the Renewables Obligation, which places an obligation on electricity suppliers to source a

  989W
  rising proportion of their total sales from eligible renewable sources. Our target is that 10 per cent. of licensed electricity supplies will be generated from eligible renewable sources by 2010. Wind power will make an important contribution to this target, as will other renewable sources of electricity. Achieving this target could result in an estimated saving of around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2010.

  This expansion of renewable energy is however just one part of the Government's wider climate change programme. Other initiatives include for example the climate change levy on conventional fuels and the UK emissions trading scheme which affect the business sector. In the domestic sector, the new Energy Efficiency Commitment places new obligations on gas and electricity suppliers to make energy efficiency improvements; there are also new requirements on local authorities to make proposals to achieve energy efficiency gains; and the £600 million home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for home insulation and heating improvements to improve energy savings. On transport, there is the EU-level agreements with the car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency in new cars, backed by changes in UK vehicle taxation through company car tax and vehicle excise duty, together with the infrastructure investment in the 10-year plan to tackle congestion and pollution.

  As my hon. Friend may know, energy efficiency was one of the key areas highlighted in the PIU review of energy policy. The Government support an increasing role for energy efficiency and is formulating a response to be published in the White Paper around the turn of the year. The role of renewables will also be included in the White Paper.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel in 2030
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2002,Official Report, columns 157–58W, on air passengers, if he will estimate the forecast for air travel in 2030 based on a 1 per cent. per annum increase in air fares in real terms over the forecasting period. [78547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The forecasts of air traffic demand for 2030, published in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", assumed a 1 per cent. per annum reduction in air fares in real fares. The resulting forecasts of unconstrained passenger demand for 2030 were 501 million passengers nationally and 301 million passengers in the south-east.

  Central Railway Project
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Central Railway project. [78461]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 October 2002,Official Report, column 304W to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

  Headlight Glare
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of the planting of foliage on the central reservations of UK motorways on reducing headlight glare from other carriageways. [78353]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Planting and maintenance of foliage in the central reserve creates safety risks to road workers, and can cause congestion for travellers, without offering any additional safety benefits. On this basis, planting foliage in the central reservations of motorways is not favoured except where the central reservation is very wide. Headlight glare is very rarely a factor in motorway accidents.

  Motorised Wheelchairs
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it compulsory for users of motorised wheelchairs to hold third party liability insurance. [78618]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Insurance for users of motorised wheelchairs and scooters is currently not compulsory but is strongly recommended. We are planning to review the legal framework governing both the construction and use of such vehicles in the near future and the issue of whether insurance should be compulsory will be among those on which we will be seeking views.

  Rail Passenger Partnership
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has made available for the Rail Passenger Partnership since 2000; and how much was spent in rural areas in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [78397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme was launched in 1999 with a budget of £105 million over three years. In December 2001 the Strategic Rail Authority re-launched RPP with a budget of £400 million until 2010–11.

  It is not possible to give a precise figure for the amount spent exclusively in rural areas, as many of the schemes for which funding has been awarded by the SRA are of benefit to rural and non-rural areas. In the financial year 2000–01, some £271,000 was awarded for schemes containing a rural element. In 2001–02 the figure was just under £1.1 million. The projected figure for 2002–03 is some £2.3 million.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish figures for the punctuality and reliability of rail services operated by(a) Central trains and (b) Wales and Borders trains through Telford Central station over the last 12 months. [78348]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics for all train operating companies in their six monthly "On Track" publication. The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level,
  991W
  but reflect the performance of their services in aggregate. The most recent edition was published on 6 June. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Self-loading Lorries
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the maximum(a) length and (b) load is of lorries with on-board, self-loading crane equipment under the Construction and Use Regulations. [78817]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The maximum overall length of a lorry or combination of lorry and trailer is set out in the table. Where a self-loading crane is fitted, it is exempt from the calculation of overall length if attached at the rear of the lorry or at the rear of the combination of lorry and trailer. In all other cases it is included in the calculation of overall length.

  The maximum gross weight that these vehicles may operate at is set out in the table. The limits are contained in the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 and are dependent on the vehicles type and configuration.

  Vehicle type

  Maximum overall length (meters)

  Maximum weight (tonnes)

  2 axle rigid

  12

  18

  3 axle rigid

  12

  25/1 26

  4 axle rigid

  12

  30/1 32

  3 axle articulated

  16.5

  26

  4 axle articulated

  16.5

  1 38

  5 axle articulated

  16.5

  40

  6 axle articulated

  16.5

  1 44

  3 axle road train (rigid vehicle towing a draw bar trailer)

  18.75

  26

  4 axle road train

  18.75

  26

  5 axle road train

  18.75

  1 40

  6 axle road train

  18.75

  1 44

  1 Subject to certain suspension/tyre/axle load requirements being met.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many PFI and PPP schemes have been(a) completed and (b) signed in (i) each of the regions of England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales, broken down by department. [75854]

  Mr. Boateng
  A region-by-region breakdown of the number and total capital value of English PFI and PPP projects, both signed and completed, will be published in a series of forthcoming Treasury publications, entitled "Public Private Partnerships: helping to deliver public services". One such booklet is being prepared for each English region. The booklets will be published by 30 November 2002, and copies will be deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  The number and capital value of both signed and completed Scottish PFI projects, along with a departmental breakdown, is published by the Scottish Executive on their website. (The number of projects signed and completed is listed at http://
  992W
  www.scotland.gov.uk/pfi/facts-01.asp, while a department-by-departmentlist is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pfi/projectjist.xls.)

  A list of Welsh PFI and PPP projects, both completed deals and deals in procurement, including capital values, is published by the National Assembly for Wales on their website. (This can be found at http://www.pfu.wales.gov.uk/scripts/pfilist.asp.)

  Departmental Job Vacancies
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many non-devolved posts were advertised in the press in each year since June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76854]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The information for HM Treasury is as follows:

  Information on the number of posts advertised in 1999 is unavailable. Between January 2000 and October 2002, a total of 296 "non-devolved" posts were advertised by HM Treasury in the national press and specialist publications where appropriate. Since 2001 adverts have also been placed on the HM Treasury website. None of the posts were advertised in the Scottish press.

  Number of posts advertised by the Treasury in the national press each year since January 2000

  Year

  Number

  January-December 2001

  71

  January-December 2001

  159

  January-October 2002

  66

  Total

  296

  Economic Cycle
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the duration of the current economic cycle. [77886]

  Ruth Kelly
  Budget 2002 (HC 592) included an assessment of cyclical developments, in particular on pages 26 and 190–93.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate EU member states' contributions to the EU budget in terms of(a) net contributions and (b) per capita contributions since the United Kingdom joined the EU. [77651]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested, for the period 1976 to 2001, is set out in the tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library. These tables are shown in million euro (net contributions) and euro (net contributions per capita). Information on member states net positions for the period 1973 to 1975 is not available.

  EU Structural and Cohesion Funds
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the annual UK receipts from European Community Structural and Cohesion Funds from 1995 and the projected receipts for 2003 and 2004. [77650]
  993W
  Ruth Kelly
  Details of UK receipts from Structural Operations for the period 1995–96 to 2001–02 are set out in the table.

  Year

  £ billion

  1995–96

  1.136

  1996–97

  1.392

  1997–98

  1.558

  1998–99

  0.912

  1999–2000

  1.213

  2000–01

  1.444

  2001–02

  0.664

  Latest forecasts of receipts from Structural Operations for the period 2002–03 to 2004–05 are as follows.

  Year

  £ billion

  2002–03

  1.3

  2003–04

  1.7

  2004–05

  1.5

  Health Care Charges
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of health care systems funded by charges and private medical insurance; and if he will make a statement. [78071]

  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed information on alternative systems for financing health care was published as part of the results of the review carried out by Derek Wanless on long term trends affecting the health service in the UK.

  In presenting this year's budget to Parliament, the Chancellor set out the Government's view that "the NHS system of funding is not just the most equitable but that a reformed NHS, by offering the most comprehensive insurance policy to meet the rising costs from medical advances, can give British people the greater security they need".

  Income Tax Revenue
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total income tax revenue was in each year since 1997. [78837]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest figures are contained in Table 1.2 on Inland Revenue's website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax—receipts/menu.htm

  Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of people reaching retirement age in each of the last 10 years had private self-employed pensions; [77887]

  (2) how many holders of private pension funds have taken tax-free lump sums in each of the last 10 years; [77888]

  (3) how many people contributed to private self-employed pension funds in each of the last 10 years. [77890]
  994W
  Ruth Kelly
  Available information that can be provided without disproportionate cost is in the table.

  Year

  Number of self-employed contributors to private pension funds (000)1

  1996–97

  1,620

  1997–98

  1,630

  1998–99

  1,560

  1999–2000

  1,560

  2000–01

  1,480

  1 Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes 1996–97 to 2000–01 and include contributors to both Personal Pensions and Retirement Annuity Contracts.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what source data was used to support the statistic cited in his Department's 2002 departmental report that 87 per cent. of main departments' performance targets had been met or partially met by 2002. [78139]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figure was based on departments' assessments of their performance against their targets, as published in departmental reports.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what protections exist under the FSA review of personal pension sales in circumstances where a financial loss was recompensed through augmentation of an investor's policy and that policy has subsequently had(a) a market value adjustment reduction applied and (b) a transfer or exit penalty applied. [77882]

  Ruth Kelly
  The aim of the pensions review is to provide adequate compensation (where it is due) to investors, at the time of the review. In this respect, the pensions review seeks to replicate the approach a court of law would take to working out compensation when dealing with a claim for damages.

  If a firm has provided adequate compensation to an investor, in accordance with the regulatory requirements, any subsequent gains or losses that occur fall outside the scope of the review as the firm would have fulfilled its obligations under the review.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance and regulations the Financial Services Authority has issued to personal pension providers under the FSA review of personal pension sales in circumstances where a guarantee of a future calculation of possible financial loss has been favoured over immediate financial recompense being made to a policyholder, with respect to(a) calculation and payment of transfer values in respect of a guaranteed policy and (b) reflection of such guaranteed liabilities by personal pension providers for (i) accounting, (ii) financial statement and (iii) regulatory purposes. [77883]

  Ruth Kelly
  A benefit guarantee is a guarantee by a life office to an investor to mirror or provide benefits of equivalent value to those that the investor would have had in the occupational scheme, which he opted out of
  995W
  or failed to join. Benefits become payable when an investor dies, retires, or transfers the pension to another company.

  In respect of (a), investors who wish to transfer their policy away from the firm must he provided with a full transfer value quotation, which fairly reflects the presence of the guarantee.

  In respect of (b), (i) and (ii), there is no guidance which requires firms to reflect their guarantee liabilities separately in their accounts or financial statements. Instead, when reporting their entire pensions review provisions firms will include their guarantee liabilities. In respect of (b) (iii), a firm must give an undertaking to the FSA that its reserving basis for the guarantee is adequate, does not compromise its solvency position and will conform with the requirements of its prudential regulator. The Government Actuary issued guidance to appointed actuaries on the reserving implications of guaranteeing pension benefits linked to individual salaries. This guidance is incorporated within Volume Three of the IPRU (INS) rulebook under the heading DAA9.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the aggregate liability of public funds for PFI schemes concluded in each year since 1997. [78294]

  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed figures setting out estimates of future payments to be made under PFI contracts are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report each year. Table C19 of Budget 2002 includes the latest projections of estimated payments for services provided under the Private Finance Initiative for the years 2002–03 to 2027–28.

  In line with past practice, I expect to update these figures shortly.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the capital value of PFI schemes concluded in each year since 1997. [78295]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates of capital investment by the private sector in support of PFI projects (both signed and those at preferred bidder) are published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report each year. Tables C17 and C18 of Budget 2002 include the latest projections of capital expenditure by the private sector under the private finance initiative, broken down by department, for 2002–03 to 2004–05. In line with past practice, I expect to update these figures shortly.

  Savings Gateway and Baby Bond
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation has taken place regarding the introduction of a(a) baby bond and (b) savings gateway; and if he will make a statement. [78092]

  Ruth Kelly
  Proposals for the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway were launched in April 2001 in the consultation document entitled "Saving and Assets for All". A follow up consultation document entitled 996W
  "Delivering Saving and Assets" was published in November 2001. "Delivering Saving and Assets" reported back on the responses received in the first round of consultation, announced proposals to launch pilots for the Saving Gateway and raised more detailed questions on the delivery model for the Child Trust Fund.

  The "Delivering Saving and Assets" consultation ended on 28 February 2002. Pilots for the Saving Gateway were launched in August 2002. A statement on the development of the Child Trust Fund and Saving Gateway proposals will be included in the pre-Budget report.

  Small Business (Insurance Premium Costs)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to alleviate the effect on small businesses of increases in insurance premium costs since 11 September 2001; if he will estimate the impact of Government policy on increasing insurance costs on small businesses. [78211]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is aware of the recent rise in insurance premiums and the particular problems faced by some small businesses. The Government is working with trade associations, the insurance industry and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, to try and maximize the availability of affordable liability insurance cover.

  Split Capital Trusts
  Mr. Love
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations have taken place with the Financial Services Authority regarding concerns over misselling of split capital trusts; and if he will make a statement, [78086]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is in regular contact with the FSA on a wide range of issues.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) level of tax receipts and (b) estimate made at the time of the budget for (i) income tax, (ii) stamp duty, (iii) corporation tax and (iv) capital gains tax. [78178]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]The Budget estimates of net tax receipts are shown in Table C7 on page 217 of the April 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's projected income from(a) tax revenue and (b) corporation tax revenue is for (i) the financial year 2002–03 and (ii) each of the next three financial years. [78835]

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

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Tributes to the late Lady Hylton-Foster
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, Lady Hylton-Foster died peacefully in her sleep last night. She was Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers for 21 years. from 1974 to 1995. She was the only woman to hold that position and was, in fact, only the second Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, taking over from Lord Strang. She was truly devoted to the Cross Benches, and, in her many years as Convenor, she was a very influential figure behind the scenes in the House. During her years of convenorship, the Cross-Bench Peers emerged as the important and respected force that they are today.
Her long service as Convenor, I think we would all agree. meant that she became something of an institution in the House. For many years, she would regularly be seen sitting in the far corner of the Cross Benches, often assisted by her friend, Lady Kinloss, noting carefully and extremely meticulously which Cross-Benchers were present.
She seemed destined to be a Cross-Bencher from birth. Her father was Speaker of the House of Commons from 1943 to 1951. In 1931, she married Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, who also became a hugely respected Speaker of the Commons from 1959 to 1965. So, it is extraordinary that she and her family occupied a residence in this building for about 14 years in all.
As your Lordships know, she took her seat in this Chamber in 1965, the year of her widowhood. Outside Parliament, she enjoyed a lifelong and fulfilling involvement with the British Red Cross Society. She was president of the County of London branch for 14 years; then she was president and chairwoman of that branch until 1983. It was that devoted service to that important institution that brought about the award of the Queen's Badge of Honour.
She continued to attend the House when she could, even though she was 94 years of age in May this year. She led a full and distinguished life inside Parliament and outside. I know that we would all wish to send sincere condolences to her family, together with our affection for one who will be sadly missed, both as a dedicated Member and as a faithful friend to us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was sad news indeed, when we heard of the death of Lady Hylton-Foster. I agree heartily with every word that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has already said.
280
We have lost, in a few weeks, two formidable personalities, in Lady Young, the first woman Leader of the House, and now Lady Hylton-Foster, who was, for so many years, such an assiduous and effective Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, who, in those days, were a much larger flock even than they are today. Such remarkable women give the lie to the stereotypes that are so often still floated of this House. They—no one more than Lady Hylton-Foster—embody the spirit of selfless public service that is the hallmark of the House at its very best.
Lady Hylton-Foster was still Convenor, despite her very advanced age, when I first joined the Front Bench and, later on, became Chief Whip. I soon came to understand that, behind that slight frame and unassuming figure, was an unusually powerful personality. She was someone who was always tenacious in what she believed to be right and someone whose advice it was rarely wise to ignore.
She was both daughter and wife of Speakers of the House of Commons, a record that must, in itself, be unusual, but she yielded nothing to them in distinction or in public service, whether in this House or outside, most notably, of course, as the noble and learned Lord said, in her lifetime of devotion to the Red Cross. She knew and understood the role of the Cross Benches in this House better than anyone, and she knew, understood and loved this House. We shall all miss her. I join the noble and learned Lord in expressing our deepest condolences to her family.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, Lady Hylton-Foster was, as the wife and daughter of Speakers of the other place, somebody who was steeped in politics all her life. She was also somebody to whom we all owe a great debt of acknowledgement because of her absolutely crucial role in establishing the voice and the influence of the Cross-Benchers in this House.
I understand that she was a fierce warrior in favour of the independence of the Cross Benches and never let a moment pass when she did not represent their interests in the House, to the great benefit of all of us. She was a doughty lady. I gather that she came to the House in all weathers. Rain, snow or sunshine, she was always here, and she regarded her obligation and duty to the House of Lords as a very central part of her being.
Apart from her work in the House, which we shall all remember, and her work as Convenor of the Cross Benches over 21 years, she had what the noble Lord, Lord Healey, calls a hinterland. Part of that hinterland was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; that is to say, her commitment to and belief in the work of the Red Cross. But she had another hinterland in her love of gardening, and I believe that she had an absolutely splendid garden, to which she was deeply devoted and which those who had the privilege of visiting recognised to be another of her career and life's great achievements. We shall all miss her.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I had the privilege of succeeding Lady Hylton-Foster when she gave up the

281
convenorship of the Cross Benches in 1995. She continued to keep a very careful eye on my activities throughout the time that she remained in the House and even subsequently, when I regularly received telephone calls from her. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, she ticked us off as we came into the Chamber and ticked us off if we did not come into the Chamber. She demanded very high standards from her Cross-Bench flock, and, although her hearing was not very good towards the end of her time, woe betide anyone who whispered to a colleague on this Bench. Lady Hylton-Foster would always lean forward and say, "Sshh!".
On a more personal note, my wife and I will always be very grateful to her. My wife became the first Mrs Speaker for 20 years; the previous Mrs Speaker had been Lady Hylton-Foster. She was our first visitor when I was chosen as Speaker in 1983. I remember her opening words:
"I hope you've got a good butler".
Things had changed a bit since that time, but she was enormously helpful to us—particularly to my wife—in telling us the form.
When she came to retire, we had great difficulty in deciding what we should give her as a farewell present. She chose trees for her garden. She had a lovely garden near Leith Hill, which she regularly opened to the public in aid of the Red Cross on May bank holiday.
She will be very much missed by all of us on these Benches. It has already been mentioned that she received the Queen's Badge of Honour for her activities associated with the Red Cross. Her DBE was the badge of honour for her political services. We shall miss her very much indeed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I shall add a word or two about Lady Hylton-Foster. She was a remarkable shepherd of the Cross-Bench flock. She knew every one of us and all about us and our families. Latterly, there were nearly 350 of us. If she noticed that any one of her flock who was a regular attender was absent, she would make inquiries as to why. If not satisfied, she would telephone to find out if they were all right. We knew that, if we were not coming in on any day, we must let her know; otherwise, she would be worrying, lest we were ill.
She was more than a shepherd; she was a mother to the Cross-Benchers. All of us who were lucky enough to have been members of her flock remember her not only with great respect but with great love and affection.

Abandoned Vehicles
3.10 p.m.
Lord Nasebyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to prevent an increase in the number of abandoned cars, particularly arising from the new laws in 2004 which will make individual motorists responsible for the cost of decontamination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, abandoned vehicles are an increasing problem for local authorities and we are determined to take action to help them to tackle it. The End of Life Vehicles Directive may lead to a further increase in numbers because the increased cost of vehicle treatment will have to be borne by the previous owner until 2007 after which producers will pick up the cost.
At present, many keepers of abandoned vehicles are not properly registered and can evade their responsibilities. The Government intend to introduce a system of continuous registration.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, it is reassuring to note that the Government are aware of the problem. I suspect that the whole nation is aware of it because there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the sides of roads. Public-spirited people telephone the police, who attach a notice to a vehicle saying "police aware". But that is a signal to local yobs to smash the vehicle, after which their fellow travellers wishing to show a little more spirit burn it. The vehicle then sits there for another couple of weeks until someone decides to remove it.
Do the Government not recognise that that is all set against the incentive payment of £5 to £10 which people presently receive for an unwanted vehicle? Do they also recognise that thanks to their proposals as they now stand, and unless there is a change, we will move from that situation in which a person can earn a fiver to one in which he will have to accept a charge of £60? Do they not recognise that if we are to have joined-up government, this is an urgent matter? If not, we shall have hundreds of thousands of vehicles littering our highways.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is indeed an increasing problem which hitherto has been caused by the collapse of scrap metal prices with the result the noble Lord mentioned. In some cases, one has to pay the scrap metal merchant to take away or to treat the vehicles. The problem could be aggravated by the End of Life Vehicles Directive.
However, we have given local authorities more powers. There used to be a restriction on how long they had to leave the vehicles but we have changed that so that they can now issue a 24-hour notice. When that has expired the vehicles can be removed. We have also reduced the vehicles-of-value written notice from 21 days to seven days. In addition, we have conducted a

283
number of blitz campaigns involving all the authorities. Previously, there was some obscurity as to which was the lead authority. Action is being taken and many local authorities have been successful in the past year or so.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House more information about the results of the blitz campaigns, having regard to the fact that it is a growing problem? Furthermore, does the blitz experience throw any light on the fact that there seems to be more use of the public highway by private motorists and commercial vehicle operators putting their vehicles on sale?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend's last point involves the complex issue of whether a vehicle is abandoned or not. If it is taxed and labelled for sale, the duty is to chase the owner. If the owner is registered, the vehicle is not therefore abandoned. However, the blitz campaigns that we have undertaken in a number of London boroughs and in Kent—a new one is about to start in Hastings and Southend-on-Sea—have to date resulted in more than 6,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles being targeted; 4,000 have been crushed; and 15,000 motorists have been obliged to relicense their vehicles, which has brought £2.3 million in additional revenue. As a result, the DVLA register is more up to date. Those blitz campaigns have therefore already had some results and further campaigns are planned.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is reported that last year some 350,000 end-of-life vehicles—or old bangers—were abandoned and it is estimated that the cost to local authorities of removing them might be as high as £300 per vehicle in administration, taking away and so forth. Will the Minister tell the House whether, if the trend continues, the result of the directive and the rules introduced by the Government will mean that more such vehicles will be abandoned; perhaps several million over the next five years? What funds as well as powers will be provided to local authorities to deal with those additional costs, which could be as high as £500 million?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the previous cost to local authorities has been the requirement to store vehicles when they are deemed to be of value but we have significantly reduced that storage time. It is now 14 days for those of value and seven days for the wrecks and therefore the cost of storage no longer falls on local authorities. Local authorities are resourced to deal with that. It is partly the responsibility of the local authorities, partly that of the police and partly that of the DVLA, so the key thing is that those authorities work together.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I fear that the Minister may say that this is a problem for the Welsh Assembly, but I ask the question because the problem extends far beyond Wales. Will he extend his guidance to local authorities to give clear guidance to national parks
284
authorities? It is the practice near me in Wales for a large number of farmers to go in for the business of collecting old vehicles—or at least accumulating them near their farms. I could draw the noble Lord's attention to sites where as many as 20 or 30 vehicles are stored in farmland in the heart of national parks. This is not just a problem for the roadside, but for the countryside as well. I wish that the local authorities and the national parks authorities would take firmer action than they seem inclined to.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, indicated, I cannot give instructions to the national parks in Wales, but, clearly, there is a separate problem. We are talking about on-road abandoned wrecks, but in some parts of the country there is a separate problem of off-road land —previously agricultural land—being used as dumping sites. The local authorities have powers to deal with that and it is primarily their responsibility, although the national parks also have a responsibility in that regard.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the black economy appears to be developing prosperously in this area? For a down payment of £ 10 a car can be readily stolen and dumped or burnt on land which may be attractive? That presents serious problems to the people who own the land in question.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend clearly knows more about the black market than I do. Nevertheless, it is a growing problem and one of the difficulties of discovering the previous owner stems from that illegal trade in cars. If we are able to remove the cars more rapidly, the opportunity for such trade is reduced.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a considerable stream of directives comes out of Europe and that this is not the first time he and I have debated them at the Dispatch Box? We have had fridge mountains and we have another Question on the matter today. Does he further agree that the fact that such Questions are asked continually indicates that the country is not confident that the Government are managing the process? What are they doing to manage the output of such directives?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the development of environmental directives from Europe clearly has a good base. In this case it is to limit the amount of potentially dangerous material and to ensure that producers ultimately take liability for what they produce. The same lies behind the directive on fridges. However, in that case, we did not have the facilities to dispose of them because there was a lack of clarity in the EU directive.
Some of the directives were signed some time ago, but our approach is that henceforth they must engage in a full regulatory impact assessment. That will require the European Commission and ourselves to see

285
how practically we can deal with a directive which may be good for environmental purposes but whose practicalities need to be sorted out before we reach the date of implementation.

Fallen Stock
3.20 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholmasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to collect fallen stock from farms when the new European Union regulations prevent burial on farms after April 2003.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, since April 2002, the Government have been holding discussions with livestock and disposal industry stakeholders with the aim of developing a national fallen stock disposal scheme. At a stakeholder meeting on 18th September, the collection and disposal industries submitted a joint proposal for a national fallen stock collection and disposal scheme. This received industry support and is now being considered by Ministers.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and declare an interest. Do the Government have any idea of the urgency of resolving this problem quickly? Will there be a national fallen stock collection service in being by April of next year? Will the Government pay for it, as is done in Germany and France under public health regulations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would not exclude some public contribution but it is not normal for the Government to pay industries to meet legal requirements—and this will be a legal requirement restricting burial on farm. Disposal is primarily the responsibility of the industry, the costs of which may be met, for example, by levy schemes, insurance or joint arrangements. Those various options form part of what is being studied by both UK and devolved Ministers in this context.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, would there be any legal objection to a group of farmers co-operating to buy an incinerator that met all the approved standards and collectively incinerating their fallen stock on one person's premises—in other words, a number of farmers will bring their stock to one place? Is there any objection to that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the face of it, I cannot see any objection to that. Provided that the incinerators meet the requirements, it is possible to incinerate stock on farm. What is banned by the new development is the burial and open burning of stock. I shall check for the noble Countess, but it seems to me that her suggestion would fall within the legal requirements.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, what will be the cost to farmers of the disposal service? Are there plans
286
in place to expand the rendering plants geographically in accessible places throughout the United Kingdom? At the moment, some livestock areas do not have rendering plants at all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the rendering industry will be capable of meeting demand provided the disposal scheme is capable of picking up carcasses. It is the collection problem rather than the disposal problem that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. That is what the discussions are about.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are not talking about a small number of animals? I believe that on average somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000 tonnes of fallen stock need to be disposed of each year. While I follow the comments of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is not the Minister concerned about the biosecurity implications of transporting diseased and dead stock from one farm to another?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the example given by the noble Countess, I am assuming that, as with other vehicles that go on, off and between farms, the normal biosecurity rules would be applied for both dead stock and live stock. Provided the rules are observed and the incinerator meets the standards, such a scheme will probably be acceptable. But I shall check on that.
Lord Carter: My Lords—
Lord Boardman: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of the government side.
Lord Carter: My Lords, are figures available for the number of animals or the tonnage which is now buried on farms and which is disposed of in the way in which it will have to be disposed of in future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it varies by species. Of fallen stock, about 20 per cent of bovines is disposed of in that way and a significantly higher proportion—more than 60 per cent—of goats and sheep. So we are talking about large numbers.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity now of paying tribute to fox hunts for

287
the benefit they have brought to the environment by their collection and disposal of fallen stock at no cost to the community?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a role for hunt kennels in this area. They have been one method of disposal in the past and are not affected by this provision.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the cost to farmers of disposing of stock becomes too high, it might add a whole new dimension to the phrase "fly tipping"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are other rules to deal with that. They are not new regulations and farmers are well aware of them.

Electrical and Electronic Waste Directive
3.27 p.m.
Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What preparations they are making to implement the new European Union Electrical and Electronic Waste ("WEEP) Directive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the proposed directive was recently agreed, subject to final ratification by the Council and the European Parliament. Formal publication is expected in the first quarter of 2003. My department has been making preliminary preparations for some time and these can start in earnest now that the text is almost final.
There has already been significant informal discussion and specific SME, manufacturer, local authority, waste industry and retailer focus groups have been established. A series of 25 awareness seminars across the UK are in progress and will conclude in the next month. Another round of formal consultation is planned for next year.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which, on the face of it, sounds quite encouraging. However, I am tempted to say, "Here we go again". We have got fridge mountains all over the country and old bangers littering the lanes, the back streets arid the moors. Are we now going to see toasters, computers, mobile phones, electric toothbrushes and other kinds of electrical equipment joining them, or will the Government this time get their act together? What guarantee can the Minister give that the legislation will come into British law on time in two years' time, and that in four years' time, when local authorities have the duty to separate such waste, they will be geared up and resourced to do so? Can the Minister say why it is that when it comes to fridges, old bangers and, indeed, dead cows, it is DEFRA's
288
responsibility, but when it comes to toasters, mobile phones and computers it is his department's responsibility? Is this joined-up government?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is different from the situation with fridges. We already have waste disposal and recycling firms capable of carrying out this kind of work, unlike the situation in regard to the ozone-depleting substance regulation which was directly applicable. We have, 18 months after adoption of the directive, to transpose it into national law. Appropriately, the text is flexible and allows for implementation in different ways so long as the end result is achieved. It is a different situation. I see no reason why this will not come into law on time and be implemented properly. As to which department is responsible, that is something that no Minister has ever understood—and I certainly do not.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, have the Government made any estimate of the likely additional costs of implementing this directive—additional to the current costs of removing and getting rid of waste—either to British electrical suppliers or British consumers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have calculated that the potential cost to industry will be approximately £200 million to £400 million a year, That is based on the common position. However, that has changed and the sum may be slightly more. Experience in other member states—for example, the Netherlands—suggests that a price rise of about 1 per cent on average will be likely in these circumstances. In view of the very real benefits that will accrue to the environment, we believe that that is an appropriate price to pay.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would we not get more sensible results on all these disposal questions if the matter were devolved to national governments rather than being an EU responsibility.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that would call into question the whole issue of a common market. Is it sensible to have common regulations in this area? I believe that on this issue it is very sensible to have common regulations in the cause of free trade.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the Minister has placed great stress on the importance of the directive. Will he therefore explain why the Government have not supported the attempt to enforce the regulation on an individual firms basis and are now allowing collective schemes? That will fatally undermine the directive in two senses. First, there will be a fudge, so the outcome will be unclear. Secondly, it undermines the commercial advantage to individual firms seeking to produce the most environmentally friendly products, since at the same time they will be subsidising those that are less environmentally friendly.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a difference between the flexibility required under the terms of the directive and what is eventually determined to be the right way to implement it. I very much take the noble Lord's point that, if pressure is to be put on companies to take the right actions, it is better to do that on an individual basis so that a firm will benefit from its actions. Equally, there may be circumstances relating to smaller SMEs where a collective approach may make a great deal of sense. That is one of the issues that we shall resolve as we go forward.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, will the Government undertake to publish the assumptions behind the cost estimates that the Minister has just given? In particular, will he confirm that implementation of the directive will build on local authority sites as the main collection point? Declaring an interest, I ask him to confirm that it will not involve uneconomic solutions involving, for example, retailers acting as additional collection points?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the likelihood is that local authority sites will be used. Of course, it is implicit in the directive that individual customers or users can return their waste to the retailer, and in those circumstances the retailer has to accept it. So there is already built into the provisions a proper, alternative route. I believe that along with the impact statements that we make we do publish the assumptions. If that is not the case, I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, in the Minister's very helpful reply to my supplementary question, did I hear him give an assurance that local authorities will be properly resourced for this work?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no is the answer. I gave no such assurance or statement whatever.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in the light of the reply that the noble Lord gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and indeed the answer given by his noble friend Lord Whitty at the end of the first Starred Question, will the Minister confirm that the Rome treaty requires the Commission to produce an impact assessment for all these environmental regulations? Did that happen? If so, what was the assessment? If there has been no assessment, are not all these diktats from Brussels ultra vires?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, frankly, I do not know the answer to that. I shall write to the noble Lord on what the treaty states on this point and on what action was taken.

Equitable Life: Penrose Inquiry
3.33 p.m.
Lord Higginsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give an assurance that the report of the Penrose Committee on Equitable Life will be published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to make public as much as possible of the results of the inquiry. Ideally, this will be the full report. However, much of the information being considered by the inquiry is subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions, and such restrictions may also apply to information included in the report of the inquiry. It is possible that such restrictions may prevent the report from being published in full.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest in Equitable Life. Is it not clear that the Treasury, in its regulatory role, totally failed to prevent the Equitable Life disaster? The Treasury then set up the Penrose inquiry with restricted terms of reference. Lord Penrose will eventually reply to the Treasury, and the Treasury will then decide what it is appropriate to publish. The Minister's Answer suggests that the inquiry has been set up in a way that will prevent its findings being published in full. Meanwhile, other inquiries—for example those by the Treasury Select Committee and the ombudsman—have been put on hold while people suffer. Does the Minister agree with the ombudsman's statement that the root cause of the problem is the failure of the authorities to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an awful lot of questions when the noble Lord is supposed to ask only two. He began with an anticipation of what the result of the inquiry will be—which I entirely reject.It is normal practice for inquiries of this sort to be commissioned by the Treasury and addressed to Ministers of the Treasury. I have made it clear that we shall publish as much as we can of the findings of the inquiry which is being conducted entirely independently by a senior member of the Scottish judiciary. There will be no influence to it. In the end, it is up to Parliament what action it sees fit to take as a result. The ombudsman's inquiry has not been put on hold as a result.
Lord Newby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a letter to my colleague in another place, Dr Cable, earlier this month, the ombudsman, Sir Michael Buckley, said that he could not proceed with the investigation of Equitable Life cases because of the partly overlapping mandate of the Baird report and the Penrose report? Will not that mean very severe delays in the possible payment of compensation? Yet, a week later, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury

291
stated in a letter that she understood that there was no suggestion that the work of the ombudsman was being delayed due to the Penrose inquiry. Clearly, the Treasury is not speaking to the ombudsman. Will the Minister please suggest to the Treasury that Ministers there speak to the ombudsman and get this matter sorted out? It is delaying possible payment of compensation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should make it clear that the ombudsman's inquiry is not a matter for the Treasury. The ombudsman will report to the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. The Treasury has no responsibility for the ombudsman's inquiry. It would be impertinent for the Treasury to intervene. My understanding is that the ombudsman's inquiry is almost, if not already, at drafting stage. There is the possibility of some delay because the present ombudsman, Michael Buckley, is retiring today and his successor, Ann Abraham, will want to assure herself that the inquiry is fit for publication.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister please check on the information that he has given to the House? The press release by the ombudsman a few days ago made it absolutely clear that he has put his inquiry on hold because of the Penrose committee report. At the same time, he complained that the report will he inadequate because of its restrictive terms of reference. I think that the Minister will find that the statement that he has made to the House is not correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I will check. If there is any possibility of what I have said being incorrect, the House will be due an apology. It is in fact the ombudsman's report which is more restrictive, because it is concerned only with the period from 1st January 1999 to 8th December 2000; whereas the Penrose inquiry goes right back over time to when problems first arose in Equitable Life. I think that the issue is at the very least more complicated than noble Lords opposite appear to think.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Both this and the second Motion are purely procedural, allowing the carry-over of two Private Bills. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
292
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intent ion to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 6th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.39 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [British citizenship: registration of certain persons without other citizenship]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 1:

293
Page 9, line 27, after "inaction" insert "after the coming into force of this section"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight difference between what the Minister has proposed and what we have in mind. I thank him for the facility granted to me to have discussions with his officials about this matter. However, I hope that he will be able to see the strength of our case in relation to a matter affecting a small group of British passport holders, particularly those now residing in Kenya. Our amendment would ensure that people are not barred from acquiring British citizenship under this clause because of things they did not do before the section's coming into force. I spoke at some length on this matter on Report, and I did not repeat those arguments.
The concern centres on a small and finite group of British overseas citizens in Kenya who lose their Kenyan nationality if they do not renounce their British nationality between the ages of 21 and 23. Until 5th March 2002, such people could apply for a special voucher to come to the United Kingdom on reaching their 23rd birthday, and their Kenyan nationality dropped away through inaction. They could consequently naturalise as British citizens. On 5th March 2002, the voucher scheme was abolished without warning. People had no chance to regularise their position.
The Liberal Democrat amendment is modest. It will not assist those who have grown up expecting to be able to acquire British citizenship but who have not lost their chance to apply for Kenyan nationality by the time this provision, which does not come into force on commencement, becomes law. It will assist those who, by that time, have already lost their Kenyan nationality. These people are British overseas citizens with no right of abode, which is the very mischief that this clause was designed to address. They live in Kenya on work permits and business visas, and there is no guarantee that those will be renewed or that they will be able to apply for Kenyan citizenship in future. There are problems with naturalisation in Kenya. For example, since a change in the Kenyan constitution, those born in Kenya to non-Kenyan parents who cannot pass on their Kenyan nationality have been left stateless.
Our amendment would ensure that our obligation to that group of people is met. People with a long memory may remember that when the Kenyan constitution was devised, the then Colonial Secretary, Ian McLeod, promised that their government would honour their obligation to British passport-holders. Unfortunately, the Labour government later removed the right of British passport-holders to come to the United Kingdom. They classified them as British overseas citizens, with no rights whatever, and asked them to come in an orderly manner, for which a quota system was established. Many people gradually settled in this country through the quota system. It is therefore a shame that the system was abolished so soon—on 5th March this year—leaving a group of people without any nationality.
294
Many of us have received heart-rending letters from this small group of people. These British passport-holders have been treated shabbily. This is one opportunity to put right the mistakes that we all made in the past as regards these people. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the thinking behind Clause 12 as it stands is that the option to acquire British citizenship should be extended only to those British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons who have no other nationality and have not previously given up another nationality and thus a right of abode elsewhere.
It is possible to give up another nationality either actively or passively. One can take the step of applying to renounce the other nationality, or one can passively let matters take their course, knowing that under the law of the country concerned inaction will result in automatic loss of the other nationality at some point. Clause 12 would exclude the option to acquire British citizenship for a person who had lost another nationality by either of these methods.
The noble lord, Lord Dholakia, has spoken clearly in favour of the amendment tabled in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Without wishing to raise his hopes, we shall reflect on this proposal. There will be an opportunity to consider the terms of the proposed registration entitlement again when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. It would be beneficial to allow ourselves a little time to reflect, without wishing to imply that one way or the other.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to any possible solution to this difficulty. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause
"BRITISH CITIZENSHIP: REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS BORN BETWEEN 1961 AND 1983
(1) The following shall be inserted after section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (registration as British citizen)—
"4C ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: CERTAIN PERSONS BORN BETWEEN 1961 AND 1983
(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British citizen if—

(a) he applies for registration under this section, and

(b) he satisfies each of the following conditions.

(2) The first condition is that the applicant was born after 7th February 1961 and before 1st January 1983.
(3) The second condition is that the applicant would at some time before 1st January 1983 have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (c. 56) if that section had provided for citizenship by descent from a mother in the same terms as it provided for citizenship by descent from a father.
(4) The third condition is that immediately before 1st January 1983 the applicant would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as described in subsection (3) above."
(2) In section 14(1) of that Act (meaning of British citizen "by descent"), in paragraph (d) after the words "section 4B" (as substituted by section 12(2) of this Act) there shall be inserted ", 4C"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the nationality legislation in force before 1983, British women were unable to transmit their citizenship to any children born abroad. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, they are now able to do so on equal terms with men. Anticipating this development, the then Home Secretary announced on 7th February 1979 that he would use his discretion under the British Nationality Act 1948 to confer citizenship by registration on any foreign-born children of women born in the United Kingdom, provided they were still minors on the date of application. The practice continued after the commencement of the 1981 Act in respect of the children of British women born before commencement, since the change I have described did not have retrospective effect.
However, the scope of the discretion to confer citizenship in this way continued to be limited by statute to those who were still under the age of 18 when they applied for it. Inevitably, some of those born to British women before 1983 remained ignorant of the option of registration, or learned of it too late to take advantage. Such people may now he excluded from the United Kingdom and thus from contact with their families here, because there is no specific provision in our immigration rules for their admission. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has spoken persuasively in favour of a permanent provision that would enable them, at last, to acquire the citizenship they would have had automatically had their ancestral connection with the UK been through the male rather than the female line. We have listened to the arguments, and this amendment is the result.
The Government's amendment would confer an entitlement to registration as a British citizen, exercisable by application, on any person born after 7th February 1961 and before 1st January 1983 who, but for gender discrimination in the previous legislation, would have acquired British citizenship automatically when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on the latter of those two dates. The provision would thus cover any person who, had he or she applied while still a minor, would have benefited from the policy on discretionary registration announced on 7th February 1979. By that I mean that if the person had been born on or before 7th February 1961 he would have been too old, by 7th February 1979, to be registered at the Secretary of State's discretion. In this respect the provision would be similar to that contained in Amendment No. 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at Committee stage.
However, there must be a cut-off point. British women did not acquire the right to pass on their citizenship until 1983. One can only go so far towards righting the wrongs of history before the number of
"what ifs" to be taken into account becomes unmanageable. Because of the way our amendment is drafted, the removal of the words "after 7th February 1961" would simply mean that the person would need to have been born on or after 1st January 1949 to benefit. That would no doubt appear entirely arbitrary to someone born to a British mother on 31st December 1948. As I have sought to explain, there is a certain logic behind our selection of 7th February 1961 as the cut-off point.
Our amendment also proposes—again, consistent with the Committee stage amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that any person so registered would become a British citizen by descent. The aim would be to place the person in the same position, as regards transmissibility of his citizenship to a further generation born abroad, as he would have been in had British citizenship been acquired automatically on commencement of the 1981 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Aveburymoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 2A:
Line 11, leave out "after 7th February 1961 and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the careful attention that he has given to our representations at Committee stage, at two meetings held during the summer, and on Report. I feel a little like Oliver Twist in coming back to ask for just an extra soupcon. If I can explain why, your Lordships will see that there is a logic in what we are now asking for.
As the Minister, Miss Beverley Hughes, said to me in a letter dated yesterday, the amendment confers,
"an entitlement to registration as a British citizen, exercisable by application to the Secretary of State, on any person born between 6 February 1961 and 1 January 1983 who, but for the sexual discrimination in the British Nationality Act 1948, would have acquired British citizenship automatically when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on the latter of those two dates. The provision would thus cover any person who, had he or she applied whilst still a minor, would have benefited from the policy on discretionary registration announced on 7 February 1979. In this respect it would be similar to that proposed in your amendment no. 16 at Committee stage".
As the Minister will recall, however, our Amendment No. 88 was rather more ambitious. As I said then, at col. 476 of the Official Report of 8th July 2002, we believe that that amendment was much the better of the two solutions. When it appeared that we might get something for the pre-1983 children, we settled on a formula that was intended to remove gender discrimination for the whole of this group of persons irrespective of their date of birth, and that was the plea that we made to the Minister at the two meetings to which I referred, as well as in correspondence and in our amendment at Report stage.
We understand that when the then government made their concession in 1979, it applied to persons who were under the age of majority at the time, and that this was the reason for the February 1961 cut-off date. It was assumed, I imagine, that anyone older

297
than that would have established residence under the more generous regime that existed up to the time of the 1962 Act and thus could have satisfied the criteria for naturalisation. However, there was no logic in removing gender discrimination against children while keeping it against adults, even in 1981, and it would be inconceivable if we were to do this consciously today under a Government who are committed to the promotion of equality.
We would be saying that if you were born abroad to a British father and a foreign mother, you always got British citizenship automatically. If it was the other way round, and your mother was British, under the 1981 Act, your parents had the right to register you when you were a minor. We now recognise that an injustice was done to people whose mothers did not realise they had this right, so we will give them a new right to apply as adults. However, if you were born earlier than February 1961, you did not have any right under the 1981 Act and you are not going to have any right now as a result of this legislation.
The arrangements have the curious result that some people now get the right to apply for British citizenship for the first time since they became adults, while their siblings with exactly the same family circumstances are left out in the cold. Mr Michael Turberville—chairman of Campaign, about which the Minister will be aware from the correspondence we sent him—tells me that about one-third of his 150 members will be excluded, including three of his own siblings. Our amendment removes this anomaly and the residual discrimination inherent in the government amendment.
There is no likelihood of any knock-on effect from this amendment on the rest of nationality law, and the number of people who might benefit from it is a few hundred at the most. This is a very small concession we are asking for. I appeal to the Minister to go this extra inch to comply with the principle of gender equality. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, there are occasions when the soupcon offered by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is to the taste of these Benches, and this is one example. I hope that the Minister—who has, and continues to show, such commendable patience in the passage of this Bill—will consider this amendment seriously.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that, in supporting this amendment, I must declare an interest. The amendment directly affects one of my pupils, whose son is now a rising journalist on the Financial Times and may well be following these proceedings with rather more even than his usual high standards of attention.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, when I feel some sympathy—as I do on this occasion—for an amendment moved from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I reflect, in a manner perhaps suitable to the matters giving rise to this amendment, that of the six
298
members of my family who have sat in the House of Commons since the Great Reform Bill, the first four were Liberals and only my father and myself were Conservatives. I have sympathy for Amendment No. 2A. I state that to indicate that there are other corners of the House that support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the House will well know, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made repeated and powerful representations on these issues. Indeed, he made them so persuasively after we announced the change in the summer that we have moved Amendment No. 2. We have carefully considered the points that he has made to us in his representations today and previously. I regret that, for the reasons that I gave in moving Amendment No. 2, we believe that the 1961 cut-off date is reasonable. One can go only so far back in seeking to right the wrongs of history and of previous generations. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accommodate him on this occasion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I can see no objective reason why the Government cannot go back to 1948, just as they went back to 1961 in the previous legislation. However, after so many rounds of discussion both on the Floor of the House and outside it, I am clearly not going to be able to persuade the Minister to accept this amendment at this late stage. I can only hope that, when another place comes to consider the Bill and sees the general support for this amendment from both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Conservative Party, it will be minded to make this small change to the Bill. By that time, the Government will have had plenty of opportunity to look into the issue and to agree to the change. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART I
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 55, 80, 106, 114 and 120, which are ancillary to it.
The purpose of these amendments is to raise some questions about the Government's own Amendment No. 121. The Opposition have three concerns with this amendment. The first is timing. The second is scope—in our view it goes way beyond the scope that one usually finds in a consequential and incidental clause. The third is the menace that such a clause, if it found its way into the Bill, would pose to the future business of your Lordships' House if it became a precedent relied upon by Ministers.

299
I should like to pay a warm tribute to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and to the noble Lords who serve on it. The committee has managed to produce a report for your Lordships' House on the Government's late amendments at less than two days' notice.
I must confess to experiencing real astonishment at the new clause tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, so late in the Bill's passage. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated at paragraph 5 of its report:
"We note that these new clauses were tabled very shortly before Third Reading".
Timing, however, is not my only preoccupation, for this clause is a true Henry VIII clause. Not even the Home Secretary considered the insertion of such a clause during the Bill's passage through another place. So why has it been tabled now?
The White Paper, on which the Bill was based, was published at the beginning of this year after months of research by I he Home Office. The Bill itself began its passage in another place nearly seven months ago. Second Reading in your Lordships' House was in June: and the Government had more than two clear months to consider the matter over the summer Recess. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, observed:
"We shall have a long, hot summer discussing the details of this legislation".—[Official Report, 29/7/02; col. 737.]
Despite all that, the Government now come to your Lordships' House at Third Reading and admit, for the first time, that the Bill is not in good shape and that they require a Henry VIII clause.
The Home Office's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee stated at paragraph 2:
"We are seeking to insert this clause due to the large number of government amendments made at a late stage of the Bill…. There will not be adequate time before Third Reading to identify all the possible consequential and incidental amendments that may be necessary to deal with these late amendments…. Therefore we consider… that there needs to be a power to deal with consequential and incidental amendments to the Bill that may only come to light in due course".
The paragraph I have quoted could not be clearer. It is an admission, out of the Home Office's own mouth, that it is legislating with no clear grasp of the consequences of doing so.
Worse, the clause is not only being proposed "just in case". The Government plainly know what many of the amendments that they seek to make, using the proposed powers, are. Indeed, some of them are listed in the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers Committee. The memorandum states:
"We are also aware of a number of consequential amendments that will need to be made to a number of previous enactments on the subject of nationality, for example, British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, and the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983".
And that is not all. The Government also wish to use the power in the new clause to make transitional provision amending,
300
"the time limit for appeals against carriers' liability under the civil penalty regime … This regime is being revised by virtue of amendments to Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 under Schedule 8 to the Bill".
Yet Schedule 8 to the Bill was added in another place as long ago as June. The Home Office has had four months—indeed, more, as the schedule was doubtless some time in preparation—to ensure that issues such as this were covered by the Bill. In any case, the Bill already includes comprehensive transitional provisions on other matters, such as those in Clause 111 on the procedure for dealing with unfounded asylum claims. Why, then, is this power required?
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place on 24th April, the Home Secretary remarked:
"it is important that we get the legislation right".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/02; col. 341.]
The Government's new clause before your Lordships' House today, together with the Home Office memorandum, prove, in my submission incontrovertibly, that they have failed to achieve that objective. Indeed, as I read the new clause, it would even allow the Home Secretary to make any amendment he deemed necessary to the Bill. if it is enacted. Your Lordships will notice that the power in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause is drafted in such a way as to allow the Secretary of State to "amend an enactment", not to "amend an enactment (other than this Act)". Why is the provision so worded? The answer is plain: it is because the Government realise, as I have already portrayed, that the Bill contains, at this very late stage, serious defects.
In my submission to the House, it is unacceptable for the Government to maintain the impression to your Lordships' House, right up to the final week of these proceedings, that the Bill is in order—then come to your Lordships' House, less than a week before the end of the Bill's passage, and ask the House to accept this amendment. I can do no better than to quote the Delegated Powers Committee's conclusions at paragraph 13 of its report,
"the Committee is concerned about the tabling of a significant Henry VIII power at a stage when effective scrutiny of the power, either by this Committee or by the House, is impossible. We are also surprised that, instead of referring to precedent, the arguments in favour of this power put forward by the Government include the lack of time to identify all the possible consequential and incidental amendments that may be necessary, and the need to make consequential and incidental provision, the need for which 'may come to light in due course'''.
The Government could not have sent a clearer signal to your Lordships' House about what they really think of the parliamentary process. Moreover, quite apart from the timing and merits of the clause itself, accepting it at this stage would create a precedent which would be relied upon by future governments to treat your Lordships' House in exactly the same way. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the amendment. We do so because it

301
has substantial relevance to what the Government propose in Amendment No. 121, which is the insertion of a new clause before Clause 150.
The Minister has been generous with his time in briefing us on the amendments that the Government propose. Some major government amendments have required recommitment in your Lordships' House. We do not object to that. However, the amendment we are discussing goes much further. One wonders whether there are fundamental defects in the Bill which make the Government want to assume such substantial powers. I do not dispute that such clauses are found in other legislation, including wide-ranging Acts. I refer to the Financial Services Act and the Adoption and Children Bill. However, in other cases where such a clause has been introduced, it has been part of the Bill from the beginning, not brought in at such a late stage. The Government have made so many changes at such a late stage that they cannot be sure they have not made a mess of the Bill.
The new clause is being placed in a Bill which already contains numerous extremely wide regulation-making powers. The clause is being placed in a Bill which is already a poor substitute for a consolidating Act. The need for consolidating legislation in this area—rather than yet more provisions amending other legislation—is desperate, and orders made under this section can only add to the confusion.
These clauses are objectionable in any Act. They increase the plethora of delegated legislation and decrease Parliament's ability to look at major legislation in the round. This clause in this Bill at this late stage is a step too far. We certainly support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, demonstrated brilliantly that this is a case of the Secretary of State legislating on the hoof. That is what he did as regards the introduction of the new A-levels. I would not wish to be Mr Blunkett's successor. If Parliament approves any measure which completely emancipates a Minister from parliamentary control, it relegates itself to museum status. I like museums, but we need a Parliament as well.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I regret to have to say this, but I should feel ashamed if I were a member of any government who brought forward a provision of this character at any stage of a Bill, let alone at Third Reading. It reeks of arrogance, as much for Parliament, which makes the law, as for the people who have to comply with it and who are subject to it. I make a protest against the conduct of the Bill at all stages. It is bad enough for the Government to introduce major amendments at a late stage in the other place and then to guillotine discussion on them. That can, at least to some extent, be remedied by this House doing its duty by fulfilling its proper revising role and taking as long as we like.
302
The character of this provision has been amply described in speeches already made. When the Government proposed the provision they prayed in aid the very lateness—for which they themselves are responsible—of,
"the large number of government amendments made at a late stage of the Bill".
One need not go on. I merely offer this reflection: the Government would not dare to introduce a measure of this kind if it were likely to affect people whose votes they might wish to solicit.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I associate these Benches with the remarks about the principle that lies behind the proposals and I support the amendment. It is particularly important, when passing legislation affecting very vulnerable people, that the powers of government and of Ministers are carefully and clearly defined in the Bill. However excellently Ministers may perform and carry out their role, it is vital, in defence of vulnerable people, for the Bill to set out how those powers will be exercised. A wide-ranging and general power of this sort is open to deep question when it relates to people with the sort of vulnerability who are dealt with by this legislation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been in Parliament for 57 years and I have never known any provision that went as far as this one. I warmly support my noble friends. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind the fact that the only control that Parliament has over the vast power given by the new clause would be to have an order annulled by either House. That is merely a negative power. Even if it required an affirmative resolution, which it does not, there would be no power to amend the Secretary of State's order. That is constitutionally unacceptable, especially when we bear in mind the wide, far-reaching and fundamental power that the Secretary of State's order may contain. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will not move or will withdraw Amendment No. 121. Doing that would save him and the Government much trouble.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what has been said by those on these Benches about Amendment No. 121, which is the provision that we are really talking about. We are concerned about the use of that new clause in relation to various parts of the Bill. As I understand it, the Government are saying that, having had in this House long and careful deliberations in Committee and on Report, and having had to go back to refer to Committee various new clauses that were brought in at a later stage, they want to introduce a clause that says, "In case we have got those matters wrong, we will have the power to change them without full parliamentary scrutiny". With respect, surely Amendment No. 121 goes further than that. The new clause proposed by the Government is intended to apply to all parts of the Bill, not only to those parts that were brought in late. It states that the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, attempt to amend that which this House has passed.

303
Are we not in the end saying that we are in effect doing away with the purpose of primary legislation? We are saying that it should be possible for the Secretary of State to amend that which has been passed and that which has been a matter of scrutiny merely on an order that is subject—I accept this—to the affirmative resolution of both Houses without any chance of any consideration in Committee or on Report. The new clause, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, goes far wider than any power that we in this House should allow to a government.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, as a former immigration Minister, but not an immigration lawyer, I want to say a few brief words in support of the right reverend Prelate. It is important, when considering the Bill, to remember that we are talking not about dangerous dogs or how many cigarettes or how much beer one can import duty free from the Continent but about the lives and futures of thousands of people a year who apply for asylum in this country.
We all know that the numbers are too large and that a number of people are bogus asylum seekers. When I was immigration Minister, the problem was to try to find those who really had justification: those who had a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country and therefore had a reason to apply for, and be granted, asylum. We all appreciate that that is a very difficult area; it is not in any way a party political issue. Because it is so difficult, we have had an immigration Bill or a nationality Bill virtually every two or three years for the past 20 years.
Such a provision, requiring that future changes should be made only by secondary legislation, is not unknown in other legislation. As was said by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the provision should not have been brought in at the very last stage, when there is no possibility of discussing it at any length. We will discuss it for a few minutes in your Lordships' House. If we agree to reject the Minister's amendment, it will go back to the House of Commons, where it will be quickly discussed. If it throws out our change, the provision will come back here to be discussed again in a maximum of three hours next week. Is that really suitable for a Bill of this importance? We have a humane and historic duty to try to identify and to be generous to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution.
I note that the Home Secretary announced on 7th October that the Government would seek to amend the Bill in substantial ways. Others have already said that that would be done on the last lap of this legislation. It is surely totally wrong that an amendment of this sort should come within the purview of those words of the Home Secretary and be introduced when we have only a few hours in which to consider it. I therefore very strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said and I am very troubled about the Government, whom I support, doing
304
precisely what is proposed. What they are doing is utterly wrong. I do not believe that the Home Secretary is a malicious person. He has found an intolerably difficult position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that regard. I do not believe that the Government face anything more difficult than this issue. But I think that we should have another go at this matter. My noble friend would do well to withdraw what he said and to return in the new Session of Parliament if he considers that to be appropriate.
As I said, I am rather troubled by this issue. I propose to abstain on the matter. Why will I not support the Opposition? Because I do not believe that they are entirely unblemished in this regard. So far as I am concerned, I am deeply troubled by what my noble friend has said. But will he answer this question? What discussions has he had with bodies that are significantly involved in this issue, such as the Refugee Council, and so on? It is incumbent upon hint to give the information about this issue to the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I take it that the Minister is about to speak to his amendment, which is the subject of this whole debate. We have not yet heard his defence of it. I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There are at least two members of that committee in the House, including the chairman, who are very much wiser than me. I do not know whether either of them intends to speak.
However, it might interest the House to be reminded that it was sheer chance that the committee met yesterday morning and was able to consider this amendment. It was a complete fluke, and the committee owes that to the alacrity with which the Clerks, the legal advisers and others in the House are able to produce reports. By that means, the House is able to see not only the opinion of the committee but, above all, the Home Office's memorandum explaining why this clause is thought to be necessary.
I am sure the Minister will tell us that there are similar clauses in other Bills. That is what we were gold in the committee. There is one in the Adoption and Children Bill, although it is differently worded. The committee has a narrow remit and it did not believe that it should say that it considered the text of the amendment to be a mistake because the text is similar to that accepted by the House in other terms.
But my own feeling is that the committee was right to say that, in the context of the late amendments that have been tabled—there are about 100 government amendments today, and Third Reading is the last stage of the Bill in Parliament—it is completely wrong to ask the House to sign a blank cheque and to say that the Government may change not only this but any Act of Parliament in relation to the matters contained in this Bill. It seems to me that this is a moment when the House should, on constitutional grounds, put its foot down.
I want to ask the Minister one detailed question, which I expect he was, only too sadly, expecting. At paragraph 4 of the government memorandum,

305
published along with the committee's report, it is explained that the Government hope, in due course, to give effect to one aspect of the Bill—that concerning carriers' liability—
"by way of rules under the Civil Procedure Rules",
and that those rules will have to be made in Scotland, as well as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I wonder what would happen if Scotland did not want to make those rules. It seems that it is being assumed that such a situation is all right and that the Scots Parliament is happy about it. I should be interested to know from the Government whether the whole thing could be spoilt by that.
The Government intend to make transitional alterations in the Bill so that the arrangements will operate until the rules are made. Has the Scots Parliament agreed to the transitional alterations being made? Has there been a Sewel Motion? I believe that, by now, the Government should know that we ask such questions in this House, and I hope to have an answer to that now. If not, I should like to receive a letter on the matter, but it will be too late if things go wrong in Scotland.
I do not believe that this should be a party-political matter. I feel very strongly about that. It is a constitutional matter. We have 100 amendments at Third Reading and we had many on Report. We had the whole Summer Recess when the Government sat on the amendments. We were given new promises on Report, and we have been through recommitment. Now the Government say that, because we have not got the matter right, we must have this new clause. I hope that this will not be allowed by the House.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, until this evening, in my own experience the greatest case of retro-history was the competition in 1937 in the newsroom of the Chicago Herald Tribune for the most sensational headline that anyone could write. It was won by a sub-editor with the headline:
"Archduke found alive. World War I a mistake".
But I have to say that, in fact rather than in fiction, Amendment No. 121 overtakes that.
In his opening speech, my noble friend Lord Kingsland referred to the remarks of the Home Secretary in the other place about getting this Bill right. I am a veteran of Finance Bill discussions in the other place, both in government and in opposition, on various aspects of retrospective legislation. The debates went on for hours and hours and were extremely passionate. In this instance, we are not dealing with a particular amendment but with a generic one.
I have great sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I understand why, in terms of the timing of the Bill, the Home Secretary would not have the opportunity to bring this amendment forward. But I am inclined to think that, had it been the Home Secretary who had to bring it forward, even though he
306
has of course approved it, he would have had difficulty in doing so with a straight face in view of what the other place would be likely to say about it.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it is somewhat unusual for the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to speak at this stage. I merely want to clarify the position of the committee. The remit of the committee is entirely clear. We are supposed to examine whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
In examining this amendment, we were informed by our own advisers—perhaps I may say in parentheses that it appears that, without much joining up, different parliamentary draftsmen use slightly different phrases in different Bills or Acts—that, in substance, a near-identical amendment was contained in Clause 143 of the Adoption and Children Bill. We were also informed that there are similar provisions in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and in a number of other Acts of Parliament.
In the circumstances, we did not find it possible to reach any conclusion other than the one in paragraph 12 of our report—that is, that provision of this sort is not unprecedented. At the same time, and perhaps somewhat unusually, at paragraph 13 we made the point that there has been no opportunity to examine this matter in detail and that we were surprised—I cannot put it differently—that the Government argued in terms of the imperfections of the Bill and the lateness of the amendment rather than in terms of precedent. But that is not for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to judge. I hope that we have properly discharged our duty to the House. In the circumstances, if there is a Division on this issue it is obvious that as chairman of that committee, I will not vote.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, stated—he has made many helpful and wise comments during debates—the Government would be reluctant to take powers of this kind at this stage if there were any sensible, practical alternative. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, stated, the power is neither unprecedented nor particularly unusual. I shall not repeat the Acts to which he referred. The House will be well aware that he could have gone further back in time and identified other uses of such powers. However, I do not think that that would help our debate today.
I assure noble Lords that we would not seek to introduce such a power if we believed it was avoidable. However, we believe it is vital to have this power to ensure that the Bill functions properly when it comes into force and in the way that this House and another place intend. It was originally hoped that we would be able to include all the necessary consequential and incidental provisions within the Bill. But, as the House is aware, the large amount of complex material which

307
has been added to the Bill—sometimes that has been by the Government in response to representations by both opposition parties, which we have been pleased to do—necessarily meant that it has not been possible to be certain that every consequence has been identified at this stage. For reasons of prudence and caution rather than adventure we believe that it is right, proper and necessary to have a limited power of this type in the Bill.
I stress that this power concerns only consequential and incidental provisions. It would not allow the Government to make provision which was not purely consequential on or incidental to something already in the Bill. To try to do so would be ultra vires and unlawful. Clearly, the Government have no intention of so doing.
It may be helpful to give the House examples of the sort of consequential provisions we have in mind. First, yesterday an amendment was tabled in my name to Clause 150 for today's Third Reading which makes clear that the term "Immigration Act" in the 1971 or 1999 immigration Acts includes a reference to this Bill. We identified the need for this consequential provision only at a late stage. However, it is highly desirable that the amendment is passed otherwise there will be a contradiction between the 1971 and 1999 Acts of Parliament (which state, for obvious reasons, that the term applies only to previous immigration Acts not to ones which could not be foreseen) and this Bill, which states that the term as it appears in those Acts covers this Bill.
It will be apparent to the House that that merely gives effect in law and clarity to what this House intends if that clause is passed. If we had not tabled that amendment yesterday, we would have needed this consequential power to do that. It is right and sensible that we have such a power so that the legislation is good and sound for the purpose for which it is to be enacted. We fear—it would be good if we were wrong—that there may be other similar examples which we have not yet identified. Hence the need for this power.
Secondly, as regards Part 5 of the Bill, as the House knows, we recommitted the Bill to allow the House a full day to consider late changes introduced by the Government. The House was rightly concerned at the need for recommittal but my own judgment was that the recommittal process worked well and the House conducted that scrutiny process with its usual care and thought.
The reasons for introducing the late changes are that events in the wider world are moving fast in that respect. This is not a static world. The world we envisaged when the White Paper was written in February looks slightly but significantly different in a number of important respects. We debated the need for those amendments and I am glad to say that at least some of the Opposition Benches have been unswerving in their support for them. We thank noble Lords and commend that support. However, we would be foolish if we thought that we had necessarily spotted every consequential or incidental amendment. If the
308
measures are right, it is right to ensure that they are put into legislation in a way that is without doubt and does not create lacunas or other problems.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any other example where the rights of an individual are as affected as they are in this legislation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. He gave a number of examples of Bills. If he had gone further back in time he could have listed many more where powers of this type bear significantly on the rights of individuals. That is why the powers are so limited and circumscribed as to be consequential and incidental.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The care and expedition they gave to the proposals was much respected and appreciated. We have made clear also that any order which amends an enactment will be subject to affirmative resolution. Thus, in such cases there will he an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of any changes made to the Bill as a result of this provision. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee found the delegation and level of scrutiny sufficient. Finally, we have agreed that regulatory impact assessments will be provided, where appropriate, on particular consequential amendments.
I turn to a number of questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, did her usual vigorous job in terms of scrutinising the provisions for their impact on Scotland. We shall consult with the Scots before proposing any rule change under this provision. It will be difficult to consult them about any rule change that we do not yet know about. However, I give the clear undertaking that we shall consult with them if we intend to bring measures before the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In making the interim alterations to the Bill, have the Government consulted the Scottish Parliament? Do they know that the Scottish Parliament are happy that the interim changes should be made? Otherwise, this measure should not be in the Bill now.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am advised that we have consulted Scotland on the measure. I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that this would allow the Home Secretary to make any change he thinks necessary. I shall not be tedious, but that is not so. This refers only to consequential and incidental amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What is there in paragraph (1) of Amendment 121 which limits "that which he thinks necessary" to the narrow ambit just specified by the noble Lord? Why may he not think something necessary in order to fulfil a policy objective which

309
may occur to him to be desirable at that time? What is it in the proposed language that has that narrow ambit?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I asked the same question of my legal advisers yesterday in preparation for this debate. They drew my attention to the words,
"which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act".
The legal advice, which I am sure I should not disclose, is that that explicitly defines "consequential and incidental".
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, that does not quite answer the question. If the noble Lord can point to some precedent where that has been established we should all be interested to hear. No doubt if there was one it would have been furnished to him.
The new clause states that the Secretary of State may make provision as he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with the Bill that the effect of some other enactment may be modified, or indeed even amended. I do not doubt that the noble Lord is absolutely correct in saying that that is intended only to have a narrow consequential effect in order to meet the difficulties that he has already explained to the House. But where does the wording of the amendment prevent anyone coming along later and venturing to use this in order to fulfil some further and wider policy objective? It is not limited, so far as I can see, to narrow consequential matters.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am firm on this point. In order to put the matter beyond any doubt, I shall put what I am confident is the position in writing to the noble and learned Lord. The rule of law limits the Secretary of State's discretion very tightly to consequential or incidental matters. As I said when I spoke earlier, the courts would rule ultra vires any use of the powers wider than that.
Incidentally, the heading of the clause,
"Consequential and incidental provision",
gives a signpost, if not full legal weight, to indicate the scope that is intended to them. I shall be pleased to put that in a letter to the noble Lord in order to confirm what I have said from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is very good of the noble Lord to give way again. Here we find that there will be power not only to amend an enactment but to modify the effect of an enactment—that means any enactment. But how can one modify the effect without amending it?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may also interrupt at this point. I apologise for so doing. The Minister gave the impression that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf indicated his support. My impression was that that was not so. Am I right?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall respond to the last question as it is easier than the previous one. I shall reflect on the answer to the previous one and hope that inspiration will come.
310
If I gave that impression, I did not intend to do so. I was quoting from the conclusion of the Delegated Powers Committee on the matter, which was essentially a flat point commenting on whether delegation issues were appropriate. I do not think that it was giving a view one way or the other about what are essentially the political issues which we are now debating.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it is never the objective of the Delegated Powers Committee, or indeed its remit, to express a view on the political issues.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is how I understand the matter. With regard to the challenging question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the exact meaning of those words, I shall not venture anything further from the Box at this stage, but we shall look at that. I do not think that the terminology is different from that used previously on many occasions. If we are wrong on that, we shall reflect on it. But I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the drafting in that respect.
I understand and have some sympathy for the concerns of the House in bringing forward such a measure at this stage. Nevertheless, it is necessary on two grounds. First, as I indicated, the world is moving fast and we have to get legislation in place that is appropriate to deal with the reality of the world outside. Secondly, it would be ideal if we were confident that we had spotted every single consequential change. But, given the volume of the legislation, it is right and necessary to have such a power and to use it circumspectly, as we will only be able to do within the law of the land.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, an amendment is different from a modification. The former changes the meaning for all purposes whereas the latter changes the meaning for limited or specified purposes. I cannot think why I did not think of that on the spot previously. For those reasons, the amendment is not appropriate. We shall move our own amendment when we reach it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall be extremely telegraphic. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the Minister referred principally to two precedents for this clause. One is contained in Part 3 of the Adoption and Children Bill, a Bill still being considered by your Lordships' House. The other is contained in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. I have had an opportunity to glance at those measures. The text of the two precedents is what one would normally expect to find in a supplementary and consequential provision in a Bill. The power given to the Secretary of State is to make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as he considers necessary. That is a recognisable power and a well-established precedent.
If that was the power included in the amendment, I do not go so far as to say that I would be completely relaxed; but I would not be about to respond to the Minster in the way that I shall. The problem with

311
Amendment No. 121 is that it does not follow the precedent set down in the Adoption and Children Bill and in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. It does not refer to any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision. It refers to the Secretary of State making an order,
"which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act".
That is as broad as any government Minister in the future wishes to make it.
If the Minister had adopted the wording in the two precedents put before the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, one might have been able to see the point of the many submissions that he has been making in support of the Government's position.
In those circumstances, together with the points made most powerfully by the right reverend Prelate and many of my noble friends on the Benches behind me, that this Act involves—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. The Minister has quoted the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Provisions Act 2002. I made a large number of observations on that clause, in the course of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, promised and performed numerous welcome amendments.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in view of the intervention made by the noble Earl—the noble Earl's interventions are invariably helpful, especially when made at a late stage—and in the light of what I have just said about the expression "in connection with", perhaps the Minister would like one last chance to respond to my observations before I consider whether this is a matter that I shall put to your Lordships' House.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to respond to the invitations of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The clause is drafted as it is because we think it is necessary and appropriate to the functions to which it may have to be applied in the future. That is clear from the way I spoke to it previously. But it is of course still tightly limited to things that are consequential or incidental to the Bill before the House.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the words "in connection" would set a dangerous precedent for the future of your Lordships' House. In the context of a matter that concerns human rights, it would be a disastrous precedent. I have no alternative but to test the opinion o f your Lordship's House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hooson, L.

Ackner, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Addington, L.

Howe, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor, V.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Attlee, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hylton, L.

Barker, B.

Jacobs, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blackwell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blaker, L.

Joffe, L.

Blatch, B.

Jopling, L.

Boardman, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Bowness, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Linchfield, Bp.

Bridgeman, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brightman, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Livsey of Talgerth, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Luke, L.

Burnham, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Buscombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maddock, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carrington, L.

Mar and Kellie

Chan, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chorley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Methuen, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monro of Langholm

Condon, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Moynihan, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newby, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Noakes, B.

Dholakia, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northover, B.

Dundee, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Elles, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Ouseley, L.

Ezra, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Parkinson, L.

Fowler, L.

Patten,L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Peel, E.

Geraint, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glentoran, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Greaves, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hambro, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Rawlings, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Razzall, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Rennard, L.

Higgins, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hooper, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

313

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Strange, B.

Rogan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Roper, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Russell, E.

Tebbit, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saatchi, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sandberg, L.

Tope, L.

Sandwich, E.

Vincent of Coleshill, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wakeham, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Walker of Worcester, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Walmsley, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilcox, B

Stevens of Ludgate, L

Williams of Crosby, B

Wolfson, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Billingham, B.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brookman, L.

Layard, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dorland of Easington, L. Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

314

Tomlinson, L.

Wilkins, B.

Turnberg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 16 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 23, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of four months save in exceptional circumstances"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is grouped with government Amendments Nos. 8, 18 and 19. The purpose of our amendment is to place a four-month maximum time limit on the period that people spend in accommodation centres.
I presume that government Amendment No. 8 gives power to make rules limiting the length of stay in accommodation centres when a person wants to leave. It seems likely that the Government may argue that their amendment is superior to ours, which has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
We propose this amendment for two reasons. The first is the argument that centres are not a normal social setting and that a lengthy stay in one is a poor preparation for settlement in the United Kingdom for those who are to remain following a successful outcome of their application for asylum. Our concern is that people may become institutionalised. Such people may well seek to opt for a longer stay in the centres. The second reason is to seek to force the Government to make good their commitment to speed up processing times. That is an issue independent of the views of those in the centres.
I do not see why the Government should object. The major argument that they have put forward throughout the proceedings on the Bill is the speed with which they want to deal with asylum applications and people in accommodation centres. Accommodation centres will be very expensive. They will take a great deal of attention away from the vital matter of improving the National Asylum Support Service, which will continue to be responsible for the majority of asylum seekers. A centre in which people will stay for a few weeks requires different facilities from a centre in which people stay for several months. The worst of all possible worlds is a centre that is designed for short stays but in which people have to stay for longer periods with inadequate facilities. Lengthy stays will also destroy the throughput of cases, causing centres to deal with a smaller number of cases.
Clause 24 deals with the length of stay for families. The Government have been prepared to talk of their current intention that regulations will provide that families will be allowed to leave after nine months. We note that there is a similar amendment on general length of stay, but nine months is not good enough. A

315
current intention is not good enough, and we believe that the maximum length of four months is appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 4 moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I endorse all the arguments that he has put and I shall supplement them with some different observations.
On previous occasions I have argued that it is important to have a time limit on the face of the Bill because I believe that it will introduce the necessary rigour to the operation of processing claims. This is just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle that we believe, if properly completed, will ensure that we have a one-stop shop in which all can have confidence. It fits in well with other pieces of the set, that the accommodation centres should be in a location that is suitable to the needs of the people who will be accommodated in them and, as we shall discuss later, that there should be access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisers.
As I mentioned on Report, the experience of other organisations shows that it is important that one proceeds with processing such applications and in a fair way. It is possible to be fair while having fast processing. Oakington has shown that that is so. Where there is legal advice, the legal decision takes from seven to 10 days and appeals are listed within four weeks thereafter—well within the four-month period that we are discussing.
If there is no incentive on the face of the Bill to have a proper target—I believe that four months is a genuine and proper target—the likelihood is that time will be allowed to drift, bureaucracy and slowness will set in and people will spend far too long in the accommodation centres. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a letter from Dr Matthew Hodes, who is senior lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry at the Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine. He writes:
"It is unclear what effect living in detention centres will have on family function, and the extent to which institutional living will diminish the effectiveness of parents in child rearing, including managing their children's behaviour".
We have not heard what kind of health services will be provided in the centres; we do not know what mental health provision there will be; and we do not know what child mental health services will be provided. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell the House what stage of planning has been reached in that respect.
There is a serious shortage of provision in mental health, especially in terms of consultants and in terms of child and adolescent mental health. I am concerned that if children are to spend long periods in such an environment they should at least have decent health
316
provision and decent mental health provision. I believe that that will be hard to provide in the isolated, rural places that are proposed for the centres.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me intruding again on the debate. We on these Benches understand the complexities and the difficulties of handling these kinds of issues. Others have spoken of that, and successive governments have struggled with them. Let us be under no illusion that we are tackling a difficult human problem. This is not a party political matter, but a matter with which we all struggle.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that many of us are concerned about the accommodation centres as a way of handling the situation. In Committee, the noble Lord said, in talking about the options, that:
"The second option involves one complex dealing with around 250 people…Such an option might, for example, be restricted to single males, given that that group constitutes by far the largest category of applicants for refugee status".—[Official Report, 9/10/ 02; col. 311.]
What will an institution of 250 predominantly young males be like? What will that mean to the people who stay there? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the timings concerned, I believe that 250 people living together for four months will be long enough.
Where will the centres be located? Will they be in the countryside? Will the people have access to the local communities? If they are in vulnerable multi-ethnic and multi-cultural centres what will be the impact? Those are our anxieties and that is why on these Benches we have considerable sympathy with those who want to hem in the centres. Knowing all the difficulties that the Minister, the Government and all of us face in tackling these problems, we need to know the humanity of the situation.
We on these Benches are sometimes tempted to use the popular phrase,
"some have entertained angels unawares".
If people are refused permanent entry into this country—probably in many cases that will be a right and just outcome—I am concerned about the stories that they will take way with them of how they have been handled in our society? What message will 250 predominantly young males take back with them when they return to their countries?
Even on a pragmatic level, might we not be dealing with people who could be leaders in their own community in years to come? Is it not, therefore, important that they take back with them a message of how well they were treated in our society, even under difficult circumstances? That would be both a hopeful and a good message about this country and its values. That is why we are anxious on these Benches about these proposals. Anything the Minister can say to help us with that anxiety would be enormously welcome.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has made some important remarks, which very much relate to the whole issue of hearts and minds and building a secure and stable world with which we are

317
all pre-occupied. However, that is another story. I had the privilege last week of paying a very interesting visit to Oakington. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those concerned in that visit. There was much at Oakington that impressed me. I should like to underline the fact that I believe many of the staff at the centre should be recognised for the excellent job that they perform.
When making that visit, what became absolutely clear to me was the positive atmosphere that I seemed to detect. Although some people question how far it is positive, from my experience around the world it seemed to me to be a relatively positive atmosphere, which related to the fact that it was full of hope with the expectation that everyone would be out of the place in no time at all. If the length of time that people will stay in the place is extended, the whole psychology of the centre will quickly change. I do not suggest that there is any ill will in that respect, but the inevitable bureaucratic processes will lead to people staying much longer.
The amendment before the House is important in principle. I congratulate the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on having put it forward. If my noble friend the Minister wants to convince us, he must assure the House tonight that he will have some specific, watertight arrangements in place to ensure that there is no drift and that such places do not change in character. Otherwise, there will be no alternative but to consider the amendment extremely seriously.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that the Oakington centre is not relevant to this amendment, because the Government have the intention of using it entirely for people who are certified.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. I am full of apprehension because a centre that is a good place at present, despite all the constraints of the policy that is being administered, could become a different place very quickly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, other noble Lords are confirming my remarks. The Government intend fundamentally to change the nature of Oakington. In the future, it will be used only for the people who are certified and who will not have a right of appeal. All those cases will be dealt with in the seven to 10 days that it presently takes for a decision to be made in the first instance.
I have sought to ask the Government the following question on several occasions, but have never received a proper answer. In the original White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, we were told that the Government intended to process cases within a total of six months. That time was divided up into two months for first decisions, and four months for the whole of the appeal process. Yet we are still talking about a six-month
318
period now that the whole of the casework system, which, as noble Lords will remember, was really in chaos at the time of the White Paper, has been fundamentally reformed. We should also bear in mind the fact that the purpose of accommodation centres is to concentrate all services under one roof, including legal services, so that people can be put through the system as fast as possible.
The Government are fully in accordance with our intention not to ask people to remain in accommodation centres for any longer than is necessary. With all the improvements that we are told have been made in the processing of asylum cases, together with the further improvements that would result from having people in accommodation centres, I simply cannot understand why we have not been able to improve on the estimates made a few years ago in the White Paper.
The Government said previously that the time limits available to people for appeals had not changed, but that has always been the case. When they originally made the estimate of six months for total processing, the legal requirements for notice of appeal, and so on, were the same then as they are now. So that part of the process has not been altered. However, as a result of the improvements in the casework system and the concentration of services, especially legal services, in one place—thus enabling quicker access to them—one would have expected a slightly better outcome now than five years ago.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I missed the first few sentences of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope, therefore, that I shall not repeat what he said. It seems to me that this is a reasonable amendment. On Report, (at col. 312 of the Official Report), the Minister said that 70 per cent of all asylum seeker cases were determined within two months. He went on to point out that that had improved from 60 per cent, and said that it was hoped that that rate would shortly improve. With the proviso that in "exceptional circumstances" the four-month period could be exceeded, the amendment seems to be most reasonable. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept it.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Like the right reverend Prelate, my concern is with the very concept of "accommodation centres" and their usefulness, as well as the proposed length of stay. However, I shall not repeat those arguments today. I wish to raise just one concern.
I understand that the Minister has been in regular conversations with the Refugee Council about the alternative models that it has recommended, but that he has not been able to make any commitment. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that we have been discussing this issue as though it were already a major plank of government policy, when in fact the policy is in its infancy and the vast majority of asylum seekers are subject to dispersal under existing rules. I put it to the Minister that that also implies that he remains

319
open to the ideas being put forward by the specialised bodies, many of which have the day-to-day care of asylum seekers and understand their needs.
If that is the case, can the Minister give the Refugee Council some assurance that its models for more modest forms of accommodation are being studied, and could yet be reflected in this Bill? Why must the Government press on with one set of plans in primary legislation, while leaving another set of plans to vague promises of co-operation? I submit that this is giving rise to considerable suspicion that consultations, which I know have reached an advanced stage and which involve considerable time on the part of all parties, are no longer being given the weight that is due and that Ministers promised.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I genuinely believe that this issue is one on which there is shared agreement about the objective that we want to achieve, but that the debate is about what is a sensible mechanism to get there. I would not go so far as to say that that was the unanimous position in the Chamber, but it seems to me that there is a general consensus that it is important for us to achieve rapid, fair, and proper decision making on asylum applications, while providing people with the support that they have asked for and to which they are entitled under the law.
The debate is about the best way of making that decision-making process work more quickly in accommodation centres. As the House knows, we believe that such centres have the potential to provide excellent quality of support and, at the same time, improve significantly the processing—if I may use that rather cold term—and the decision-making process, both on the initial decision and on the first stage of appeal.
Amendments proposing a variety of maximum lengths of stay for residents of accommodation centres have been put forward during different stages of the Bill. We have had 10 weeks, three months, four months and six months, sometimes allowing for exceptional cases and sometimes not. The joint amendment—Amendment No. 4—echoes an amendment tabled on Report which proposed that the maximum time for people to remain in accommodation centres should be four months unless there were exceptional circumstances. It differs from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in Committee, which suggested a maximum of six months. In turn, that differed from Simon Hughes's proposal in another place for a maximum of six months with the possibility of a further three. That differed from the proposal made by the noble Baroness in Committee and on Report that the maximum should be 10 weeks. That differed from the maximum of three months, suggested by, I think, Humfrey Malins in another place. So we are not lacking creativity in that respect.
We all want faster processing, but the succession of arbitrary suggestions of maximum limits is not helpful. They are not accompanied by detailed processes showing where each stage has been reduced or whether there are knock-on effects in other parts of the system. It is not in the interests of asylum seekers or the public
320
to pick out such limits simply as an attempt to set the Government up to fail. Our intention is that people will be well supported in accommodation centres throughout the process of initial decision making and subsequent appeal rights. We must remember that the centres are designed to support asylum seekers throughout the process of initial decision making, appeal to an adjudicator and, if they choose, any subsequent appeals.
My problem is not with the objective that the House is trying to achieve but with the mechanism. It is not realistic, and I shall explain why. Current practice directions from His Honour Judge Henry Hodge, who presides over the Immigration Appellate Authority, are that a substantive appeal hearing before an adjudicator—the first stage of an appeal—will not be given less than seven weeks from the date of receipt of appeal in respect of standard track cases. That means that the appellant will be given at least seven weeks to prepare a case. Plenty of noble Lords will affirm that that is right and necessary. We can add to that the time for the appeal to take place, which could easily he another two or three or more weeks after that. So even if we sustain—as, I suspect, we will—the two-month period for the initial decision, it will not be possible to deal with a case within four months, unless we shorten the time that appellants have to prepare and present their case. It cannot be sensible that people must be asked, prior to having their first appeal considered, to leave the accommodation centre. Setting a time limit of four months would mean that we would allow all those who sought permission to appeal to the tribunal to leave the accommodation centre, whether they wished to or not.
We must also remember that we are trialling accommodation centres, with a view to rolling them out nationally if, as we expect, they work. It is not just a question of creating a fast-track procedure for around four centres. The system must work for the generality of destitute asylum seekers. For that reason, we do not think—we will not be mealy-mouthed about it—that it is sensible to put such measures into the Bill.
Noble Lords will notice that, during the Bill's passage, we have made two major changes. First, we accepted that, if a family with children were still in an accommodation centre after six months, their situation would be reconsidered to see whether it was still right and appropriate to retain them there. Their views would be taken into account as part of that process. If the Government decide that they should stay, they have the right to leave after a further three months, whether the Government want them to do so or not.
In response to arguments made on Report last week, I agreed to give further thought to whether we should have a further power in the Bill that would make it possible to put other time limits into effect. As noble Lords will see from our amendment, we have decided that the power is there to bring in time limits for other classes of applicant, apart from families with children, or, alternatively, to bring in time limits differentially for some accommodation centres if we feel that they need an incentive or for other reasons. We are not

321
'being flippant: we are saying that we are persuaded that time limits may have a role to play both in the interests of the applicants, in certain circumstances, and as a stimulus to processing. We are not being obdurate for a second. Our minds are open—in some cases, more than open—on the matter, and we have been persuaded. However, we would be mad to do that in primary legislation. If the House reflected soberly on the matter, it would not for a minute think otherwise.
It is a highly dynamic situation. I. do not know—I doubt that any Member of the House does—what the asylum situation will look like in Europe or in this country in three years' time. What ability will we have to improve the speed of processing? Will we be able, as I hope, to go much further than we have done to date? It is not possible to see the future with the apt degree of precision.
The amendment would mean that irrespective of the volume of applicants, irrespective of their needs and irrespective of the stage that they had reached in the process, they would have to be moved elsewhere after four months. That is not sensible and not in their interests. Nor is it in the interests of any government seeking to manage the process. It is sensible to recognise a need and some scope for applying time limits, using secondary legislation, in certain areas. We have already given a clear commitment about how that will operate with regard to families with children. For those reasons, we think that our amendment genuinely responds to the arguments advanced on Report. We also introduced Clause 24 to deal with the case of families with children.
I was asked several questions, to which I shall seek to respond. Some questions went back to the wider question of whether accommodation centres were a good and proper way to give support to asylum applicants who asked for it while their case was being considered. I shall not detain the House on that matter; there have been considerable discussions on it.
Many people believe—as do I—that the centres have the potential to offer better support than we have seen in Britain to date. They are better than anything that I know of in continental Europe. The measure of that will be in the evaluation that we will carry out, and I will be pleased to accompany Members of the House—if I am still in my present office, spared or not spared—on inspections of the accommodation centres. We can see what we make of them. We are being open about the evaluation process, but the bottom line is that I do not think for a second that we will have anything to be ashamed of, as a society, in the quality of accommodation and support offered. I know of nothing that matches it elsewhere in Europe, and Europe is generally ahead of many—if not all—places on that front.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about our intention with regard to the six-month period and referred, rightly, to the White Paper. The noble Lord is right; the White Paper said six months. He is also right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, that we are now handling 70 per cent of initial
322
applications within two months. There is no problem with that. The problem arises when people exercise their perfectly legitimate right to go to one and then two stages of appeal. We cannot remove that right, nor do we intend to. It is not possible to complete the process within four months.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about discussion of alternative models. I had thought that on Report I gave a fairly clear sign that discussions were under way and were continuing. The legislation leaves open the possibility of bringing in different forms of accommodation centre that meet the fundamental principles of providing high quality support, not putting a burden on local services, and allowing faster decision making than has been possible in the past.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about mental health facilities. We have spoken about that previously. The basic facilities in accommodation centres will be similar to a GP's practice, but we recognise that some residents of accommodation centres will have emotional problems. We have considered providing some secondary care facilities for mental health, for example, in accommodation facilities. We are still discussing that.
I hope that I have answered the important point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about humanity. I believe that the story able to be told by people who had been through one of our accommodation centres—albeit returned there—was that they were treated fairly and humanely and were given support. That is certainly the Government's intention and we wish to be judged by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke about his visit to Oakington. It demonstrates that even a centre which is fast-track for cases which are likely to have limited, or not the best, chances of success can deal with cases rapidly, fairly and with humanity. People who are there can recognise that, which is highly relevant to the figure he gave of 250.
I shall not detain the House further. We support the objective of trying to ensure that there is faster decision-making. But for the reasons I have given, in terms of the measure on the face of the Bill and the considerable inflexibility—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may intervene—and I apologise for interrupting. There is an important argument that under a rigid time limit one might be at a crucial point when that is reached. That could add to people's problems if they suddenly found themselves ejected from their accommodation at a time when things were coming to a head in other respects. It could be difficult and that is why I said that we needed to hear convincing arguments.

323
My noble friend has tried to help in this respect but he has been a little general in his approach to time limits. It would help the House if he could give a specific indication of how in another way time limits might be introduced.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I will give an illustration of where that might be possible using one of the two clauses we are seeking to introduce into the Bill; that relating to families with children. It would allow us in future, if we thought it possible, to reduce the six-month and the three-month period. It would be good if that were possible.
The amendment we have tabled today would allow us, for example, to recognise that were there to be an accommodation centre for young single men we could bring in a time limit of six months if it appeared that most cases could be dealt with through the two appeal processes in that time period. In such a circumstance, if that were possible it might be sensible to do that.
A third way might be to try to put pressure on a particular accommodation centre which appeared to be slower than we thought necessary. Those are different kinds of circumstances in which time limits could be used. I am not saying at this point how and when we would use them, but it is right to have the power in the Bill to do so in order to respond to the good arguments made by Members in other parts of the House during earlier stages of the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The fundamental difference of opinion remains on this matter. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments which have been made at every stage of the Bill but I want to draw his attention to our amendment. It clearly states,
"for a maximum period of four months save in exceptional circumstances".
There could be circumstances, identified from time to time, in which the period could be longer.
It is reasonable to release people after four months in accommodation centres and for them then to appear wherever the hearings are taking place. I see no problem or difficulty with that. We debated similar issues—for instance, the size and location of accommodation centres—and at every stage of the Government's argument they have been talking about firmer—
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The amendment as tabled by the Opposition parties would mean that someone in an accommodation centre who appealed to the IAA—it is the first stage of the appeal process and its current practice rules would not be able to hear the case within four months—would have to leave the accommodation centre whether he wished to or not. Our interpretation of the amendment is that that would not be an exceptional circumstance of someone
324
whose hearing had not been held in that period: that would be an extremely common circumstance. Therefore, under that provision we would not be able to give the discretion even to allow him to stay in the centre, even though he wished to do so. That appears to us to be harsh and punitive.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may say that if I were the one in the accommodation centre, I would much rather leave at the end of four months and deal with my application from outside rather than in six months or whatever time limit he has in mind.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sorry, I might feel the same but we are not legislating for ourselves; we are legislating for a great variety of individuals whose tastes and values may differ.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister really telling the House that it is in exceptional circumstances that the Government keep their own time limits?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, I was not, and I am sure that if the noble Earl had given his customary attention to what I had said he would know I was not saying that.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the Minister, with his normal courtesy, has explained the Government's situation. I accept that our aim is the same on both sides; that is, to reduce the period of time taken in the hearing of applications for asylum and that the situation in the hearing centre should reduce that period. However, is he now saying that regrettably anyone who makes an application to an appeal of first decision will inevitably be unable to have an answer to his appeal within that four-month period?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, I am because the Government, rightly, do not determine the practice rules of the courts. They are determined by the judiciary. Under those practice rules it is not possible, except in few circumstances, for that first appeal to be heard, let alone any subsequent appeal that he might wish to make.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was trying to assist the Government because throughout the debate on immigration and asylum they have spoken of a firmer, faster and fairer service. I thought that this was a faster way of dealing with the matter but I do not believe that we shall agree on it. In the light of that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacobs, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Kingsland, L.

Astor, V.

Laird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Attlee, E.

Lichfield, Bp.

Avebury, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Barker, B.

Liverpool, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blackwell, L.

Luke, L.

Blaker, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bowness, L.

McNally, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Methuen, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chorley, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Onslow, E.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dundee, E.

Patten, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Falkland, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fearn, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Razzall, L.

Fowler, L.

Rennard, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

Goschen, V.

Russell, E.

Greaves, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Saatchi, L.

Hambro, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Henley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Higgins, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooper, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Taverne, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

326

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Walmsley, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Tope, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wakeham, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Hylton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jordan, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Bragg, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Chandos, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Marsh, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mishcon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Parekh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Fitt, L.

Sewel, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Grabiner, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B

Williams of Elvel, L

Howarth of Breckland, B

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal

Howells of St. Davids, B

Winston, L

Howie of Troon, L

Woolmer of Leeds,

Hoyle, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert "(which provision may, in particular, provide for an application not to be considered where the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate or that the applicant is co-operating with enquiries under paragraph (e))"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on Clause 56. It allows the Secretary of State, in deciding whether a person is eligible for support in an accommodation centre, to provide in regulations for an application for support not to be considered where he is not satisfied that the information provided is complete or accurate or that the applicant is co-operating with inquiries.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 12, 10, 11 and 13 are drafting amendments. They do not alter the effect of the provisions to which they relate; they merely ensure consistency and legal clarity.
Amendment No. 17 extends the definition of "local authority" in Clause 37 to make clear that Northern Ireland education and library boards are able to contract with the Home Office in respect of accommodation centres. We have no plans currently to site an accommodation centre in Northern Ireland, but the Bill aims to ensure that the provisions in Part 2 are workable across the United Kingdom for the sake of legislative coherence and completeness. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment seeks to apply to Clause 16 a similar restriction to the one imposed by Clause 56. We objected to Clause 56 and we feel that Clause 16 is subject to the same objections. But, as in substance a decision was taken on the previous occasion, we do not feel that it is practicable for us to press our objections to Amendment No. 5.
I should, however, be grateful if the Minister would answer a couple of questions. First, can he confirm that the information which is to be to be provided means only information as to whether the person in question satisfies the requirements of Clause 16(1) and does not extend to irrelevant information such as the method of that person's arrival in the United Kingdom?
Secondly, can the Minister give an assurance that these provisions are not designed to undermine the standards in the draft directive on minimum standards for asylum seekers, and that the Government will take remedial action if the provisions in the Bill are shown to be below those required by the directive when it is adopted?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall be producing well thought-through and careful guidance on these matters to help caseworkers to understand the policy behind the new measures and to implement them in a fair and consistent way. It would be premature of me to say exactly what the contents of the guidance notes will be. However, in response to the noble Lord's points about Clause 16(1) and methods of arrival, and whether we intend to use this clause to
328
undermine the probity of the asylum process, I confirm that, of course, we would not be seeking to do that. I am happy to place that on public record.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Destitution: definition]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 34, after "adequate" insert "for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Sections 16 to 19: supplementary]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 34, leave out "date" and insert "day"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"LENGTH OF STAY: GENERAL
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where the person—

(a) has been a resident of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and

(b) requests the provision of accommodation outside an accommodation centre.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraph (a) of that subsection applies to a person the Secretary of State must give him an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (b).
(3) Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 22.
(4) Section 50 is subject to regulations under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Facilities]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 15, line 29, at end insert "and must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisors"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, to save the time of the House, I can say that if the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will move his Amendment No. 9A formally, I shall accept it formally. The reference in the amendment would then be to,
"legal or appropriate advice from suitably qualified advisors".
I can imagine, for example, situations where the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux might give advice that was appropriate but not legal. Nevertheless, the central thrust of the amendment concerns legal advice.
The Government love to talk about "rights and responsibilities". However, I note that when they talk about the responsibilities of citizens, they do so in a peremptory, indeed military, manner, with absolutely no room for exception or discretion. However, when

329
they talk about their own responsibilities, they do so in a much more indefinite manner. Clause 28(3), where the amendment would bite, states:
"The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
Clause 107, which gives the power to make grants to people providing legal advice, is again worded in this permissive way—using the term "may". This creates no duty on the Government. This appears to us to be something of an absence of a level playing field—in a situation where the playing field is already very far from level. On one side are people who must be presumed to be expert in the business; on the other are people who are in a strange country, with a strange language and a strange legal system, who are quite unaware of what they need to prove and what they do not. I have been through the United States immigration system, and even that—with a common language that occasionally divided us rather than uniting us—was, I admit, a bewildering process. What it must be for a Somali, I dread to think.
The provision of competent legal advice is essential not only to the interests of the applicant but also to the interests of the Home Office. The UNHCR comments that:
"Quality advice minimises the prospect for appeals and fosters confidence among asylum seekers,"
and that, therefore, quality legal advice at the earliest possible stage helps not only to assure applicants that the procedures are fair, but ensures speed and efficiency in the asylum process.
I note that the Government are in the habit of quoting, for the numbers of successful asylum applications, only the initial applications and leaving out the number that are successful on appeal. That is perhaps partly because the difference between the two can be remarkably large.
We need something a little more peremptory than this. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has remarked that if people's human rights are to be made real and effective rather than merely theoretical and illusory, it is essential to provide them with information about their rights and with independent, accessible, free or affordable legal advice from experts in the field. Incidentally, at no stage of the debate have we heard anything about what the Government intend to do to make people aware of their opportunity to obtain legal advice. Before this amendment is finished with, I hope that we shall hear something on that subject.
This is a case where "may" is not good enough. The House has expressed its opinion once today about clauses that state that the Government may do whatever they like. I hope that the Government have heard that. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davismoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 9A:
Line 2, after "legal" insert "or appropriate"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I note that the noble Earl has accepted this amendment. I entirely agree with him that the advice given should be independent and objective.
I tabled this amendment because I can envisage circumstances where the advice may be other than legal. That is what I thought my noble friend was alluding to at earlier stages. The advice might be given by a suitably qualified layman. I have therefore provided for an extension of the noble Earl's proposal.
I go along entirely with what the noble Earl has said. The advice that may be sought will probably be legal in consequence; but there are circumstances where a person can best afford the advice of someone who is not legally qualified. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in making this brief point, I declare an interest: my firm gives a great deal of legal aid advice in precisely the circumstances contemplated by this clause.
When the department responded to the 17th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it stated that the Government were committed to providing,
"free, independent, quality legal advice".
The word that concerns me is "quality". The law relating to this area is often extremely difficult. It depends for its effectiveness on the lawyer having a deep and extensive practical knowledge of both the law and the issues. I believe, therefore, that without an amendment of this nature there is a real prospect that those needing legal advice may be presented only with an opportunity of obtaining it from organisations which are simply not up to the task in the circumstances concerned.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment, because it would lead to much better first decisions in asylum cases thereby avoiding the need for many appeals and judicial reviews. Such advice should be given before the initial form is filled in and before the first interview.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 9, so I shall speak to it. Clause 28(3) places only an extremely light obligation on the Government in this regard. It states:
"The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
The clause places no obligation on the Government to furnish the legal advice. In previous debates in Committee and on Report, it became clear that the Government would not expect to be involved in the financial arrangements for giving legal advice to anyone resident in an accommodation centre. That would be the sole responsibility of the Legal Services Commission; and someone seeking advice would have

331
to meet all the civil law tests laid down by the Legal Services Commission before the latter would provide help.
We have argued from these Benches at all stages of the Bill, that the appropriate legal aid test should be the criminal rather than the civil one; and that legal advice should, in all circumstances, be provided to anyone who requires it.
Surely it is in the Government's interest to support these amendments? They claim that two central principles underline the purposes of the Bill: greater expedition and greater fairness. If an accommodation centre resident receives high-quality legal advice about his status, which is that he has no case or a very weak one, the authorities can proceed, with a clear conscience, to do what the Bill provides should be done in the circumstances.
But if the Government seek to move someone on, even though that person has not received such advice, the Government's position is morally weaker. They will be trying to take advantage of the fact that the individual had not received proper objective advice. The best way to ensure both expedition and fairness is to accede to these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kingsland, for their explanations of them. It is about safeguards; it is about justice; it is about seeing that the best possible help is given at a crucial and sensitive time.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, for the second time today I shall risk saying that there is a consensus about objectives but a difference of opinion about means. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are both absolutely right.
One of the reasons for having accommodation centres is that they will provide good-quality support, which people have asked for, and faster processing, which will also be strong and fair. In other words, cases will be well considered at each stage in a way that reduces some of the turbulence of late appeals being turned over. We therefore share the view, without qualification, that it is important that we make legal advice available in accommodation centres for people who wish to avail themselves of it at initial stages. I will discuss later appeals in the process later.
As we discussed previously, the only area of difference is that we must provide advice, or the opportunity to receive it, in a way that does not lead to an abuse of the system. By that we mean that we cannot go further than ensuring that a suitably qualified lawyer is available to give advice in the accommodation centre when hearings are due to take place there. By going as far as the amendment proposes, asylum applicants could, if they wished, decline to attend a hearing, or seek to change their lawyer. Noble Lords may ask why that matters. It matters because, given the number of cases, fair and sensible processes are needed to deal with applicants in
332
a straightforward and efficient way. Although we are confident that suitably qualified lawyers will he available in the accommodation centre for any asylum seeker who wishes to avail himself of advice, the amendment would create the risks that we referred to—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would it suit the Minister if, at the end of Clause 28(3), the following words were inserted:
"and must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal or appropriate advice … where it is required"?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, for prudent reasons, I am always reluctant to negotiate the wording of Bills on the wing. As I said about another clause, I would be disappointed if we had not been able to find a meeting of minds on the issue before the Bill is finalised. I do not think that there is an issue of principle; it is about how we ensure that the advice of suitably qualified lawyers is available in accommodation centres without opening up two risks.
The second risk is, as Members of this House will know better than I do, that to get legal aid in this country, two tests must be met. They must meet a means test—and it is hard to see how any resident of an accommodation centre would not meet that test, because they will have been evaluated as destitute. They must also meet a merit test. In circumstances where the balance of probability is about 50 percent—and I speak loosely rather than as a member of the Legal Services Commission—there is clear guidance that if the issue is one of substance for the individual, or if it is of wider relevance to society, the balance of doubt falls in favour of the applicant so that legal aid is available.
It is self-evident that in some cases—I will not conjecture how many, but quite a number—the probabilities can be around 10 per cent. In those cases, a British citizen would not qualify for legal aid from the Legal Services Commission, so we see no good reason why a resident of an accommodation centre should qualify either.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord will have noted that I underlined that the test should be that for receiving criminal legal aid, not civil legal aid. In criminal cases, somebody who has to defend himself but does not have the means to do so receives legal aid as a matter of course, because the consequence of him being inadequately defended could be that he is wrongfully locked up for several years.
Surely that is the right analogy for the position of an asylum seeker. An asylum seeker who does not get proper legal advice may face deportation, in circumstances in which he should not be deported, just because the test applied for the receipt of financial support is the civil rather than the criminal one. Surely that cannot be the right approach. The Government should accept that the criminal test is appropriate in those circumstances.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am advised that we have thought the civil test appropriate. That will not please

333
the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Even at this late stage I shall reflect on his point. However, my point still stands. Even if the noble Lord were right and we were talking about the criminal test of eligibility—which would make it more likely that a person would receive legal aid—there would still be cases with a very low balance of chances. We do not think it right that they should automatically qualify for legal aid when a British citizen would not qualify.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it may be true that on average such cases have very low chances, calculating the overall number that succeed compared with the number considered; but the noble Lord cannot say that in respect of any individual case.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the Minister reflects on that point, will he also consider whether the words, "with access" in Amendment No. 9 counterbalance his argument about two kinds of risk? I know that there are some organisations, such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre, Asylum Aid and no doubt a few others, in which the question of legal aid for such advice will not arise.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, let me speak a little more to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and explain why we think it is right that the civil test is applied in asylum cases. The merits test in criminal cases is known as the interests of justice test. The test is matched specifically to what will be considered during the course of a criminal trial, making it unsuitable for any non-criminal matter, including advice on asylum or immigration matters. More importantly, it does not contain any condition as to cost benefit or prospects of success. To introduce such factors would breach our obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of the generality and the specifics. I am seeking to speak specifically to those. To put the issue at its sharpest, let us consider a specific case in which the probability of success in an appeal to the IAT—which I am sure is the forum we are talking about—is very low. I am talking about certain specific cases, not the generality. In other cases those circumstances will not apply. A British citizen would not get legal aid in those circumstances, so we cannot see why an asylum seeker should do so. It seems unreasonable that they should have an advantage in that respect.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have been a solicitor for quite a long time. For part of that time I did a lot of legal aid work. The individual always has access to legal advice. He may be advised that he does not have a hope in hell of getting legal aid. That is understandable. However, to deny a person who is unlikely to get legal aid any sort of advice is ludicrous.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I did not think that I was speaking to the specifics of that. I was engaging with
334
the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on a specific example of an asylum seeker who had had an initial negative decision and had then appealed to the IAA. When the adjudicator on site in the accommodation centre also said no, the asylum seeker then sought leave to appeal to the IAT. The balance of probability was then found to be so low that they would not get legal aid. Our understanding of the clause is that legal aid would have to be provided even though the prospects of success were so low.
I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I expect that, because of the facilities in accommodation centres, it will be possible to get general advice on the prospects of a successful appeal to the IAT, because there will be resident legal advisers able to give a certain amount of advice, as opposed to representation. We also hope that specialist NGOs will have a presence there, as they have at Oakington, where they make a powerful contribution.
These are complex issues. I am trying to explain why we think that the current wording of the amendment has problems. I come back to the point that, apart from the areas in which we have cautions about opening the issue up to the extent that we think the amendment would do, we broadly share an objective that it is desirable that asylum applicants in accommodation centres are well advised. We think that that means having suitably qualified legal advisers.
I shall speak briefly about the words "qualified" and "appropriate" in the amendments. The firms or individuals who provide legal advice and representation in accommodation centres will be ones who hold contracts with the Legal Services Commission. They are checked to ensure that they meet certain standards and are qualified to provide advice on immigration and asylum matters. They must have a specific contract in that category. We expect that lawyers or legal firms practising in accommodation centres in the way we have talked about will be well qualified, as the House wishes.
We find the word "appropriate" much more difficult. Our worry is that it could mean whatever a person wants. I shall not conjecture on the details, but what one person thinks appropriate to their needs could be very different from what the LSC or someone else thought reasonable in the circumstances. That would open up massive opportunities for legal challenge against the Government. That would not be sensible or in the interests of what we are all seeking to do.
In conclusion, I can provide some reassurances that we shall not unreasonably refuse access to any advice group that may be able to assist residents, as the noble Lord may be suggesting. We have seen the benefit of that at Oakington. We would be very happy for groups to discuss ways of providing information to residents, but we are looking at a very different situation from that in which some asylum seekers find themselves in dispersal areas at present, simply because the centres will be self-contained and will provide for the basic needs of the residents.

335
Whatever our debates about the necessity of legal advice before an initial decision, the fact remains that those in accommodation centres will be able to receive advice before their interview. If that is the aim of the amendment, it is unnecessary. If the aim is, exactly as the amendment suggests, to go far wider in the ways that I have said the Government are concerned about, it is unacceptable for those reasons, not because we wish to frustrate access to reasonable advice. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw the amendments. I hope I have signalled clearly that our minds are in no way closed to the importance of what both Opposition parties are seeking.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the Minister says, the amendment is technical. I shall read it again so that he can be in no doubt about what it says. The Government,
"must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal or appropriate advice from suitably qualified advisors".
Speaking with Pepper v Hart in mind, I understand "appropriate" in a legal context to mean somebody with competence in asylum law and not merely immigration law. In other matters, "appropriate" would mean appropriate to the matter on which advice was being sought.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, even at this late stage, to consider the criminal test of proof when it becomes relevant. I would much rather spend 20 years in a British prison than one year in an Iraqi prison. So the sorts of risk which the applicant is facing are the sorts which I think are more appropriate to the criminal test. However, these questions do not actually bite on the amendment as currently worded; they bite on representation at a hearing. We are dealing here with preliminary advice, and I am advised that the merits test does not apply at that stage. All these questions are beside the point of this amendment.
So indeed I think of the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, about people shopping around for one lawyer after another. All the amendment says is that people must have access to legal advice. It does not say that they have to have access to every form of legal advice anywhere in the country. That is, of course, a right that every British citizen has, but it is not one that this amendment is asking for. So I think that those reflections were wide of the point.
In the end, there is one major difference between us, and that is on the issue of "may" versus "must". This Government are very keen on laying responsibilities on others; they are not so keen to shoulder them themselves. The Government should not get away with
336
the idea that they are the only body in the country who are entitled to flexibility. I should like to ask the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, before the noble Earl presses Amendment No. 9, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, must decide what to do with Amendment No. 9A.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have moved the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 9A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, shall be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
6.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Arran, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Astor, V.

Dholakia, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Attlee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Avebury, L.

Elles, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Barker, B.

Elton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Blaker, L.

Fearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Feldman, L.

Bowness, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Freeman, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Freyberg, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Geddes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Geraint, L.

Burnham, L.

Glentoran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Byford, B.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greaves, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hamwee, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Harris of Richmond. B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Henley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Higgins, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooson, L.

337

Howe, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Parkinson, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Peel, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hylton, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Jacobs, L.

Rawlings, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Razzall, L.

Joffe. L.

Redesdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Rennard, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Renton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Laird, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Roper, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E.

Listowel, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Liverpool, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sandberg, L.

Luke, L.

Sandwich, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Sharman, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Methuen, L.

Taverne, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Moynihan, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Tope, L.

Newby, L.

Trefgame, L.

Noakes, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Northbrook, L.

Walmsley, B.

Northover, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Weatherill, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wigoder, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Wilcox, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Onslow, E.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Amos, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Filkin, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bragg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brett, L.

Goudie, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

Harrison, L.

Christopher, L.

Hayman, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Dubs, L.

338

Islwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sawyer, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Judd, L.

Sewel, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Simon, V.

Layard, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Monson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Parekh, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Pitkeathley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winston, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 147 votes. The Clerks recorded 146 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
Clause 29 [Conditions of residence]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12:
Page 16, line 1, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of"
Page 16, line 7, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of"
Page 16, line 13, leave out second "condition" and insert "restriction"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Financial contribution by resident]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 20, leave out "imposed by virtue of section 29" and insert "of residence"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Education: general]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
The Lord Bishopof Portsmouth moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 35.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I apologise to the House as I should have moved this amendment formally three weeks ago on the second day of Report stage. Noble Lords are offered an episcopal grovel, or, to change to naval parlance, I failed to get alongside last time. I am now trying, with the leave of the Government, to do a pier-head jump. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

339
Clause 36 [Education: special cases]:
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthmoved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 36
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 37 [Local authority]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert "and an Education and Library Board established under Article 3 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3))"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 ["Prescribed": orders and regulations]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 22, leave out line 25.
Page 22, line 34, after "section" insert "24, (Length of stay: general) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 2
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Destitute asylum-seeker]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 24, line 32, leave out "95(3)" and insert "95(2)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 clarifies the fact that Clause 43(6) replaces subsection (2) of the current Section 95 of the 1999 Act, as well as subsections (3) to (8). Clause 43(6) makes revisions to Section 95 of the 1999 Act to bring it into line with the accommodation centre provisions in Part 2. An equivalent provision to current Section 95(2) is contained in new Section 95(8)(a). Current Section 95(2) will therefore become redundant upon commencement of Clause 43(6).
The remainder of the amendments in this group are purely technical, minor and consequential upon Amendment No. 21. They update the necessary cross-references in the Bill and the 1999 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 22 to 30:
Page 24, line 34, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)"
Page 24, line 39, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)"
Page 25, line 1, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)"
Page 25, line 2, leave out "(3) or (4)" and insert "(2) or (3)"
Page 25, line 4, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)"
Page 25, line 5, leave out "(3) or (4)" and insert "(2) or (3)"
Page 25, line 12, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)"
Page 25, line 13, leave out "(3) and (4)" and insert "(2) and (3)"
Page 25, line 15, leave out "(8)" and insert "(7)"
340
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44 [Section 43: supplemental]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 37:
Page 25, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (support: interim provision)—
(a) for "Subsections (3) to (8) of section 95" substitute "Subsections (2) to (6) of section 95", and
(b) for "subsections (5) and (7)" substitute "subsections (4) and (5)"."
Page 26, line 1, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 3, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 26, line 7, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 9, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 26, line 13, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 15, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Section 43: supplemental: Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 51:
Page 26, line 21, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 23, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 26,1ine 28, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 30, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 26, line 34, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2)10 (7)"
Page 26, line 36, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 26,1ine 41, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 26, line 43, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 27, line 3, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 27, line 5, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
Page 27, line 11, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "9512) to (7)"
Page 27, line 13, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "9514) or (5)"
Page 27, line 16, leave out "95(3) to (8)" and insert "95(2) to (7)"
Page 27, line 18, leave out "95(5) or (6)" and insert "95(4) or (5)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Conditions of support]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 29, line 3, after "paragraph" insert "2 or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are technical amendments designed to ensure that provision of support can be linked to a requirement to report to an immigration or police officer in all cases. As drafted, the Bill does not link provision of support with a requirement to report in those few number of cases in which a person is subject to deportation action.
I have previously made it clear that experience has shown us that it is necessary to have a more managed asylum process with tighter controls within that process. Our proposal to link provision of support with compliance with a condition to report is simply part of a package of amendments aimed at ensuring that we achieve the tighter control that we require. Asylum seekers who report as instructed will have

341
absolutely nothing to fear from our proposal to link provision of support to compliance with a requirement to report.
Regular reporting enables the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to obtain information from the asylum seeker. Equally, it gives the asylum seeker regular face-to-face contact with officials who can give advice on the status of the asylum claim.
Failure to report without reasonable cause may be an indication that the person is not complying with the asylum process. Asylum support is provided only while an asylum claim is under consideration. It would be wholly unjustifiable to use public money to support those who are not prepared to comply with all aspects of the asylum process.
Amendment No. 63 ensures that the travel expenses of those subject to deportation action who are required to report to an immigration or police officer can be met. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 29, line 10, after "paragraph" insert "2 or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Late claim for asylum: refusal of support]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 3
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 61 [Detention by Secretary of State]:
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 34, line 40, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "any of those paragraphs"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are minor technical amendments. It is not my intention to discuss them in detail. They simply change the wording in subsections (1) and (2) to make them more comprehensible. Amendment No. 60 adds a further reference to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Amendment No. 61 corrects an error—noble Lords will be happy about that—and inserts a missing word.
Amendment No. 71 makes it clear that the limitations in the following clause apply to the making of a deportation order while an appeal is pending. Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 will mean that a deportation order cannot be made during the time allowed for appealing against the decision to make it or while that appeal is pending. We believe that that is more straightforward.
342
There is little practical point in making a deportation order until the appeal against that decision has been determined. If the appeal is allowed, the deportation order simply cannot be made. If it has already been made, it has to be revoked.
We gave an undertaking to put on the face of the Bill in Clauses 68 and 69 a definition of a "dependant". Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 give effect to that undertaking. We believe that we have produced a common-sense definition, which avoids the need to resort to an order-making power. Amendment No. 74 clarifies the drafting by ensuring that the same scope of certification applies as applies under the 1999 Act.
Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 concern the removal of asylum applicants where a safe third country is responsible for determining the asylum claim. Amendment No. 75 limits the power to remove an asylum applicant who has also claimed that removal would breach his or her human rights. Removal cannot take place while the period allowed for lodging an appeal is still running, unless the human rights claim is certified. Amendment No. 77 lifts that barrier to removal when the time limit for appealing expires.
Amendment No. 76 imports the definition of "human rights claim" from Part 5, and Amendment No. 78 refers back to that change. Amendment No. 79 substitutes a reference to this Bill for an obsolete reference to the 1999 Act.
I have no intention of speaking further to this group of amendments but I should be happy to try to answer the questions of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful for any removal of order-making powers from the Bill and the substitution of words that give substantive meaning to terms that are used in it. In a limited way, I welcome the definitions that are now found in Clauses 68 and 69. I am not sure whether that takes the position a great deal further than it was when we determined the order-making power in the first instance.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I assume that who is dependent on whom will be ascertained through the processes used in induction centres. Initially, it may not be absolutely clear who is the dependant and who is the primary asylum seeker. Will the Minister give an assurance that it will not be automatically assumed that a spouse or child will not have a right of application for asylum in his or her own right and that they are the dependant of some other person? I ask that because the definition will be extremely important. The behaviour of an asylum seeker or dependant in respect of conditions or restrictions may result in the withdrawal of all support or detention. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, give an assurance that, where a person appears to be making a claim as a dependant, but is subsequently found not to be, any breach of

343
restrictions by that person will not impact on the asylum seeker and his or her actual dependants, and vice versa?
Lord Bassamof Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I can give an assurance on both of those points. They appear to be entirely reasonable and fair.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassamof Brighton moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 35, line 12, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "either of those paragraphs"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthmoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 35, line 22, at end insert—
"(3A) Nothing in this section, or in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) shall permit—

(a) the detention of a person under the age of 18 for more than 7 days, or, in exceptional circumstances, 10 days, or

(b) the detention of a person if the result of that detention would be the detention of a person under the age of eighteen for a period of more than 7 days, or, in exceptional circumstances, 10 days."

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the amendment would introduce a statutory limit on the time that children under 18 may be detained with their families. On 10th October, an attempt was made on Report to amend the Bill so as to prohibit altogether the detention of children, but it failed.
The amendment refers to seven to 10 days as the time limit because that is the limit that is already set by the Government for detaining families in Oakington. That time limit is not intended to assert that detention is acceptable for that length of time; it is included because the Government insist on their right to detain, so the Oakington limit should apply to all cases involving the detention of children.
It is a matter of great concern that there is no time limit on the duration of detention for all those detained, whether children or adults. The report made to the UK following the 1998 visit of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended that detention should be,
for the shortest possible time",
with, crucially,
an absolute maximum duration specified in law".
The uncertainty and frustration that is caused to children and their families simply by not knowing how long they will be detained is a major cause of psychological distress. A report from an unannounced short inspection to Campsfield House in 1995, which I have with me—it is coloured a rather bilious and High Church shade of yellow—concluded for adult detainees that.
detention without time limit no matter how reasonable the conditions, is extremely stressful. When combined with an uncertain future, language difficulties, a perceived or real lack of information and the fact that some detainees appeared terrified at the prospect of being deported, the stress increases".
344
For children, that uncertainty is likely to have an even more severe effect.
A time limit on detention would not need to inhibit the ability of the Government to remove a family where the process had been completed. It has been reported to Bail for Immigration Detainees by detained families with whom they are in contact that removal directions are often not issued until very close to the attempted removal—two days or less, often covering a weekend—even if those concerned have been detained for several weeks or months. Seven to 10 days provides plenty of time for the purposes for which the Government state that the detention of children is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord avebury: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I do not wish to add much to what the right reverend Prelate said because the matter was canvassed fairly thoroughly at previous stages of the Bill. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there has been a material change of policy—a matter of which the Minister said he was not aware when we discussed it on Report.
Initially, in Chapter 12 of the White Paper. Fairer, Faster and Firmer, we were told that:
"The detention of families and children is particularly regrettable, but is also sometimes necessary to effect the removal of those who have no authority to remain in the UK, and who refuse to leave voluntarily. Such detention should be planned to be effected as close to removal as possible so as to ensure that families are not … detained for more than a few days".
As your Lordships will be aware, in the latest White Paper that position has changed significantly in that families are detained not only in order to effect removal but also where it is justifiable at other times or for longer than only a few days. The Home Office wrote to BID and other organisations on 25th October 2001 drawing attention to the change in policy as regards the detention of families.
Therefore, more children and more families are now being detained than has ever been the case in the past. As the right reverend Prelate said, that causes significant stress to families and also to pregnant women, who were dealt with in the recent report by BID. I hope that that report has come to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin.
At the weekend, I spoke to a detainee in Harmondsworth. I shall not give her name on the Floor of the House but I shall give the reference number in the event that the Minister wants to find out more about the case. The detainee's number is K1083062. She arrived at Waterloo on 2nd February 2001 and, after entry, applied for asylum through the advice of lawyers. She was originally detained in Harmondsworth on 20th June 2001 and she has been there ever since. That was after a period in Dungavel.
This lady was pregnant when she was detained. She subsequently miscarried owing to the stress that she suffered. She also has a small child, who was born on 18th April 2001. The child has suffered a series of illnesses during the period of detention and is presently not at all healthy. The detainee told me that she has experienced great difficulty in obtaining medical

345
attention, first, at the time of the miscarriage and, more recently, for the child. Apparently in Harmondsworth it is not possible to see a doctor within a few days. Someone else—normally the nurse—treats people with minor illnesses but sometimes that is not altogether successful.
Therefore, from that single example, one can see that the detention of mothers with children is extremely harmful and stressful to the individual and is not undertaken simply at the end of the process in order to effect removal. As a matter of fact, the lady's lawyers have applied for judicial review of the decision by the adjudicator, and that is awaiting a hearing. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that, when a judicial review is pending, normally the authorities give bail. In this case, the detainee could be released to the father of the child, who lives in London; yet she is still detained in Harmondsworth.
I know that BID could multiply that example many times over. I object most strongly to the policy of detaining so many families with small children. Therefore, I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply to the amendment, he will be able to say some very persuasive things to the House. It is not really a question of whether or not, by existing conventions, we are legally bound to a particular position; it is a question of every Member of this House knowing damned well that no innocent child should be locked up if that can possibly be avoided. It is obviously a damaging experience, and it is not acceptable to see innocent youngsters being affected in that way. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will address himself seriously to the issues raised, even at the 11th hour in this amendment, and that he will give us a convincing response.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I understand the Government's position on detaining children with their families when absolutely necessary—for example, overnight, when there is no alternative. Those of us who are persisting with the amendment seek simply to clarify the Government's position on detention for longer periods. That remains obscure, despite the assurances given to us on the previous occasion.
On 10th October, for example, the Minister spoke of his desire to minimise the time that children are detained with their families. But how could that be done without a statutory limit or, at least, guidance? The Government's failure to provide written reasons for detention and to set time limits on the detention of children is an area of immigration law which desperately requires reform.
In the view of the Children's Consortium, BID and others, the present Bill represents a clear shift in policy towards longer periods of detention. That is borne out by the increase in family accommodation. The Prison Reform Trust reports that as many as 10,000 people were detained in 2000 and that the estate is to be, again,
346
more than doubled in size to 4,000 places. Inevitably, more children will be detained for longer periods. This is no time to describe that, but we can imagine the effect that such detention is already having and the effect that it will have on those other children. We heard from case studies presented in Committee that some families remain in detention for several weeks before being released, pending further decisions. Surely their release in itself demonstrates that the period of detention is entirely unnecessary.
Next week we shall again discuss education, but it is worth pointing out that detained children are among the most vulnerable in society. They are separated even more from their peers in mainstream schools than are other children seeking asylum. Detention or so-called "removal" will never provide an appropriate environment for children and they violate their basic human rights. Detention and removal can never be in the children's best interests and will only exacerbate their existing problems. Therefore, will the Government reconsider, even at this stage, this critical aspect of the length of a child's detention?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is necessary, particularly because there are not to be regular and automatic bail hearings. The onus is on the Government to show that non-acceptance of the amendment would lead to serious difficulties with the removal of people who have exhausted all possible appeals and processes in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned pregnant women. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister has already given assurances that they will not be detained. If that is the case, I hope that he will repeat them again this evening.
7 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, rightly, we have previously spoken about this issue at length. Therefore, I shall not go into too much detail. I explained at the previous stage of the Bill that we virtually never detain unaccompanied minors—a matter which comes under the first part of the amendment. The circumstances in which we do, which I instanced, are when they arrive late at night at a port and it is not possible to access social services to take them into care on their own.
As regards families with children, we start from the position that we want to minimise their detention, but it is clearly necessary to detain them in certain circumstances. The Government do not approach this frivolously. Perhaps I may make clear the circumstances in which we use detention. It may be used for persons whose identity and basis of claim need to be established; for persons who are unlikely to comply with the conditions of temporary admission or temporary release, and to effect removal—in other words, where we think it necessary to detain a family with children for the proper administration of immigration or asylum processes otherwise there is a judgment that they would abscond. The other reason concerns the use of Oakington, which we have discussed previously. Where it is judged that persons can be fast tracked, they may be detained at Oakington.

347
The other implication of the amendment would be that we would detain the parents and take the children into care. That is an horrific implication. We do not believe that children should be separated from their parents in those circumstances; they should be with their parents or their legal guardian. Alternatively, the argument is that we should never detain a family with children for more than seven days. The consequence of that--I am sorry to have to spell it out—would be significant abuse. It would be known that a family with children would be unlikely to be detained for long and would be able simply to disappear into the community.
However, detention involving children is a serious step. We do not take it lightly. The interests of the child are taken into account. The ECHR and domestic law stipulate that detention must be for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the purposes for which it is authorised and must not be of excessive duration.
I shall say little more, but should respond to the concern that there might he tens of thousands of people potentially at risk. The number of families with children detained to date is 19. The number detained a week ago was 16. No doubt it would be a better world if no families with children were detained but we do not believe that that is the real world. I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he would clarify what he has just said; it may be that I am at fault. When he said that there are certain numbers presently detained, did he mean that they were actively detained during that period, or that that is the total number of people detained? It is important to know the total number of families with children detained.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as of today the total number of families in detention with children is 19.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down would he reconsider presenting the ghastly spectre of care as an alternative to detention? It is not so ghastly and there are many other alternatives.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government's position is clear: where possible, families should be together. The same applies to asylum seekers as to British citizens. We believe that it is better that children are with their families than taken into care.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm that in relation to these children the public policy that we pursue in this country—that the interests of the child are paramount—holds in the philosophy that the Government pursue in this matter?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have not much to add apart from repetition. The interests of the child are extremely important. That is why we believe that they should be with their parents or legal guardian while they are claiming asylum. If the argument is that we should never detain for a sufficient period to operate
348
immigration and asylum law for longer than seven days, I have to advise the House that that would make the operation of the immigration and asylum laws impracticable and would be open to widespread abuse.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his continuing patience with this whole process. We are talking about detention centres, not the new accommodation centres. I simply do not accept his line about unknown identity and significant abuse. If the numbers being detained are so few, why not impose this limit in the context of a government giving every commitment to speeding up the process? I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the House.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Avebury, L.

Methuen, L.

Barker, B.

Moynihan, L.

Bowness, L.

Newby, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Northover, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fearn, L.

Rennard, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Roper, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell, E.

Greaves, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Guildford, Bp. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market. B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sharman, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hylton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Taverne, L.

Joffe, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lichfield, Bp. [Teller]

Tope, L.

Listowel, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Walmsley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

McNally, L.

Weatherill, L.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Amos, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Bach, L.

Borne, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Bragg, L.

349

Brett, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monson, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turnberg, L.

Hams of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

*[The Tellers for the Contents reported 68 votes. The Clerks recorded 69 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 35, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) At the end of section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (person not deemed to have entered United Kingdom while detained, &c.) there shall be inserted "or section 61 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Detention centres: change of name]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 38, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) section 141(5)(e) and (6) of that Act (fingerprinting),"
Page 38, line 25, after second "or' insert "the"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCE TO PERSON LIABLE TO DETENTION
(1) This section applies to the construction of a provision which—

(a) does not confer power to detain a person, but

(b) refers (in any terms) to a person who is liable to detention under a provision of the Immigration Acts.

(2) The reference shall be taken to include a person if the only reason why he cannot be detained under the provision is that

(a) he cannot presently be removed from the United Kingdom, because of a legal impediment connected with the United Kingdom's obligations under an international agreement,

(b) practical difficulties are impeding or delaying the making of arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom, or

(c) practical difficulties, or demands on administrative resources, are impeding or delaying the, taking of a decision in respect of him.

(3) This section shall be treated as always having had effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report we discussed an earlier version of Amendment No. 62. There was both concern and confusion, perhaps in equal measure, about exactly what it sought to do. We have since written to the noble Lords who spoke in that debate and provided an explanatory memorandum, which I hope explains the position much more clearly and puts at rest noble Lords' concerns.
In short, it tries to establish the position which has always applied; that if the person who fell into one of the categories of people liable to be detained under the Immigration Acts but who could not lawfully be detained for one of the reasons listed, the alternative of granting temporary admission or release subject to conditions should be available.
That is what everyone has understood the law to have been up to this point in time. As to a person who qualifies in principle for detention but who cannot be detained for specific reasons, the Government, in using their immigration powers, can grant him temporary admission and release subject to conditions, such as reporting conditions.
That was always understood to be the position. However, in the case of Hwez and Khadir, Mr Justice Crane held that the term,
"liable to be detained",
did not refer to the category of person, but in effect means,
"could lawfully be detained at that moment".
In other words, if the point is reached where someone can no longer be lawfully detained, the alternative of granting temporary release on conditions is not available. That would apply even where the person is already on temporary admission and is not actually detained when the point at which his hypothetical detention would not be lawful is reached.
I shall not go into great detail. I think that the House can understand how difficult that would be. In order to put the matter beyond debate we have sought to clarify the law by this amendment. I am happy to speak in more detail if that would help. Perhaps I should, given the experience on Report.

351
There has been a briefing circulated by ILPA based on the previous wording suggesting that the intention is to create a blanket power to detain. That is not the case. But where we cannot detain someone, we must continue to be able to require them to live at a particular address and to report to the police or to the Immigration Service on a regular basis.
Following the discussion on Report, the clause has been amended to reduce its breadth. Its application is now explicitly restricted to provisions which do not actually create a power to detain. There is therefore no question of extending the existing detention powers or of creating a new power. and consequently no question of the clause being incompatible with Article 5 of the ECHR either. I hope this satisfies the concerns expressed by the JCHR.
The clause makes clear that, when used in non-detention provisions, the term "liable to detention" includes people who cannot be detained for one of the reasons listed in subsection (2). That in turn means that they can continue to be given temporary admission, and, if appropriate, residence and reporting conditions will continue to apply. Subsection (3) of the amendment provides that it will always have applied.
I recognise that there may be anxiety about the retrospective effect, but I have already given a clear undertaking that no one will face criminal charges for failing to comply with conditions solely as a result of the retrospective effect of this clause. I have also explained why the retrospective application is necessary. Without it, the Immigration Service would have to go through each and every case in which someone is on temporary admission, decide whether detention would have been unlawful at any stage and, if so, grant temporary admission again. That would be a mammoth—almost Herculean—undertaking. Giving the clause retrospective effect avoids that and will allow resources to be used more productively.
Amendment No. 62A to the amendment, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, would delete subsection (3) and remove the retrospective effect. I was disappointed that the Select Committee on the Constitution chose to describe my undertaking as no more than "somewhat reassuring". My words on that occasion are a matter of record and were chosen with care. My undertaking was not a reassurance; it was a clear statement of intent on behalf of the Government.
However, if that is considered insufficient, there is the further point that prosecuting authorities will be bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and, once in force, the provision will have to be read in accordance with Section 3 of that Act. That being so, there can be no question of retrospective criminal liability or of a breach of Article 7 of the ECHR.
To repeat, no-one will be disadvantaged or penalised by the retrospective application and there will be substantial benefit to the public purse by doing through legislation what would otherwise have to be done by a team of officials. I hope that, having heard what I have said, noble Lords will agree not to pursue their amendment.
352
The Select Committee on the Constitution also expressed concern that by legislating before the Court of Appeal has heard the case we are interfering with litigation currently before the courts. We do not believe that that is the case. The Court of Appeal will not hear the case until early next year and the judgment is already giving rise to problems for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. We want to be able to require people subject to immigration controls who do not have leave to be in the UK to live at a specified address and report to the police or the Immigration Service regularly. Such reporting requirements are an utterly normal and proper part of immigration processes. That is a matter of policy, and it strikes me that, as such, it is clearly and properly a matter for legislation. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 62A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 62, not moved.]
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking so seriously the comments made a fortnight ago by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Carlisle and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who cannot be here today. I thank him too for the explanatory note that he had promised us and for moving the new clause.
My noble friends sitting in front of me who are lawyers—I am not—may have more to say about one or two of the words in the new clause, but I give my personal thanks to the Select Committee on the Constitution. In 23 years in the Palace of Westminster, I have never found that a speech of mine caused such a reaction as my remarks the other night, supported by my noble friends. I am amazed but delighted that the new clause would, according to the Select Committee on the Constitution,
"threaten the following constitutional principles … the rule of law…by retrospectively altering the liabilities and obligations of people who are liable to removal from the United Kingdom pending their removal…the rule of law…by depriving people of the benefit of judgments in their favour…and…the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, and the rule of law…by interfering with litigation currently before the courts".
That is quite a handful. Without rehearsing all the arguments in our debate on Amendment No. 3, it shows the necessity of having sufficient time to scrutinise legislation in the Commons and here. If we do not, we are liable to end up with bad laws. With the greatest respect to the Minister, if the original clause had been passed—if the errors had not been spotted—it would have been bad law.
As a layman, I find it hard to grasp the distinction in meaning between a person "liable to detention" and "a power to detain", which is, in essence, the Minister's point. His reason for that is that previous immigration Acts do not use the phrase, "liable to detention". Any layman would assume that "liable to detention" gave a power to detain. That is a commonsense interpretation. However, from what we are told, that is not the case and so the new clause makes that clear.

353
That leads me to say that the Bill is far too complicated. I do not understand how anyone—any lawyer without huge immigration experience—could properly wend his way through it. It makes enormous reference to previous Acts—a practice to which my noble friend Lord Renton constantly objects. Time has come for a proper consolidation Bill to pull all those things together so that they are explicable to the ordinary person.
The new clause clearly anticipates an unfavourable result from the Court of Appeal to Mr Justice Crane's interpretation of "liable to detention". That is one reason for it. Its retrospective nature remains. It is clearly stated in the Minister's explanatory letter that,
"It would be a truly Herculean task to go through all the thousands of cases of people on temporary admission to identify who might have been affected by the judgment in Hwez and Khadir"—
which is the case on which Mr. Justice Crane pronounced and which is now being appealed to the Court of Appeal, and then, possibly to the House of Lords.
In all my time in the House of Commons, I always voted against retrospection of any sort. I considered it bad policy. The provision is an attempt to get the Government out of a muddle forced on them by one judgment and one judge's interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "liable to detention". But this is dangerous territory. I do not quarrel with the new clause; the Government have done their best at this stage. But they are still skating on thin ice. None the less, I thank the Minister for the time and trouble he has taken.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I join in those thanks. I do not quarrel with the new clause, but I find myself almost stupefied by it. Perhaps the Minister will deal with these questions. First, does the Government's argument depend on the proposition that the phrase "liable to detention" under the relevant Acts has a different meaning from "may be detained"? Secondly, if so, is that because "liable to detention" has the significance of a term of art?
Where legislation is ambiguous, is it not a principle of construction that the courts will always prefer the construction that favours the liberty of the individual? Is there not still an ambiguity? How confident is the Minister that there is some arcane but none the less watertight distinction between the meaning of one phrase compared to the other? Most of us would say that "may be detained" means "liable to detention". Most of us would say that "liable to detention" means "may be detained". I hope that I have sufficiently explained the nature of my anxieties to the Minister at this late hour.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am concerned about people who cannot be removed from the country but do not have leave to enter or remain. I do not want them to be in limbo or a vacuum. I have no objection if they are required to live in a known, defined place or have conditions of reporting attached to them.
354
However, it is important that they should be entitled to work, if they can get it, and to normal national health care for themselves and education for their children. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on those points.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. Mr Justice Crane interpreted the law in a way that neither the Government nor their legal advisers believed was likely. Therefore, he opened up this lacuna. We had not thought that it was likely that that construction could be put upon the words, but he is a justice of the Crown and one must believe that he had good reason for doing so. We shall wait to see what the appeal brings forth.
We do not necessarily take the view that we shall have an unfavourable result on appeal, although one cannot be 100 per cent certain of judgments on appeal. If the decision goes against us for a second time, we would have a considerable problem. Hence the need for the legislation now.
I turn to the extremely good but difficult questions posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. The phrase "liable to detention" describes a class of person who may be detained, so that class of person is different. I am also advised that the clause has the desired effect. I am not a lawyer and I have not spent hours studying the clauses, but clearly we have put some considerable effort into considering the issue following the discussion and the perfectly good scrutiny process that occurred after withdrawal of the amendment on the previous occasion. I am as confident as I can be that the Government have given this matter serious consideration and believe that they have now put the matter right. For those reasons we believe that our amendment is necessary.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister reply to my point about limbo? Can he also give an assurance that the people to whom this amendment applies will be granted limited leave to remain and that that limited leave will be periodically reviewed.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for not responding to his questions. I am struggling to see whether they are relevant to this amendment. Responding to his points takes us over issues that we have discussed throughout the Bill rather than just on this specific issue. In no sense am I seeking to avoid the questions, but for the efficiency of the House and because I do not believe that they bear directly on this measure, I shall write to him to set out the Government's position.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, perhaps a simpler way of summarising the Minister's remarks would be to say that the Home Office is of the opinion that they will win in the Court of Appeal, but they are not absolutely sure that they can be confident in that opinion.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not engage in a reply. The point is well expressed and there is no need for me

355
to nod consent to it. On the limbo point, the purpose of the clause is to avoid limbo, but such people will not be granted leave to remain; they will be on temporary admission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Reporting restriction: travel expenses]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 39, line 30, after "paragraph" insert "2 or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Induction]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 40, line 3, leave out from ""dependant" to "and" in line 4 and insert "of an asylum-seeker" means a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be making a claim or application in respect of residence in the United Kingdom by virtue of being a dependant of an asylum-seeker,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Asylum-seeker: residence, &c. restriction]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 41, line 6, leave out from ""dependant" to end of line 7 and insert "means a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be making a claim or application in respect of residence in the United Kingdom by virtue of being a dependant of another person"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Serious criminal]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 41, line 19, leave out from "is" to end of line 22 and insert "convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and either—

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the statutory presumption proposed in Clause 70 that a person is presumed to be a serious criminal for the purposes of the refugee convention if certain criteria are met. The presumption is a rebuttable one; but if it is not rebutted, the refugee convention provides that the person may lose his right to protection. Your Lordships will recall that, on Report, the House agreed to an amendment that changed the approach proposed by the Government that the presumption should apply where a person had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment or more.
The proceedings in your Lordships' House on Report were misunderstood by the national media. The BBC and several newspapers stated that the effect of the amendment agreed to on Report was simply to raise the threshold for the imposition of the presumption in an individual case from a sentence of two years' imprisonment being imposed on a defendant to one of 10 years' imprisonment and that, in consequence, it would be harder for criminals to be deported.
I cannot stress too strongly that that is simply not the case. All such reports were factually incorrect. What was agreed on Report provides greater protection for the United Kingdom against those who commit serious crime. The Government's original wording in Clause 70 provided for the presumption to be applied once a person had been sentenced to two
356
years' imprisonment or more. As your Lordships are well aware, the amendment standing in my name that was agreed to on a Division on Report did not simply substitute the figure 10 for the figure 2; it changed the whole basis for the imposition of the presumption.
There are a number of problems with the Government's preferred test. Chief among them, in practical terms, is the creation of the bizarre situation that a person sentenced to two years for assault or evasion of VAT, for example, would be presumed to be a serious criminal and a danger to the community in the United Kingdom, but a person sentenced to 18, 21 or even 23 months for dealing in drugs or for a sexual offence against a child would not be presumed to he a serious criminal.
The test approved by your Lordships on Report did away with that anomaly which was the result of the Government's original drafting. The Bill now provides for the presumption to be applied in the case of any person who is convicted of a crime that carries a maximum sentence—1 stress "a maximum sentence"—of 10 years or more. That is regardless of the punishment actually imposed.
I want to make it absolutely clear that Clause 70, as amended on Report, does not require the actual imposition of a sentence of 10 years or more before a person is deemed to be a serious criminal: it requires that the person is convicted of a crime for which he could be sentenced to 10 years or more. By doing away with the Government's criterion of an actual sentence of two years, drug dealers and sex offenders who are sentenced to less than two years will still be caught by the provisions of the clause. In my submission, that provides greater protection for the community of the United Kingdom than the Government's original proposal.
As I have made clear, in my submission, the amendments before your Lordships more clearly reflect the United Kingdom's international obligation under the refugee convention by focusing on the type of crime committed rather than the level of punishment imposed. Indeed, as noble Lords on the Government Front Bench and those who advise them will be aware, the test that we are advocating is the very one that the Government recently decided to use in respect of whether to allow convicted criminals into the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules. I refer to the announcement made to your Lordships on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in a Written Answer on 24th October 2000 at col. WA 18 of the Official Report.
In another place on 21st November 2000, the then immigration Minister, Mrs Barbara Roche, said that the Government wanted to,
"focus the power on those offences of most concern to the public…offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or more, or any offences involving violence, violent sexual behaviour or firearms".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/ 11/00; col. 149W.)
The amendments now before your Lordships would replicate that test in the context of Clause 70. They would retain the threshold of offences for which the maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment, or

357
more, but would introduce an additional opportunity for the Home Secretary to specify offences that carry a maximum of less than 10 years, the commission of which will also attract the presumption in the clause that a person is a "serious criminal". These might include such serious offences as child abduction, violent disorder, possession of child pornography, and dealing in class C drugs. As I made clear both in Committee and on Report, such an additional requirement is necessary because there are serious offences, such as those that I have described, that Parliament has decided should not attract a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, or more.
In conclusion, in my submission, and for the reasons that I have set out, these amendments provide for greater protection for the UK community against those who may abuse our hospitality by committing serious crimes, as well as fulfilling this country's international obligations by focusing on crime rather than punishment, which is the test set out in the refugee convention. I commend the amendments to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps he could deal with the specific case of people who are detained under the mental health Acts. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the UNHCR has made representations on the matter and expressed concern about the wording of subsection (9)(b)(ii) of this clause, which includes a reference to,
"a person who is sentenced to detention … in an institution other than a prison (including, in particular, a hospital or an institution for young offenders)".
I am sure that the representations of the UNHCR must be well known to the Government, but it has said that the broad nature of this provision would cover individuals who are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and who have neither been convicted of a particularly serious crime nor even, perhaps, been tried in relation to a charge of such a crime.
In addition, and more disturbingly, the UNHCR says that the provision would apply to individuals who are placed in such institutions because of the potential harm that they may inflict on themselves, and who do not pose—or never have posed—any risk to society. In particular, the UNHCR draws attention to the fact that this may include persons who are survivors of torture and sufferers from trauma arising from that experience and the mental illness that follows from the injuries that they received.
I hope that the Government have taken on board the concerns that have been expressed by the UNHCR, because they do not seem to be met by the wording of the clause as it stands.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Conservative amendment. We preferred the amendment that we moved on Report to the one moved by the Conservatives, but we thought that their
358
amendment was an improvement on what was previously in the Bill. Therefore, we supported them in the Division Lobby when their amendment was won.
We accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there are offences which could be regarded as serious crimes that attract a maximum sentence of less than 10 years. It would have been preferable if the noble Lord's amendment had required the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure for specifying offences, because it is important for Parliament to have a proper opportunity to debate the offences before they are added to the list by an order of the Secretary of State. However, it is perhaps our fault for not having tabled an amendment to that effect. In those circumstances, there is nothing that we can do about the situation. With, as will have been obvious, a certain lack of enthusiasm, we shall support this amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about mental health and detention in hospitals. I raised the point during the previous stage of the Bill, but I do not believe I received a full reply on that occasion. While I am on my feet, I should like to draw attention to another anomaly in the clause; namely, that subsection (2) refers to "ten years", whereas subsection (9) makes mention of "two years". Perhaps that is something that should also be rectified.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in seeking to define the term "particularly serious crime" in Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, the Government have always held the view that the definition should cover any offence for which a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment has been imposed. A person whose offence falls within the definition is presumed to constitute a danger to the community. As the House knows, we decided on that yardstick to make clear the high standards of conduct expected from refugees who have the privilege of residence in this country.
As noble Lords know, the House did not agree with the Government on Report and voted to insert the new Clause 70, by way of the opposition amendment. However, our stance on the matter has not changed. We do not believe that defining a "particularly serious crime" in terms of an offence with a potential maximum sentence of 10 years, or more, is preferable.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 would retain the 10-year criteria. But we believe that an actual sentence criteria gives a fair and more accurate reflection of the seriousness of the offence, because, among other factors, it will take into account the individual circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has previously been critical of this approach and has observed that the presumption relates to the punishment imposed and not to the crime committed. The amendment that found favour on Report was

359
intended to rectify this apparent deficiency in our approach. I respect the noble Lord's views, but I am afraid that we have still not changed our position.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which I find both illogical and illegal. In those circumstances, I should like to take the opinion of the House.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before doing so, perhaps I may complete my response.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I assumed that he had already finished. Having told me that he did not accept my amendment, it seemed reasonable to think that that was the end of play.
Lord Filkin: Would it were always so, my Lords; but, unfortunately, that is not the case.
In our view, the best measure of the severity of a crime is not the sentence that could have been imposed but the sentence that was actually imposed. One needs only to think of a range of cases that arise, for example, in manslaughter convictions. A maximum sentence of life is imposable, and, in the more serious cases of manslaughter, is imposed. However, on other occasions the circumstances of a case are such that the sentence imposed will be much less and, sometimes, may not even be custodial.
Where a short sentence has been imposed for a type of crime that could have received a much higher sentence, we would argue that that reflects the fact that the crime was not a particularly serious one in relative terms. Our approach—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in those circumstances, would it not follow that it might be relatively easy to rebut the presumption that the person who had been convicted of the offence was not a danger to the public?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it might or might not, and, therefore, the person would exercise their right of remedy, and it would be heard in the courts. One cannot automatically assume that that would be the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is a disadvantage of any approach based on years that the more severe and arbitrary the country concerned, the more people will be excluded from the protection of the convention? I hope that that was not the Government's intention.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as so often with the noble Earl, one needs time to reflect on exactly what trap one is being invited to jump into. On this occasion, I will again take advantage of such a period of reflection.
I was discussing manslaughter and using it as an illustration of the wide variability that could occur and to show why we believe in a simpler and more practical approach. When deciding to adopt the two-year actual
360
sentence criterion, we also had regard to the different criminal justice system in Scotland. There, there is a wider range of common law offences for which, if a trial is on indictment, there is no maximum sentence. Thus, if potential sentence were used as the measure, a maximum penalty of x years criterion could be satisfied in Scotland in cases in which it would not he satisfied elsewhere in the UK. That would not be a desirable outcome. Members will recollect the arguments from Report.
The idea behind Amendment No. 68 is, presumably, to enable the Government to specify certain offences that had maximum sentences lower than 10 years or more but would still be generally regarded as particularly serious. Offences that could be specified might include, for example, theft, child abduction and placing articles to cause a bomb hoax. Those offences have a seven-year maximum sentence. Also suitable for inclusion would be certain offences at the five-year maximum level—for example, assault, causing actual bodily harm, violent disorder and the supply, production or importation of class C drugs.
I am grateful to noble Lords for being willing to take account of the Government's views expressed in earlier debates. That is how we saw the response by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. However, even though a list system of the kind proposed could ensure that a wider range of serious offences was brought within the scope of Article 33(2), the major difficulty is the lack of reference to actual sentences. When considering whether Article 33(2) should apply to a particular refugee, the Home Office should use a measure that is relevant to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The individual and particular facts of each case must be examined, which is the approach that we take when considering an asylum application for the first time. As I said, the actual sentence is the best measure of the severity of the crime.
Through Amendment No. 69, the noble Lord wishes to leave out subsection (9)(b). With its reference to two years' imprisonment, the subsection makes no sense, following the change made to Clause 70 on Report. Alternatively or additionally, the noble Lord may wish to omit the subsection because it provides for the inclusion within Article 33(2) of people detained in an institution under the mental health powers. Whatever the reason, we believe that it would be wrong to omit subsection (9)(b) and put nothing in its place.
The purpose of the subsection is to ensure that the different types of order to which we wish Article 33(2) to apply are covered by the clause. Thus, for example, young offenders under 21 are generally not subject to imprisonment; instead, they are detained. Mandatory life sentences and indeterminate periods of detention in young offender institutions must be provided for. Those technical points—and others—are included in subsection (9)(b). If the subsection is left out, it will not be possible to apply Article 33(2) effectively, and we will encounter problems in the law.

361
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I appreciate the reservations about including within Article 33(2) people who are convicted of an offence and who, in view of their mental disorder, are made subject to a hospital order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. As I said, the Government are aware that a hospital order can be made by a court after a relatively minor offence, such as shoplifting or taking a motor vehicle without consent. The key issue is not the offence but whether the person needs to be detained for hospital treatment.
I assure the House again that few hospital order cases are likely to arise, in the context of Article 33(2). However, we must provide for the possibility, as people in that category could be a danger to the community on their release from detention. A decision to apply Article 33(2) in a hospital case would not be made without the most thorough examination of personal circumstances, overall state of health and other relevant factors.
We need a provision to deal with the cases of people who are sentenced to detention because of their mental health. Clause 70 does that. It is reasonable to have a presumption that such persons are a danger to the community, but that presumption can be rebutted. The Secretary of State is not required to use Article 33(2) of the refugee convention in all cases. He has a discretion that he can, should and must exercise. He will not act without carefully considering the individual circumstances of the case.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we would make it more likely that the presumption would apply to those to whom severe and arbitrary punishment had been applied abroad. He asked whether that was the Government's intention. The presumption can be rebutted by producing evidence of the arbitrariness of the penalty imposed abroad. On Report, we gave examples of places where it was so out of kilter with what we would think to have been serious. An offence of which someone is convicted arbitrarily may not carry a punishment of two years or more in the UK. Clause 70(3) refers. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
For those reasons, we have not, despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, been persuaded.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister once more for his reply. I fear that, despite his valiant and well intentioned efforts, my views on the logicality and legality of the Government's position remain the same as they were seven and a half minutes ago. In the circumstances, I shall test the opinion of the House.
7.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Attlee, E.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Barker, B.

Mancroft, L.

Bell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Blackwell, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blaker, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Blatch, B.

Monson, L.

Bowness, L.

Newby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Noakes, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Northbrook, L.

Bridgman, V. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Onslow, E.

Burnham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Byford, B.

Parkinson, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Colwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Renard, L.

Courtown, E.

Renton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roper, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Russell, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Fearn, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Glentoran, L. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sharman, L.

Goschen, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Swinfen, L.

Higgins, L.

Taverne, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howe, E.

Tope, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jacobs, L.

Walmsley, B.

Joffe, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Kingsland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Burlison, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Amos, B.

Carter, L.

Andrews, B.

Chandos, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Berkeley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Crawley, B.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bragg, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brookman, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

363

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Filkin, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gale, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Goldsmith, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Goudie, B.

Parekh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pendry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Harrison, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sewel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Tomlinson, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Layard, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendments Nos. 67 to 69:
Page 41, line 25, leave out from "it-to end of line 28 and insert—
"he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—

(a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment under the law of any part of the United Kingdom in respect of an offence that is similar in character is ten years or more, or

(b) the offence is similar in character to an offence that has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)."

Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
"(3A) The Secretary of State may by order specify an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for the purpose of subsection (2) and (3).
(3B) An order under subsection (3A) may provide that the offence is specified for the purpose of—

(a) subsection (2) only;

(b) subsection (3) only;

(c) both subsection (2) and (3).

(3C) An order under subsection (3A) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Page 42, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that we reconvene at 9.6 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2002
8.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October he approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under powers in Sections 12(1) and 113 of the Scotland Act 1998 and deals with the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament and the return of MSPs.
Section 12(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 gives power to make provision about elections to the Scottish Parliament to the Secretary of State. Schedule 7 to that Act provides that an order made under Section 12(1) is subject to type C procedure in that a draft of the instrument has to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.
The order consolidates, with amendments, the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 and three amending orders in 2001 but it also contains new provisions. First, it specifies a shorter minimum period for the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. Secondly, in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament it provides for access to and the sale and supply of the electoral register. This is similar to what the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 provided for elections to the UK Parliament. Before I describe briefly some of the provisions, I should like to take a few moments to set them in context.
Representation of the people legislation is the main legislative vehicle for electoral legislation in the UK. There was no need to reinvent the wheel when legislating for the Scottish Parliament elections. After all, although a different electoral system is used giving us regional MSPs as well as constituency Members, the main processes and procedures used in other elections are also used for the Scottish Parliament, with additional processes applied taking account of the second ballot paper. That is why, in the main, the changes which have been incorporated in this consolidation order are the same as those which have been applied in Westminster.
The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 set out the provisions about the election and the return of Members to the Scottish Parliament. Following the first elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. electoral administrators in Scotland indicated their appreciation of having all the material on the conduct of the election provided for in one piece of legislation.
Since 1999, the conduct order has been amended three times. The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) (Amendment) Order 2001 made changes to reflect

365
those introduced by the Representation of the People Act 2000. The main changes concerned rolling registration, voting by post without the need to put forward a reason for doing so, voting by proxy and the introduction of a device to enable blind or partially sighted voters to vote without assistance.
The Amendment No. 2 Order in 2001 aligned the timetable set out in the rules in Schedule 2 to the 1999 order for a by-election to fill a vacancy in a constituency seat with the timetable for a UK parliamentary election.
The Amendment No. 3 Order in 2001 amended Schedule 1 to the 1999 order. It dealt with the supply of copies of revised versions of the register and notices between the annual revisions of the register, and the period within which applications to be removed from the record of absent voters or to vote by proxy had to be received.
In addition, since 1999 Parliament has established the Electoral Commission and transferred responsibility for some electoral issues to it.
Further amendment of the 1999 order is also required to make provision for the free supply of the full register for electoral purposes to Members of the Scottish Parliament and some candidates at Scottish Parliament elections.
Against the background of those legislative changes and the need for further changes, we took the view that it would be sensible to consolidate the 1999 order and the amending orders of 2001 with the further changes required. It is the draft of this new order which we are now considering.
We have, as required by statute, consulted the Electoral Commission on the contents of the order. I express my gratitude for the input made by the representatives of electoral administrators in Scotland that has resulted in the order which I am confident will provide comprehensive rules and procedures for Scottish parliamentary elections.
This is a substantial order—all consolidation orders are. It has to be in order to contain all necessary provisions for the conduct of elections, and the return of Members, to the Scottish Parliament. An extensive Explanatory Note has therefore been made available which explains the content of the order and highlights those provisions which have changed since 1999. I hope that this has proved helpful.
There are really only two changes in the order which have not already been applied by previous amendments. I shall provide some detail. The first is in Part V of the order dealing with a range of miscellaneous and supplementary matters which are, in general, similar in terms to the 1999 order. The main change is at Article 85, which provides that the minimum period of dissolution of the Scottish Parliament under Section 2 of the Scotland Act is to be a period of 21 days. In the 1999 order, the minimum period was specified as 25 days.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was asked by the First Minister to consider reducing the dissolution period in order to extend the working life of the
366
Parliament prior to the election and to contain the formal campaigning period for elections to the Scottish Parliament to around one month. The Secretary of State consulted with our advisory group. Electoral administrators in Scotland were mainly concerned that any change did not impact adversely on the timetable for the election and thereby increase the burden on administrators during this period.
The Secretary of State also consulted the leaders of the political parties represented at Holyrood as well as the presiding officer and the Electoral Commission. No objections were made to the reduction in the minimum period for dissolution and the Secretary of State therefore decided to make provision for a reduced period within the order. In practice, this means that, for example, in 2003 the dissolution period will begin on 31st March rather than 25th March, with polling day remaining on 1st May.
The second new provision is in Schedule 1 to the order. It makes fresh provision about the free supply of the register of local government electors for electoral purposes relating to the Scottish Parliament. This provides for the supply of the register to MSPs and their election agents, to constituency and individual regional candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament, and also to the election agents of registered political parties in respect of list MSP candidates. This provision is similar to that made in respect of MPs and councillors by the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
In passing, it is worth noting that the supply of the full register to MSPs for the purpose of complying with controls on donations contained in Schedule 7 to the Political Parties Act or Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is provided for in the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
The final change I wish to point out is at the appendix of forms. This sets out forms for use at Scottish parliamentary elections. The forms prescribed in the 1999 order for use as returns or declarations of expenditure by registered political parties have not been replicated as they are no longer required. All other forms have been amended to reflect the provisions of this order.
This substantial order is, because of its subject matter and the range of issues it covers, inevitably complex. But it is essentially a consolidation exercise providing afresh for the conduct of elections and the return of members to the Scottish Parliament. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for his exposition of this substantial draft order—it is of course a consolidation order—which is particularly welcome in advance of next year's Scottish parliamentary election. I should perhaps explain that I am dealing with the

367
draft order in the absence of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is currently recovering after an operation. I am glad to say that he is recovering well at home. He said he would be very much with us today in spirit when I spoke to him yesterday.
The first point I wish to raise relates to the provisions for the combination of polls. As I understand it, in the 1999 elections, not only was the new two-vote electoral system used in Scotland for the first time but the Scottish parliamentary poll was combined with the local government poll. This combination of polls is due to happen again in May next year. Did the Scotland Office or the Scottish Executive make any analysis of instances of voter confusion arising from the new system and combination of polls? If so, what steps are being taken to prevent a repeat of any such confusion in 2003?
I am told that the practices of local authorities in the organisation of polling stations, ballot box arrangements, counting procedures and so on varied throughout Scotland. What analysis has the Scotland Office or the Scottish Executive made of best practices among local authorities with a view to encouraging less efficient authorities to adopt the more successful procedures?
Finally, on the combination of polls, will the Minister confirm that the polling hours for the local poll will be the same as those for the parliamentary poll. It is the norm for local election polling hours to be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. but for parliamentary polls to be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. If the polling hours are not coterminous, would it not be impractical and unfair for an elector arriving at a polling place before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. to be prohibited from casting a vote in the local poll while he or she could vote in the parliamentary one.
As to Article 40 in Part III, relating to the limitation of candidates' election expenses, candidates and their agents will make much of the planning for and commitment of expenses well in advance of the start of the election campaign. Rolling electoral registers are now in place which can change the total number of electors, and hence the maximum expense limit, on a month to month basis.
Will the Minister state what leeway would be allowed for candidates whose expenses were within the limit allowed by the number of electors in the period immediately preceding the campaign but whose expenses are marginally over the limit as a result of a drop in the number of electors on the rolling register?
I turn to Schedule 2 and in particular to paragraph 25. Will the Minister clarify what the position would be if, after the close of nominations, a candidate who had been included on the regional list of a registered political party defected to another political party? Would that candidate be excluded from the list, or would he or she still be elected if his or her previous party was allocated a sufficient number of regional seats? Would he or she be free to sit as a representative of another party? The eventuality is unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
368
I have a query regarding the recount procedure described in paragraph 56 of Schedule 2. If I understand the drafting correctly, the agent of a registered political party at a constituency count of regional votes may request, within reason, a recount of the regional votes before, but not after, the transmission of the count to the regional returning officer. Paragraph 63 of the schedule allows the agent present at the calculation of the regional totals to request prior to the allocation of seats,
"the regional returning officer to recalculate or again recalculate the total number of regional votes given for each registered party and each individual candidate in all of the constituencies included in the region".
I find that ambiguous in one respect. Does it mean that agents have the right to request a recount of the regional votes in each constituency; or does it mean that they have the right to request the recalculation of the sum of constituency totals already received? If the latter is the case, will the noble Lord accept that the occasion on which a recount of regional votes is most likely to be required is after the final tally of regional votes from each constituency within the region, as it is on these totals that the number of regional seats allocated to each party will be based? In the event of a handful of votes determining the allocation of the final regional seat, will the Minister make provision for a recount of regional ballots in each constituency at that juncture?
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain an aspect of paragraph 71(3) of Schedule 2. If a constituency poll is abandoned because of the death of a candidate, in what ways can the return of regional members for the region in which that constituency is located be completed, given that the calculation for the allocation of regional seats is dependent on the total number of constituency seats won by each party within the region? Again, it is an unlikely scenario; but stranger things have happened.
More generally, will the noble Lord give an assurance that ministerial special advisers in the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government will not engage in activities that could be helpful to a particular political party during the campaign leading up to the election next May?
I hope that the noble Lord can give assurances that announcements and advertising by UK government departments during the Scottish parliamentary election campaign will not be designed or timed to be of advantage or disadvantage to any particular political party in Scotland.
I hope that some care will be taken by United Kingdom television and radio broadcasters when dealing with United Kingdom political issues that could be deemed to be unfairly persuasive in the context of the Scottish parliamentary campaign. I know that this is a difficult area, but we hope that UK broadcasters will aware of the Scottish parliamentary election and that they will endeavour to be as fair and impartial as possible.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, to our

369
discussions on Scottish matters. I am particularly pleased to hear about the progress made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. We look forward to his return to this House.
The scenario proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for a regional member defecting has in fact happened. Dorothy Grace Elder, who was elected to the Parliament on the SNP list has now left that party to become an independent. Unfortunately, she has not gone the stage further as envisaged by the noble Lord; she has not joined another party.
I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of this substantial 156-page order. I must praise the Explanatory Notes provided by the Scotland Office. I hope that it will continue with this new high standard.
The order seems to be a complete document for working reference—except that, I suspect, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act will also be prescribed bedtime reading for candidates and agents.
Consolidation of the several recent orders makes considerable sense and has allowed for some new changes to be made. For example, I note that the declaration of election expenses will not have to be signed before a justice of the peace. Many justices will be relieved about the abolition of this inconsequential duty. Similarly, returning officers will be forwarding copies of returns and declarations to the Electoral Commission—which is a new body; hence this is a new duty.
A proxy vote will be allowed in the new case of absence on an educational course. The youth vote is certainly in considerable need of encouragement and this may help in a small way.
I welcome the measures to extend postal voting—although I acknowledge the concern of my noble friend Lord Greaves about the fraudulent misuse of postal votes. This must be watched out for.
The order also incorporates the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which synchronises the local government elections with the Scottish parliamentary elections, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. This issue is somewhat controversial. Although some find that it downgrades the status of local government, I see the practical politics of reducing the number of polling days—in Scotland we now have elections every two years and we also have the European elections. Further concerns relate to voter fatigue and political party financial overstretch.
Perhaps the best parts of the order lie in the two sections relating to the free distribution of electoral registers to MSPs and candidates and the reduction of the period of dissolution of the Parliament to 21 days. The second has the merit of meaning that the election need not be called until 31st March. The public will be glad of the shorter election campaign, and MSPs will no doubt be glad of a few more days' salary.
I raise two further concerns. Prompted by my honourable friends Sir Robert Smith and Viscount Thurso, I observe that there is no provision for a
370
recount in the regional election, but that there is provision in the event of a tie. I will try to explain the same problem. A recount is permitted when the regional vote is being counted in the constituency, as set out in paragraph 56. But there is no provision for a re-count when the eight or nine constituency regional votes are amalgamated, as provided in paragraph 63.
I hope that the Minister will agree to investigate the issue. Given that seats in the Parliament and the formation of the Executive could depend on it, it would be disappointing to descend into the realms of the Florida presidential election, chads and all. In Schedule 2, paragraph 53, surely the extraordinary formula used for the number of counting agents belies the fact that one counting agent per table is needed?
I suspect that there will soon be a Scotland Act (Amendment) Bill to deal with changes in constituency boundaries and MSP numbers. On these Benches, we hope that future Scottish parliamentary election orders will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that provision for that will be included in such a Bill. That would satisfy our commitment to a proper federal structure for the United Kingdom. Meantime, this order will contribute to a satisfactory Scottish general election next May. Of course, I cannot let pass the opportunity to mention that this will be the second Scottish general election since May 1703.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shudder to think, having been a polling agent during all the recent elections, including the last Scottish parliamentary election, what would happen if the noble Earl's suggestion were implemented. It is essential to do what the Government have done; that is to say, make as many of the rules as possible for Westminster elections and Scottish Parliament elections the same. It is very confusing for people if the rules differ. We have an enormous number of elections in Scotland, so the least possible burden should be put on people. I therefore hope that the arrangements will remain a reserved matter.
My noble friend on the Front Bench asked about voter confusion. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government have any evidence. It was interesting that people in the area where I was working understood clearly which ballot box to use, and what they were doing. People in Scotland have a sophisticated understanding of elections. The poll tends to be quite high, and people were particularly keen to vote in the last Scots Parliament election. I have no experience of voter confusion, but I should be interested to hear the Government's information.
My noble friend on the Front Bench was right to ask about special advisers. The Scots Parliament is close to everyone, so special advisers work closely with the public and are deeply involved in issues. It is important that their behaviour during the elections is neutral. My noble friend also made an important point about how the United Kingdom political process operates during the Scots Parliament elections. It may be very annoying for people south of the Border to think that

371
they might influence the electoral outcome, but they could do very much, as many media broadcasts take a United Kingdom perspective. That important point had not occurred to me.
The Government have done very well to consolidate all the information. Recent changes have been many and frequent. It is vital to have all the provisions in one order. Do the Government produce a handbook for those conducting elections, or must they use the order? I think in particular of agents, many of whom are not professionals. Many parties cannot afford professional agents. People are conducting this complicated operation following much change. I congratulate the Government on the legislation. They seem to have been asked many questions. I do not know whether they have the answers. If they have, it will he interesting to hear them.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am glad to follow my colleagues on this side of the House in complimenting the Government on introducing this consolidation Bill and improving the regulations before the parliamentary elections next May. We should bear in mind that the Boundary Commission dealing with the Scottish Westminster seats is busily engaged in Scotland at present. It is hearing evidence at inquiries relating to the recommendations made some months ago. I hope that when those recommendations are reconsidered, they will be accepted by the Government, as is their duty, and implemented before the next general election in the United Kingdom.
The primary legislation must follow the Boundary Commission recommendation on the number of MSPs. I hope that the Government will stick to the number contained in the Scotland Act 1998, which would mean reducing the number of MSPs from 129 to around 110.
I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the order. Paragraph 40, on page 23, refers to election expenses. It allocates £5,761 plus 61 pence per voter, which totals around £10,000 per candidate. I do not understand why sub-paragraph (3) then confers £100,000 per constituency Member. Will the Minister explain how that figure became so inflated? It should be £10,000 rather than £100,000.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned polling times. Most people would not object to using a postal vote. I cannot see why voting should continue until 10 o'clock at night. Most people, particularly in rural areas, feel that it takes a long time to collect all the ballot boxes from around the countryside. As a result, the count does not finish until 2, 3 or 4 a.m. I do not see why everybody should not vote in comfort by 9 p.m., and, if that does not suit them, have a postal ballot. Surely it would be better to stick to local government hours, closing at 9 p.m., than to go on until 10 p.m. Relatively few people vote after 9 p.m. and we are wasting time that could be used to collect the ballot boxes from outlying polling stations and bring them in for the count.
372
I am interested in Article 86 on page 43. dealing with advertising. This is a controversial issue at most elections. People who try to stick to the rules and regulations get infuriated by other parties who engage in fly posting all over the place, particularly on telegraph poles and road signs. Most of us feel that that is illegal. Local authorities are responsible for fly posting under town and country planning legislation, but they do very little about it. It is important to bring home to local authorities that they have a responsibility to stop illegal fly posting of candidates' names, which makes a thorough mess of the countryside and often takes months to clear up. We should take a tougher line. Candidates should know what forms of advertising are legal. The article about advertising on page 43 is very small and does not read the riot act as it ought to.
A final point was raised about the procedure if a candidate dies or defects after his or her name is on the ballot paper. That happens. Anybody who reads the American news will know about the Senate candidate in New Jersey who went a little bit off the rails and the sad death of a Senator in an air crash in Minnesota. The fact that their names were already on the ballot paper is affecting the election in both cases. With the Senate majority on a knife-edge, it is important to know what is legal when it comes to putting names on the ballot paper after the candidate is no longer available for election.
I hope the Minister will have a chance to comment on those few points, particularly the ones about polling times and advertising. Otherwise, I welcome the order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this brief debate and for the general support that has been given to the order. I hope that the way in which I introduced it, without going over the matters that had not been changed, was appreciated.
I shall try to deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about the potential for confusion when more than one poll is taking place at the same time. As he rightly said, the same situation will arise in 2003 because of the Scottish Parliament's Scottish Local Government Act 2002. The conclusion has been that there was very little confusion in 1999. The decision to provide three ballot boxes of different colours appeared to work pretty well. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for that.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has set up a working group to plan for 2003. It is chaired by Scotland Office officials, but includes Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament and Electoral Commission officials, as well as representatives of electoral administrators in Scotland. That has led to today's consolidation order and—in more direct response to the noble Lord—to the training and guidance for administrators and voter awareness material so that we do not have the problem of variance between local authorities that he fears.

373
I confirm that the polling hours for the elections in May 2003 have been aligned to those for Scottish Parliament elections—from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Monro, said about that. The last time I did polling station duty was at the June 2001 election, when I was on from 7.30 or so until 10 o'clock at night. We gave up after about 9.30, but there were still a lot of people coming in and I think it was worth while. In any case, the provision for Scotland is the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom.
On the limitation of expenses, Schedule 1 to the order provides for the supply of copies of the full register to candidates and their agents for electoral purposes. That includes supplying alterations to the register, which are published monthly. The figures should be pretty up to date. There will be plenty of time to calculate the maximum amount of expenditure from the most recent figures.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monro, on finding a misprint. The maximum expenditure should be £100,000, not £10,000.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it says £100,000.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is the correct figure.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thought £10,000 would have been more appropriate. I wonder why it is £100,000.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure is the same as for other United Kingdom elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to regional members and removal of candidates who change their allegiance. He rightly said that the order makes provision for the removal of candidates from regional lists by the returning officer and the withdrawal of candidates from the regional list by registered political parties. However, as for Westminster elections, the last time for making such changes is the last date for receipt of nominations. It has always been the case throughout the United Kingdom that any regional list candidate could change his party allegiance after the close of nominations without being excluded from taking a seat as a regional member, if elected. The same is true for a Member of Parliament in Westminster. I am not aware that that has ever happened. It is a theoretical danger, but not a new one.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is correct that a request can be made to the constituency returning officer to recount the regional votes before the result has been transmitted to the regional returning officer, but not after. Paragraph 63 permits the regional returning officer to recalculate the total number of regional votes for each registered party and each individual candidate, but it does not give the facility to recount the regional votes in each constituency at that stage. It was decided in 1999 that any difference would have a minimal impact on the allocation of regional
374
seats. There have been no requests since then to change that policy. Following the experience in 2003 and the results of the review of the elections, which will be undertaken by the Electoral Commission, as required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we shall be happy to look at the issue again if a further review is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right about the death of a candidate. Paragraph 71(3) provides that where the poll at the election is abandoned because of the death of a constituency candidate, the regional returning officer will calculate the allocation of regional seats by using the number of constituency seats gained in all constituencies in the region other than the constituency where the poll has been abandoned. Paragraph 71(4) confirms that the subsequent election of a candidate for the constituency concerned shall have no effect on the validity of the election or the return of any regional members. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for having given me notice of those points.
I should like to refer to a couple more of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, the first of which is special advisers. Throughout the United Kingdom, any special adviser who is going to take part in any political activity during an election period is required to resign his or her post. My understanding is that almost all of them do so because they do want to take part in politics. I also appreciate the points that he makes about the need for UK broadcasters and the UK Government to be aware of the Scottish elections and the need to avoid undue influence. As far as the UK Government are concerned, guidance is given to departments in order to avoid that sort of problem, just as guidance was given, in June 2001, during the UK election, to the Scottish Executive Members and officials in order that that they should not act in any way prejudicial to the conduct of the elections.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the role of the Electoral Commission. He was very supportive of the establishment of that body, for which I am grateful. Although he also approved of the changes to proxy voting and postal voting, I understand his point on the misuse of postal votes. Clearly, we have to continue being very vigilant about that. He was also supportive of the need to reduce the number of polling days and combination polls. Again, I am grateful for that.
As to the Scotland Act changes in the constituency boundaries and the number of Members—a point raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Monro—that matter is in the hands of the Boundary Commission, which has been given a remit to report by no later than December 2006. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that matter while the commission is considering it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her support for having the same rules in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom and for this consolidation measure. She asked whether there will be a handbook for agents and for those taking part in elections. Yes, a handbook of some kind will be provided by the Electoral Commission.

375
I think that the final point was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, on advertising and fly-posting. I very much agree with him. I think that the worst fly-posting I have ever seen was in the run-up to the Countryside Alliance march in September of this year. The countryside was hideous in the weeks preceding 22nd September. However, as local government is devolved in Scotland, it is for the Scottish Executive to advise local councils on these issues.
I hope that I have covered all the points raised. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 9.6 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.53 to 9.6 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 74 [Revocation of leave to enter or remain]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to which he shall have regard on the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the question of the consequences of a decision by the Secretary of State to revoke a person's indefinite leave to enter or remain in circumstances where that person either,
"is liable to deportation, but cannot be deported for legal reasons"
or,
"the leave was obtained by deception … but the person cannot be removed for legal or practical reasons"
or where the person has voluntarily given up his refugee status or acquired the nationality of another country.
Throughout the debates on this clause in Committee and on Report, your Lordships have, of course, had answers from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, but those answers have, necessarily, prompted still more questions. I mean no criticism of the noble Lord when I say that we have still not yet got to the root of the legal consequences of this clause.
In Committee on 17th July the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated that,
"once indefinite leave has been revoked it is likely to be replaced with short periods of limited leave—for example, six months at a time".—[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1330.]
At Report stage on 10th October, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, clarified that statement by saying:
"The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked what is the status of a person once his leave has been removed, and whether indefinite leave would always be replaced with short periods of leave. The answer is no, it would not always be replaced with short periods of leave. There could be circumstances, for example, where the
376
Government and the Home Secretary judge that it was likely that the impediments to the return of the person to his country of origin were likely to change in the near future, and, therefore. they might not be granted a further period of leave in the expectation that their return to their country of origin would he possible…In Committee I referred to the tautological situation—I still believe that there is no better word to describe it—that if someone has no leave they effectively have no status. Someone without status under the immigration legislation would be expected to leave when it was possible".—[Official Report, 10/10/02; col. 502.]
I believe that the Minister took noble Lords a little further down the road with that statement. However, I suggest to him that, although he said that such a person would be expected to leave the country as soon as possible, where leave is revoked under subsections (1) and (2) of the clause the position will already be that they cannot be removed for "legal" or "practical" reasons.
I shall concentrate on the status of such a person. A person whose indefinite leave has been revoked but who has not been given a further period of-limited leave has—I use the Minister's words—"no status" under the Immigration Acts. Is it not something of an indictment of the Government—indeed, perhaps even of Parliament—that despite putting on to the statute book immigration legislation of such length, detail and complexity, we are faced with a situation in which certain people may have "no status" whatever under that legislation? Again, I ask the Minister: will such a person be in this country illegally and therefore committing an offence under the Immigration Acts as a result of that lack of status?
I do not dispute that, if someone has obtained indefinite leave to remain by deception, the Government should have the right to remove him. I merely ask: what is the legal position of such a person once leave has been removed, and how will the Secretary of State's policy of granting limited leave in some but not all circumstances be applied?
We are at Third Reading and this is, I submit, a mild amendment. I should allow, but not require, the Secretary of State to issue guidance to which he would have to have regard when exercising the powers available to him under the clause.
In conclusion, it is my hope that such guidance might contain the answers to some of the questions posed in your Lordships' House. For example, what would be the legal status of such a person once their indefinite leave to remain had been removed? What criteria will the Secretary of State use when considering the grant of limited periods of leave in place of indefinite leave?
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or, at the very least, offer some further clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked some extremely pertinent questions, to which answers are necessary. I hope that they will be forthcoming, in view of the fact that we canvassed these matters pretty thoroughly at earlier stages. The Government have had plenty of time to prepare answers for this evening.

377
In the hope that those answers will contain material responses to points that we have already raised, I shall remind the Minister of some of the assurances that we have sought and which we should like to get on the record this evening. First, we want the Government to apply the provisions of Article 1(C) of the refugee convention and the case law of the UK courts in interpreting Article 1(C) when deciding whether a person ceases to be a refugee and prior to seeking to exercise their powers under subsection (3).
Secondly, we want an undertaking that the Government will not use the powers under subsection (3) to penalise those who wish to make exploratory visits to their country of nationality in order to determine whether it is safe for them to make a permanent return. I dealt with that point fairly thoroughly, giving the example of Bahrain where people were put in a situation of total uncertainty because they could not obtain an answer about how they would be treated if they returned.
Thirdly, we seek an assurance about not penalising those who acquire national passports in order to make such visits. Refugee travel documents are always issued valid for all countries except the country of origin. Therefore, until such time as a refugee acquires British citizenship, the only way he can make an exploratory visit to his original home is precisely by,
"availing himself of the protection of his country of nationality",
and acquiring a passport of that nationality.
Fourthly, we seek an assurance that the Government will not exercise these powers to penalise refugees who acquire some other nationality but that they will treat them in exactly the same way as any other foreign national resident in the United Kingdom.
Finally, we seek an undertaking that the Government will not use the powers under this clause to revoke the status of family members of refugees where they have not followed the same course of action as the refugee which led to the revocation.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this amendment gives me the opportunity to ask again the questions I was trying to raise on government Amendment No. 62. In particular, will the people who are caught in this type of limbo, which may be extended by a six-month or three-month period or by a considerable number of times, be able to work in this country? Will they obtain a national insurance number? Will they have access to the National Health Service, and will they be entitled to education and training, both for themselves and their families?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be terribly helpful in my response. I rather regret that because I suspect that noble Lords will not be very happy with what I say. I believed that, by tabling the amendment, essentially the noble Lord,
378
Lord Kingsland, was raising the issue of what the guidance would cover. I can certainly help the noble Lord in that respect.
The guidance will cover the use of the powers in this clause and, as with existing instructions, it will be publicly available. It will cover a fairly wide range of matters, including some of the points raised by the noble Lord this evening and on previous occasions. It will cover, for example, the period of leave that a person will be granted; when his indefinite leave is to be revoked; and the conditions that would attach to his stay, such as his access to work and benefits—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It will also cover the very limited circumstances in which a person whose indefinite leave is revoked will be granted no leave and the conditions attached to the stay of such a person.
I know that the noble Lord has previously asked how long a person whose indefinite leave has been revoked will have to remain on limited leave before becoming eligible for indefinite leave. Again, I cannot be specific on that point this evening but it will be covered in the guidance. The period may well vary, depending on what a person has done to cause his original indefinite leave to be revoked.
I was asked about the status of those for whom leave to stay had not been granted and whether such people would be here illegally. They would be here without any leave. No action would be taken against such a person. I repeat the point that people will almost always be granted a period of leave. Only if removal was not possible shortly would we consider not granting leave. Therefore, in those circumstances I believe that we can be helpful.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, will he tell the House whether such a person would be subject to restrictions on the place of residence and subject to requirements to report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is inevitable that some conditions would be applied, but I do not believe that we would seek to exercise them unreasonably. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also raised another point about Article 1(C). That does not apply to refugees who obtain status under the 1951 refugee convention. But we would not remove any person if that was contrary to our international obligations.
We accept that we have to act reasonably. We are not seeking to penalise people in this situation and we would certainly not penalise those who obtain status in another country. But we believe that in some circumstances it would be reasonable to revoke refugee status which was no longer appropriate. I accept that I will not have answered all the points raised in the debate. Many of these issues will have to be carefully considered and set out in more detailed guidance which will be provided later.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he will be relieved to know that I shall not seek to test the opinion of the House.

379
Nevertheless, perhaps I may assist him in reflecting on what guidance would be appropriate both by underlining one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and a point which I made in my opening remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly pressed the Minister on what conditions would be applied to someone who was here illegally but who could not, because of our international obligations, be removed. I believe that the Minister said that in all likelihood there would be conditions. My reflection on his response is to ask what would be the legal authority for issuing those conditions. Perhaps that matter can be dealt with in guidance. If restrictions are to be imposed on a citizen, the rule of law requires those restrictions to relate to legislation which has been properly passed by your Lordships' House either in final form or in some form of appropriately-made delegated legislation.
My other point concerns the inter-relationship between this legislation and the existing Immigration Act. Will a person who is here illegally but cannot be removed nevertheless be committing an offence under the Immigration Act? Is that a matter to which the Government have given any attention? If not, will they give some attention to it in drafting guidance?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if that is an issue, it stands to be dealt with in guidance. As to the first point raised by the noble Lord, conditions and so forth will be set out in guidance, which is only right.
I return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerning restriction on residence and reporting. There will be no restriction but, because of a lack of status, there will be no permission to work or entitlement to public funds. I hope that that is clear. It answers his question but is probably not an answer that he wants to hear. That is as we see it, and we want to make that plain.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [No removal while appeal pending]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 45, line 24, after "appellant" insert "(subject to section 77)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Deportation order: appeal]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 45, line 29, after "order" insert "may not be"
Page 45, line 29, leave out "shall not have effect"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 78 [Removal of asylum-seeker to third country]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 74 to 79:
Page 46, line 21, leave out "(2)(a)" and insert "(2)"
Page 46, line 22, after "instituted" insert "or could institute"
380
Page 46, line 24, leave out from "a" to end of line 25 and insert "human rights claim (within the meaning of section 109)"
Page 46, line 29, after "Act)" insert "or can no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission)"
Page 46, line 31, leave out "claim referred to in subsection (3)(b) above" and insert "human rights claim"
Page 46, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 4
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Appeal: asylum claim]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 81:
Page 48, line 25, leave out "makes" and insert "has made"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 extend the right of appeal under Clause 81 to all asylum seekers granted leave to enter or remain for more than a year. It will no longer matter whether the leave is given all at once or in a series of shorter grants. There will be only one right of appeal unless there is a change of circumstances and a fresh application for asylum is made. The Government are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his help with this issue, which we have debated previously.
Clause 81 provides that a person with exceptional leave may appeal against an asylum refusal only on asylum grounds. Amendment No. 85 spells out, for the sake of clarity, that "asylum grounds" are the same grounds specified in the general rights of appeal in Clause 82. I clarify that point by slipping in Amendment No. 85.
Amendment No. 86 ensures that the hearing of an appeal against removal focuses on the issue of removal.
Amendment No. 87 is there for our beauty in this legislation; it is described in my notes as being entirely cosmetic.
Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 replace the term "request" with the term "claim", which is more familiar apparently in the language of immigration law.
Amendment No. 97 applies Clause 94 to appeals heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, so that all immigration appeals can be treated in the same way.
Amendment No. 104 imports the definitions of "asylum claim" and "human rights claim" from Clause 109 into Clause 111. The minor modifications reflect the fact that Clause 111 will have effect only between Royal Assent and the implementation of Part 5.

381
It is not essential for me to go over the other minor matters dealt with in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for Amendment No. 84 which deals with the point we made about cumulative periods of leave to enter or remain adding up to more than a year. This amendment exactly covers the ground that we hoped it would. We are grateful to the Government for having done that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 48, line 26, leave out "is" and insert "has been"
Page 48, line 27, leave out "is" and insert "has been"
Page 48, line 28, at end insert "(or for periods exceeding one year in aggregate)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Grounds of appeal]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 49, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) An appeal under section 81 must be brought on the grounds that removal of the appellant from the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Determination of appeal]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 49, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (3) a decision that a person should be removed from the United Kingdom under a provision shall not be regarded as unlawful if it could have been lawfully made by reference to removal under another provision."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Student]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 87:
Page 51, line 32, leave out "reason" and insert "purpose described in"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 52, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) The provisions of this section are subject to the requirements of subsections (10) to (12)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 88, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 103A. This group of amendments returns to the issue of non-suspensive appeals in Clause 92 of the Bill, which has been debated at considerable length, both in Committee and on Report.
I shall not repeat at Third Reading the detailed points that I made on previous occasions. Briefly, the position is that the Government wish to oblige those whose asylum claims are certified by the Secretary of
382
State as being clearly unfounded to exercise their right of appeal to an independent adjudicator from abroad after they have been removed from the United Kingdom.
The amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend seek to ensure that when a person is removed from the United Kingdom before he has had the opportunity to exercise his appeal rights, that removal is to a country which has been certified as safe, and from which he will have a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights.
If it is proposed to remove the person to an unsafe country, that person would have the right to bring an appeal from within the United Kingdom.
The amendments are similar to those that I put before the House last week on Report. However, they take into account the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at col. 1517 of Hansard, that the human rights test laid down in subsection (5) of the clause was better than the test in my earlier amendments. Our amendment now provides for the Government's test to be applied.
Proposed new subsection (12) also contains a slight change from the amendments that I tabled on Report. It would ensure that where a certificate was issued by the Secretary of State the person would have only 28 days in which to bring an appeal from within the United Kingdom. During that time he could be removed only to a country which had been certified as safe under proposed new subsection (13). After 28 days had elapsed he could be removed to any country if he had chosen not to exercise his appeal rights.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, have also tabled amendments to the clause in respect of appeal rights after certification. They are broadly similar in providing a right of appeal to either the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the Secretary of State's certificate.
As I pointed out on Report, even under the Government's proposals, such a person could bring full judicial review proceedings, not the limited statutory review proceedings provided for in Clause 99, against the decision to issue the certificate. I was surprised to read the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, which would limit judicial review by applying the same statutory review procedure proposed by the Government in Clause 99 once the new right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against certification under Clause 92 proposed by their amendment had been exhausted. I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who assures me that my judgment in this case is not as sound as I had thought.
On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, confirmed that full judicial review is available against the issue of a certificate under Clause 92 when he said:
"For clearly unfounded certificates, the presence of judicial review provides an effective remedy against any error by the Secretary of State or the IND".—[Official Report, 24/10/02; col. 1517.].

383
I simply ask whether the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, think that an appellant would be in a better position if he was able to bring full judicial review proceedings against the certificate—involving a determination on the papers, then an oral permission hearing by a High Court judge, followed by a full oral hearing of the merits of the claim as he could under the clause as drafted—rather than having his appeal refused by the IAT and then having only the limited right of statutory review of that decision on the papers, as the noble Lords propose in their amendment.
I recognise that appeal and review are different. None the less, with full judicial review, there would be a remedy in cases where the Home Office had clearly and unreasonably got things wrong. Moreover, under my amendments, the person would anyway be able to exercise his right of appeal to an adjudicator on the merits of his claim from within the United Kingdom if it were proposed to remove him to an unsafe country.
I embarked trepidatiously on that analysis because I have great admiration for the judgment of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester. They may well come back at me with a testing and penetrating analysis that leaves my position in a state of disintegration. We shall see.
As I said on Report, this is a difficult balancing act. We recognise that the Government want to speed up the system and we support that. However, we also want to ensure that people have a reasonable opportunity to exercise their appeal rights—rights that even the Government do not propose to remove—and are not denied the opportunity to do so by being removed to countries that are unsafe and where any mistakes made by the Home Office cannot be rectified. Our amendment is intended to implement both aims.
Finally, 1 return to the position expressed by my right honourable friend Mr Letwin in another place. In respect of what is now Clause 92, he said that,
"there is no question that returning a person to France, Denmark or any EU country, for example, is anything but a perfectly legitimate act for the British state. It runs no risk of compromising that person's life or liberty…I am determined that we should give the Home Secretary the support that he deserves in regard to those provisions that are right and which make it possible to imagine that bilateral agreements will come back into play. However, I intend to preserve our determination to avoid, if we can, compromising improperly the safety of individuals through those subsections that pose a threat to their safety".—[Official Report, Commons 11/6/02; col. 805.]
I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment No. 91 and to read from a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I understand that it is not a confidential letter—it is not marked confidential. I see that the noble and learned Lord
384
agrees. One paragraph of that letter outlines why we object to the line that the Government are taking. It says:
"Clause 92 is designed to deal with those applicants who make an application for asylum simply as a means for remaining in the United Kingdom when they have no basis to enter or remain here. We do not think that it is acceptable that such applicants should be able to remain in this country by making an abusive application for asylum. It is for that reason that, where we consider an application to be clearly unfounded, the right of appeal should only be exercised outside of the United Kingdom".
The crucial point in that paragraph is who is the "we" who consider that the application is clearly unfounded. It is not the Home Secretary. Nobody suggests that it is desirable or practicable that the Home Secretary in person should take a decision of that kind. It is a decision that is taken by a civil servant within the Home Office. It is an administrative decision, probably taken by a busy official who handles many cases, with little time to consider the facts of individual cases. I do not suggest that he ignores them. I am sure that the official responsible acts properly and with all the skill that he or she can bring to the work, but undoubtedly such a person is likely to be under severe pressure. The official makes a decision not a judgment—and he or she is not required to support that decision by reasoning.
The consequence of a wrong decision is that the asylum seeker will be sent back before his appeal can be heard to a country where he may face persecution or worse. In view of the consequences, we believe that plainly there should be a review of the decision taken by the Home Office civil servant and that that review should be a review of the merits and of the law undertaken by a person holding judicial office. That review must also be completed before the asylum seeker can be returned to his country of origin.
There is, of course, a right to apply for judicial review which will remain, even if this amendment is rejected. However, we believe that it is better to have a right of appeal to a tribunal, whether it be a tribunal in the sense of an individual adjudicator or in the sense of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
A judicial review is an unsatisfactory method of deciding an issue such as this. It is concerned only with the law which, as we know by extension, includes a conclusion that a decision taken is irrational. But the test of irrationality is a very high one and it is difficult. There is no consideration of whether, although not strictly irrational, the decision taken by the civil servant is one that is properly justified on the facts of the case. We believe that in a case of this kind, given that the civil servant is not a judicial officer, it is necessary, indeed essential, to have at least one judicial decision where not only the law but also the facts can be considered. That is not a possibility if the only remedy is judicial review.
There are, of course, other considerations. The Administrative Court—that part of the High Court that considers judicial review—is, as we all know, already overloaded with asylum cases. That load will further increase if judicial review is the only recourse from a decision by a Home Office official that a claim is clearly unfounded. Surely it is in everyone's interest

385
to provide for an appeal to a lower body; that is, an adjudicator, or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is in the interest of the claimant, because it will enable a decision to be taken more quickly and the period of limbo, which must be a strain for any claimant, will be ended more quickly. This will be an advantage to the judicial system because it will mean that such decisions are taken lower down the scale, closer to the claimant, and not by the Administrative Court in London.
Even if there is a possibility of review of the decisions taken by the adjudicator or the IAT, that would still reduce the number of applications for judicial review, because in many cases the claimant, or his advisers, will be satisfied with the decision taken below and will be convinced that there is no prospect of a successful application for judicial review. In addition, in cases where judicial review is sought, the process will be shortened if the Administrative Court, or a High Court judge, is considering a reasoned decision of an inferior tribunal. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will agree that there are real practical advantages in what we propose, as against the status quo that would apply if the clause is passed unamended leaving judicial review as the only solution.
The question was also raised as to why we have introduced the idea of the statutory review as opposed to the full-scale judicial review. I refer to the statutory review, which is similar to that proposed by the Government in Clause 99. In a sense, this amendment was put forward as a compromise in a form that we hoped the Government would be prepared to consider seriously. That is why we introduced into it the idea of the statutory review that the Government propose in Clause 99. It would be a quicker, simpler, and cheaper version than a full-scale judicial review.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, does not intend to move Amendment No. 89. Had he been willing to do so, I make no bones about the fact that we would have preferred his amendment in many ways. However, as he has decided not to move his amendment, we have put forward an amendment providing for statutory review.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 88, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would, undoubtedly, make a considerable improvement to the Bill. However, it is not fully satisfactory, as it leaves some circumstances in which immediate removal is possible and in which there is no possibility of an in-country appeal. That arises in cases of removal to a "white list" country. We discussed the idea of a "white list", which we strongly deplore, on Report, and we are unhappy that it should come back again through Amendment No. 88. We are also particularly unhappy with the idea, as suggested in Amendment No. 88, that the Home Secretary should be able to add countries to the "white list" through the negative procedure. Under the Government's proposals for a "white list", the affirmative resolution procedure must be used.
386
We do not regard Amendment No. 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which proposes yearly renewals of the clause, as a satisfactory solution; nor do we regard the Government's amendment on monitoring—Amendment No. 103—as remotely adequate.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my amendment does not have the noble Lord's approval. It is a compromise. There will be a vote, and I will move my amendment only if the amendments that he supports are not approved by the House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I accept that his amendment is better than nothing, and I am grateful for the knowledge that he puts it forward not as his preferred choice but as a compromise.
The drafting of our amendment is not perfect; it probably requires some improvement and alteration. It would give a right to appeal directly to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against a decision to certify a claim as clearly unfounded, whereas it might be better for the case to go to an adjudicator. However, what we propose meets what we regard as the minimum necessary standard of judicial control over decisions to return the asylum seeker to his country of origin, pending appeal. The refusal of the right to appeal against a decision that a claim is clearly unfounded is one of the most objectionable of the numerous objectionable provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 91 would greatly improve the Bill.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, there are few clauses in few Bills that have been subjected to more debate in and out of Parliament than the clause that is now Clause 92. For that reason, and because we have been reminded of the principal arguments by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, it would now be superfluous for me to repeat them. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will forgive me if I say that, as soon as I get home, I shall check whether the word "trepidatiously" appears in the New Oxford English Dictionary.
How do we address the problem that legitimately exercises the Government, without flagrant unfairness to those whose claims to asylum may or may not transpire to be well founded? Of course people sometimes claim asylum when their claim is unfounded. Of course that takes up time and it leads to delays in the consideration of other claims. Of course we should look for ways of expediting the decisions. But what we are seeking is swifter justice, not methods of perpetrating injustice quickly.
We have all attempted to make suggestions to reconcile the two objectives. One is the subject of my Amendment No. 89. I confess that I was a little startled when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that while I had already expressed a preference for his amendment he would express a preference for mine. I seem to remember love stories that I read in the papers many years ago which took a similar course. However,

387
it occurred to me unlikely that my Amendment No. 89 would attract a great deal of support in your Lordships' House.
I recognise that my Amendment No. 90 would require a determination by an adjudicator. I have seen many adjudicators at work and I strongly endorse the tributes that were paid to them at earlier stages of your Lordships' debates, but they are hard-pressed to cope with the volume of work and I suspect that to appoint more adjudicators would risk diluting the pool of suitable talent. My amendment would not wholly resolve that problem.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, relates principally to judicial review. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that judicial review is not a complete answer and is certainly not a substitute for appeal, for the reasons he gave. If he would care to read some of the annual reports of the Council on Tribunals some years ago, he will see us addressing that question again and again.
The amendment set down by my noble friends on the Front Bench shares the defect which I think can be levelled at the amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and I hope that they will both forgive me. It would be ungracious not to acknowledge the efforts they have all made to find a way of reconciling our differences. In each case the amendment is better than nothing, but it would simply enable us to survey the battlefield half way through the slaughter. Meanwhile, in many individual cases the injustice may well have run its course. The whole problem arises because it is too late after someone has been martyred to seek to repair the damage by raising a memorial. I hope that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who has kindly kept me in the picture throughout our debates, will forgive me if I say that for that reason I cannot find it in my heart to support his amendment with greater enthusiasm than the amendment from my noble friends on the Front Bench.
Amendment No. 91, addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would provide a safeguard. It is not an infallible one and not as complete as a fully argued appeal—an appeal to an adjudicator would attract all the other consequences which would follow from that—but it would provide an opportunity for the IAT to form a judgment as to whether the claim is clearly unfounded. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, the next stage, to a judge who would decide the case on the papers, is already in the Bill. Accordingly, I do not propose to press my amendments in this group to a Division, but if the noble Lord seeks the opinion of the House on his amendments, it would be my intention to support him in the Lobby.
It gives me no pleasure to disagree with a government which I support and whose problems I understand. it add only this: I ventured to say on Report that future generations will marvel that this debate ever had to take place. What a pity that we cannot now read the history hooks of the future; those
388
which will be written two generations from now. Nor could those who participated in the debates on the Reform Bill 1832. But if those books include an appendix setting out the lists of who voted how in the course of this debate, I am relieved to reflect that it will disclose that I voted to amend the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak with diffidence to Amendment No. 93. Before I do so. I should like to follow on from the intervention I made during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I prefer Amendments Nos. 89 and 90—I do not mind which one—but I am a realist; I recognise that the Government may win. It is for that reason that l have tabled Amendment No. 93. I stress that it is only if those amendments are not carried that I would wish to put forward my own amendment.
My amendment is a compromise. It is not one that I would support ordinarily, but you have to be something of a pragmatist in this place. I am therefore suggesting that if the other amendments are not carried, my compromise amendment should be applicable.
The first subsection of my amendment would enable the situation envisaged by the Government to take effect for a period of 12 months and would require the positive approval of both Houses by affirmative resolution. If such approval was not forthcoming, we would revert to the existing situation. I do not turn to my amendment immediately. Fortunately, it is due to be taken after the vote on the amendments of which both my noble and learned friend and I approve.
Like my noble and learned friend, I think that the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 103, is better than nothing. It is not as good as my noble and learned friend would like and not as good as my amendment, but it is better than nothing. We must face up to the fact that swifter justice, which I also support, is not the same as something which is basically unjust. What the Government are proposing is basically unjust and the amendment does not improve that position very much. We have the right to consider the situation after the person appointed has made a report to the Secretary of State in about 12 months' time, but we do not have the right to amend. We have no rights whatever other than debate. In my view, that is an unsatisfactory position.
I am bitterly upset that the Government of which, like my noble and learned friend, I am a loyal supporter, have put forward this proposition. I do not like it. For that reason I shall support the amendments to which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer referred. If those amendments are not carried, I shall revert to my own Amendment No. 93.
10 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is difficult when returning to this matter at Third Reading to avoid repeating some of the arguments that have been put at previous stages of our deliberations. Although we should try to avoid such repetition, the issues at stake are sometimes so profound and so fundamental that it is not necessary to apologise if one re-emphasises some of the arguments previously put.

389
Yet again, as will become obvious from my remarks. I am the only non-lawyer to have taken part in the debate thus far. I am a layman; I see myself as an ordinary citizen who looks to the protection of the law. Perhaps I may take up a couple of specific points.
Reference was made in our previous deliberations to the availability of judicial review. This has been offered as a reassurance, something that is available, if need be, to a person who feels that matters have fundamentally gone wrong. I should like to receive from my noble friend on the Front Bench a specific assurance that all those, without exception, to whom a judicial review might apply will be specifically made aware of the existence of this opportunity, and of how it might be pursued—and of the fact that it is available not merely to a few who may happen to know of this channel. From the point of view of an ordinary citizen and not a lawyer, I believe that to be crucial. It is not just a matter of the existence of the law; it is access to the law that matters, and knowledge of what is available under the law. I believe that this House needs a specific assurance that there will be a proactive approach towards informing people about their rights in this context.
It is always dangerous to take up anything that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, says. One listens to him with great respect in terms of the intellectual and legal power that he assembles in all his remarks in this House. However, I associate myself with those who express disappointment that in regard to the white list he has reintroduced the concept of a negative approach rather than affirmative resolution. White lists should not be there. But if they are to be there, any proposed change to the white list should have to be fully argued by the Government.
My main point, as a layman, is this. What disturbs me profoundly about the whole of this part of the Bill is, first, that we are limiting in this context what has been fundamental to the operation of the law generally; namely, the right of appeal. I have heard no argument that even begins to suggest that we are not limiting that right in this context. That is a very serious step to take in a country that believes that it is protecting itself partly because it is a country in which the rule of law applies and to which the rule of law is fundamental.
The second thing that disturbs me is what this does to asylum. I am aware that I repeat myself and I do not apologise for doing so. Asylum is of such significance; it involves the possibility of life or death and the concept of persecution. It is almost unbelievable to see in the context of asylum the removal of what operates elsewhere in the law by a government who, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, I am proud to support on so many fronts. It is deeply upsetting. If we are really committed to asylum, and positively committed to its principles, rather than simply believing that it is an unfortunate necessity forced upon us by the international laws and conventions that we have inherited, our commitment must be to see that no stone is left unturned in ensuring that those entitled to asylum can get it.
390
I know that the phrase, "with a heavy heart", can be used easily. I am used to noble friends saying that they are walking through the Lobbies to vote on this Bill with a heavy heart. But, for the reasons I have given, it is with a heavy heart that I will be unable to walk through the Lobby with the Government. One of my happiest and proudest moments in this House was when I had the privilege of introducing my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to it as a Member. This evening I am glad I did; I will have no doubts whatever in demonstrating that I am with him and that I made the right decision in sponsoring him as a Member of this House.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said is very important. I hope that he will get the assurance he seeks from the Government.
In considering this group of amendments, we must remember what happened in 1996 and 1999, when survivors of torture were exempted from accelerated procedures. In that context, I am grateful to the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, which detailed three cases that had recently been certified as manifestly unfounded. The first involved a man from Zimbabwe who fled after his parents were beaten and stabbed to death. On appeal he was granted full refugee status. The second was that of a Roma woman from the Slovak Republic. Her brother-in-law was murdered by skinheads, her house was burnt down, and she was attacked by skinheads. The adjudicator found that there was a real risk that she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In the third case, the father of a man from Cameroon had disappeared, the family home was burnt, and he was arrested and detained for three months, during which time he was systematically tortured. He, too, eventually achieved full refugee status.
I conclude that the Government's amendment is less satisfactory than Amendments Nos. 90 and 91, one of which I hope will be successful.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I was surprised by the muted response of Ministers on Report to the case studies presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, which were similar to those just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Those case studies showed that Home Office officials have made the most appalling findings in certifying cases as manifestly unfounded when in practice they were manifestly well founded. But for the appeal process to an adjudicator, each of those cases would have resulted in a human tragedy. In view of that, I would have thought that a humane and caring government would have wished to introduce new safeguards to ensure that such potential miscarriages of justice would never occur in the future. Instead, the Government are doing the opposite and making it even more certain that miscarriages of justice will

391
occur. The aim of Amendments Nos. 88 to 94 is to prevent such miscarriages of justice and I support them.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, as another non-lawyer, I also support Amendments Nos. 89, 90 or 91, because they seem to me to restore the minimum standard of justice to this part of the asylum process.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, in its 23rd report, has put clearly the import of Clause 92(2) in the context of the Bill as it now stands. It says:
"there would now be no right of appeal at all to an adjudicator…the removal of any right of appeal results in there being inadequate protection for the human rights of claimants".
That is coolly put, but I would like to add that as an official, and therefore not in a judicial capacity, in the past from time to time I exercised powers delegated to me by the Secretary of State to make determinations within the framework of law which affected, in my case, people's livelihoods. It is from that experience that I conclude that to exercise this kind of power over a matter of fundamental rights like asylum, without any possibility of appeal to a judicial process, is wholly inappropriate for an official, and in fact falls short of our traditions of justice. The amendments put a just process back into the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I should also like to speak about the issues, as someone else who is not a lawyer, but represents the interests of grace and faith. It is surely manifestly clear from the number of amendments tabled to the clause from all round the House that it is widely perceived to represent an injustice in the Bill. We look to the Minister to give us some encouragement that the Government are going to respond to those concerns widely.
No one can sensibly maintain that asylum seekers will not be seriously disadvantaged by removal of the right to appeal from within the United Kingdom. On the contrary, any out of country system of appeal must be meaningless. It cannot have any substance. How can an asylum seeker make his case to the adjudicator without the opportunity to give oral evidence or necessarily to consult lawyers in this country face to face about his needs? How can an asylum seeker make his case from a country where he fears, or may even already be suffering, persecution?
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently tonight and on other occasions about the distaste that we must feel when the executive determines appeal rights rather than an independent judiciary, whose constitutional role is to scrutinise the decisions of government. Surely the clause is not satisfactory. Whichever route we determine to go down tonight, this House must put down a marker that further work needs to be done on this before Parliament assigns it to the statute book. We on these Benches will support the amendments as they come in the hope that the Government will respond to these widespread concerns about the justice of Clause 92.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we have spoken many times about these important issues. I shall not rehearse all of the arguments, but seek to summarise the position. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 103 which is the government amendment in this group.
The Government take the view that some asylum and human rights claims are so lacking in substance that they need to be dealt with as quickly as possible and the applicants removed from the United Kingdom as soon as their claim has been identified as clearly without merit. I gave an example of an actual case in which the person based his claim on the fact that his family had told him to apply. Despite the availability of medical and legal assistance, he was not able to elaborate on his application. Such claims should not go through the full process. We consider it fair and sensible to deny an in-country right of appeal in such cases. I have made it clear many times that legal redress before removal is not ruled out. It will remain open to an applicant to seek judicial review if he or she considers that there was a flaw in the decision-making process that led to the certificate being issued
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, drew our attention to a recently decided case of the House of Lords to the effect that judicial review provides "an effective remedy" to ensure that the law is upheld in these matters. The noble Lord also drew our attention to the fact that the case dealt specifically with a certificate of a manifestly unfounded claim. Therefore, referring specifically to a similar type of procedure, the House of Lords has concluded that it is an effective remedy. Consequently, the House of Lords sitting in a judicial capacity disagrees with the view held by some noble Lords that there is no effective legal monitoring or control.
We are committed to having in place clear and robust procedures to ensure that the quality of decision-making is high. I fully accept that the consequences of issuing a certificate are significant. We must have in place arrangements that seek to ensure that a claim has been properly considered before the decision to certify is taken.
As I have said before, we are introducing a "two pairs of eyes" system whereby each case is considered by a caseworker and then by a senior caseworker. All those involved in taking a decision on the claim will be specially trained on certification issues. Such training will, of course, be in addition to the extensive training in general asylum matters that all IND caseworkers receive. Cases will be referred where necessary to government lawyers further to ensure the quality of the decisions being taken.
Alongside all these measures we are also establishing, on a statutory basis, an independent panel of experts to comment on the country information produced by the IND. The existing country reports are held in high regard internationally, and I am sure that their status will be further enhanced by the creation of this panel. As accurate, up-to-date country information is a central factor in assessing

393
asylum and human rights claims, not least in assessing potentially clearly unfounded claims, the bolstering of our country information reports is further evidence of our focus on quality.
These are all concrete measures designed to show our commitment to a robust and effective decision-making process. As I have already accepted, mistakes might still be made. Judicial review, however, is there as a fall back. My noble friend Lord Judd asked for an assurance that everyone will specifically be told of the right to judicial review. We deal with that as follows. The legal advisers of all those going through this process and taking advantage of the opportunity of legal advice will be aware of judicial review. We think that that provides an adequate safeguard.
Many concerns about this procedure have been expressed throughout the Bill's passage. Bearing all this in mind, we have decided that it would be appropriate to create a new statutory post, that of monitor of the clearly unfounded claims provisions. The monitor would look at the processes being used in such cases. This would include the way such claims were considered by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, whether at Oakington or elsewhere. The monitor's role would not be to intervene in individual cases—we do not think that that would be appropriate—but to provide external, independent quality assurance on the systems being operated. He or she would be granted necessary access to ensure that that function could be carried out effectively. Fees and allowances would be paid as appropriate. He or she would be required to produce a report to the Secretary of State once a year. The report would be laid before Parliament, thereby providing transparency to the whole process. As noble Lords will be aware, other monitors exist in relation to the 1993 Act to review certain entry clearance decisions that do not attract a right of appeal. I refer also to the race monitor for whom provision was made in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
We believe that having an independent monitor for the clearly unfounded, non-suspensive appeal provisions will add value to the process and underline the Government's commitment to quality decision-making. We consider that to be a significant amendment. I hope that noble Lords will treat it as such.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. I shall not deal with Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell indicated that he would not move them. Amendment No. 91, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerns an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I refer to the statutory review procedure in Clause 99 in that regard. If a claim is clearly unfounded and there is a proper judicial safeguard to ensure that the procedure is properly used—we say that there is; namely, judicial review—the noble Lord is simply saying in his amendment that he disagrees with
394
the proposition of non-suspensive appeals. The Government take issue with that. That is what the debate is about. We say that there are clearly unfounded claims but that judicial review provides an effective remedy. We say that those clearly unfounded claims should not be allowed to proceed through half the system—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests—or, indeed, through all of it. We believe that we have an appropriate method to deal with the matter.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. We are not saying that there are not abusive claims where claimants ought to be returned. However, we are saying that there should be proper consideration of a suggestion that a claim is clearly unfounded before someone is returned to the country from which he or she came. Once that question has been determined, if it is agreed by the body that decides that question that the claim is unfounded, the asylum seeker should be returned. The appeal against the refusal of asylum can continue but on an out-of-country basis.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, accepting the proposition that there are clearly unfounded claims, the issue then simply concerns what is a suitable judicial safeguard. We say that it is judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says that it is not. I say with the greatest respect that I have the support of the House of Lords sitting judicially who say that it is an effective remedy.
I shall deal with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis at the end of my remarks. Amendments Nos. 88 and 94 were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. They provide that a person who had an application certified as clearly unfounded could not be removed from the United Kingdom for a period of 28 days if it was proposed to remove him to a country which had not been certified as being safe. The simple answer to that is that we all recognise that there will be some clearly unfounded claims that involve a person making a claim from a country that is not on any sort of list to which the noble Lord refers. If there are such claims, and if there are sufficient judicial safeguards—I say that there are in the form of judicial review—we cannot see any reason why the provision should not apply to such claims.
As I understand it, the approach of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is that he would prefer to see safeguards but, if they do not exist, he would like to see in place a 12-month sunset clause. We do not consider such a measure to be appropriate. There is no suggestion that in 12 months' time conditions will have changed to such an extent that the willingness of individuals to come to the United Kingdom to make clearly unfounded claims will have disappeared. We regard the powers as being applicable for the foreseeable future.
I turn to the way in which the situation is operating. The independent statutory monitor will report to Parliament and he will be able to inform both the

395
Secretary of State and Parliament on an independent basis of what is going on. That can obviously inform future decisions.
We have listened carefully to what has been said and we have proposed the independent monitor. In light of that, I invite noble Lords to agree to the provisions and to take note of what the monitor says when he makes his reports to Parliament.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we on these Benches have tried very hard in negotiations with the Government to find a form of words to achieve the objective that we seek. The noble and learned Lord made it absolutely clear that, although he is sympathetic to our concerns, he is not able to place in the Bill the guarantee that we seek.
We have not asked the Government to travel a long way; we simply want a guarantee in the Bill that those persons who would otherwise be removed to uncertified countries will have clear protection. The Government are not prepared to do that, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
10.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 70.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Maddock, B.

Attlee, E. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Avebury, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Barker, B.

Northover, B.

Blackwell, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Blatch. B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Portsmouth, Bp.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Redesdale, L.

Burnham, L.

Rennard, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Renton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Roper, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Russell, E.

Dholakia, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Fearn, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton, L.

Tope, L.

Joffe, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kingsland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Bach, L.

Bragg, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Brett, L.

Berkeley, L.

Burlison, L.

396

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Chandos, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sawyer, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Thornton, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Hoyle, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.36 p.m.
[Amendments 89 and 90 not moved].
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 52, line 29, at end insert
"(2A) If the Secretary of State certifies under subsection (2) that a claim is clearly unfounded, the person who made the claim may, with the permission of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. appeal to the Tribunal against the certificate.
(2B) A party to an appeal to the Tribunal under subsection (2A) may apply to the High Court, or in Scotland to the Court of Session, for a review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.
(2C) Where an application is made under subsection (2B)—

(a) it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions,

(b) the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, and

(c) the judge's decision shall be final."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, our amendment is significantly different. We regard it as extremely important. Although the hour is late I wish to press it. I beg to move.
10.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 7

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Northover, B.

Avebury, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Barker, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Blackwell, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Rennard, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Roper, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Russell, E.

Dholakia, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Fearn, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Joffe, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Judd, L.

Tope, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walmsley, B.

McNally, L.

Whitaker, B.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Brett, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chandos, V.

Mitchell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Pendry, L.

Crawley, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale. B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Goudie, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Whitty, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Grenfell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Harris of Haringey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 94 [Earlier right of appeal]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 95 to 97:
Page 53, line 40, leave out "request" and insert "claim"
Page 53, line 44, leave out "request" and insert "claim"
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) In this section a reference to an appeal under section 80(1) includes a reference to an appeal under section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68) which is or could be brought by reference to an appeal under section 80(1)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 99 [Appeal to Tribunal]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 98, I advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 because of pre-emption.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 55, line 32, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 98 and 101, which have been grouped, stand in our names. Amendment No. 98 would remove the new statutory review procedure under Clause 99 and leave the status quo—that is, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, subject to the usual review procedure. We accept that there is some justification for the new statutory review procedure. The process of judicial review is becoming seriously overloaded. Clause 99 at least preserves a second-tier appeal to the High Court and Court of Session level, so we are not minded to press Amendment No. 98.
Amendment No. 101, however, concerns a more limited issue. Oral hearings should not be altogether excluded. Amendment No. 100 would require an oral hearing in any case where permission is refused on paper. That goes too far and would lead to unnecessary oral hearings in some cases. Amendment No. 101 is more limited, and would give a judge discretion to allow an oral thinking if he thought that that would be helpful. We see no reason why that should not be left to the discretion of the judge. In some cases, oral hearings are undoubtedly of assistance. If a judge in any particular case feels that it is one where an oral hearing would be of assistance to him or her, the judge should be free to exercise discretion to hold one. I beg to move.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 99, but also to Amendments Nos. 98, 100 and 101. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 is to retain the right to oral hearings before the High Court judge reviewing the refusal of leave to appeal.
I do not propose to rehearse the case for retaining that right so compellingly made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on Report or the fascinating summary of government views given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

399
I have only one observation to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, tells noble Lords that it is her expectation that when judges have studied the papers at the statutory review, and are not sure, they will refer the matter back to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to determine the issue.
With respect that appears to be a curious procedure. A High Court judge who has to make a decision is deprived of the opportunity to listen to oral argument which otherwise would have enabled him to make a decision and he must refer the appeal back to the tribunal which has already refused leave to appeal. That process does not appear to make good sense and the justification provided for it by the Government, such as it is, is less than persuasive.
Since Report stage I have received a very comprehensive letter from the Minister dealing with a number of issues that had been raised in Committee and on Report on Clause 99, for which I am most grateful. Although I believe that there are a number of inconsistencies in the six-page letter—one of the longest that I have ever received—I am reassured by the answers provided to my specific questions on the test to be applied by judges in considering these appeals. On page 5 of the letter the Minister states:
"If the judge thinks the applicant has an arguable case, rather than adjourn for an oral hearing, that should be the trigger for sending the case back to the IAT for an appeal to allow proper consideration, including oral argument".
On page 6 in regard to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, she states:
"firstly, we would expect the judge to see if there may have been an error of law and I stress the use of 'may'. Secondly, we would then expect the judge to consider whether the appeal has a real prospect of success or there is any other compelling reason why the appeal should proceed".
If I understand that correctly, the Minister is saying that the test would be exactly the same as at present, and based on that I would assume that if the case of the Turk, to which I referred in Committee and on Report, was heard under the new statutory procedures the outcome would have been the same.
I have one further question. On Report the Minister said that consultation on the Civil Procedure Rules would include all stakeholders. In her letter she clarifies that by saying:
"By 'consultation' I meant that we would discuss our request for changes to the Civil Procedure Rules with the members of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, as the changes are subject to their agreement".
Does that mean that organisations like the Bar Council, the Law Society and ILPA, who have such a profound understanding of immigration law, will not be consulted and, if not, why not?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, was kind enough to refer to the arguments that I advanced at an earlier stage in our deliberations. Perhaps I should explain to your Lordships that I am content with what has been said in the letter from my noble friend Lady Scotland. I too would like to know
400
the answer to the question advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, but I do not propose to oppose the Government on this amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, for much the same reasons as I stated on the earlier amendment, I feel that in this crucial area of asylum we should ensure that all the traditions of law are fully operative. In that sense, I have real anxieties about what is being proposed and I have a good deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has put forward in his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we on these Benches tabled a similar amendment to Amendment No. 101 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which we support.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said, I sought in the letter to explore and answer many of the issues with which we were not able to deal during the previous stage of the Bill. I should point out to other noble Lords that a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House. Bearing that fact in mind, and subject to anything that other noble Lords may say, I do not intend to rehearse all, or any, of the matters set out in the letter.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that there was a slight slip of the tongue in terms of the rules committee. Noble Lords will know that the composition of that committee is somewhat complex—it already comprises representatives of the legal profession. It is to that committee that consultation must go. My hesitance is due to the fact that I cannot dictate to the committee what its rules should be, nor do I seek so to do. I was merely trying to clarify the proposals that we intend to invite the rules committee to consider. We are relatively confident that the committee will give mindful consideration to those suggestions.
We believe that the matters and concerns that noble Lords outlined are dealt with in these provisions. I thank all noble Lords for the careful attention they have given to the issue, and for the support that they have now indicated in brief but succinct and pertinent speeches.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, we believe that the balance of advantages as between the statutory review and a return to the traditional judicial review is fairly close. In those circumstances, we are not anxious to press Amendment No. 98. However, we feel somewhat more strongly on the subject of Amendment No. 101. Although the noble Baroness's letter, which has been copied to me, is undoubtedly persuasive, we are left with some lingering doubts as to whether she is correct. Had it been earlier in the evening, we might have been tempted to press the amendment.

401
This is the last occasion upon which there is any chance to debate the issue. Nevertheless, one has to be realistic about it: the troops have gone. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served at this stage by seeking to divide the House on the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Joffehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 99:
Page 55, line 37, leave out "only"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall support Amendment No. 101, if it is moved. I shall not move Amendment No. 99.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 102:
Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"EUROPEAN UNION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA
(1) Regulations may provide for, or make provision about, an appeal against an immigration decision taken in respect of a person who has or claims to have a right under any of the Community Treaties.
(2) The regulations may—

(a) apply a provision of this Act or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68) with or without modification;

(b) make provision similar to a provision made by or under this Act or that Act;

(c) disapply or modify the effect of a provision of this Act or that Act.

(3) In subsection (1) "immigration decision" means a decision about—

(a) a person's entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

(b) removal of a person from the United Kingdom."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 80 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contains a power to make regulations providing for rights of appeal in cases where there has been an adverse immigration decision in relation to EEA nationals, and their family members. Section 80 will be repealed, along with the rest of Part IV of the 1999 Act. This amendment will provide a similar power to that in Section 80.
The EEA regulations currently provide for rights of appeal against any EEA immigration decision under those regulations, such as a decision to exclude an EEA national, or family member. However, when an EEA appeal is heard and dismissed, it is possible for the claimant subsequently to make an asylum or human rights claim, which, if refused, gives access to further appeal rights. This can result in considerable delay in order to resolve multiple appeals, and, potentially, encourages abusive claims.
In such circumstances, it is our intention that the one-stop appeals process may be brought into operation so that all grounds for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom will be considered within the
402
context of a single appeal hearing. The clause has, therefore, been drafted to ensure that the new EEA regulations that will be needed to replace the existing regulations can achieve that. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the amendment. Can the Minister explain whether there is any specific provision in the European treaties that authorises such action? In the normal way of things, there is, under the European Union treaties, freedom of movement, specifically for the purpose of seeking work, anywhere within the Union. If somebody is sent back to a European Union country when their claim for asylum is refused, is there any legal way of preventing them returning to this country, claiming freedom of movement as a migrant worker? If not, does the Minister propose to deny such a person that option and, thereby, infringe the basic rule of freedom of movement within the European Union? Is there any provision in European law that allows him to do so?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, subsection (2)(c) of the new clause contains Henry VIII powers. Does the Minister have it in mind that there may be parts of the Bill that either violate European Community law or contravene directives that may be imposed subsequently under the European Union's programme for establishing common policies on immigration and asylum? Does the Minister feel that the coming into force of such directives will require new primary legislation in the United Kingdom? If so, will he ensure that the next immigration legislation is consolidating legislation, bearing in mind that there have already been attempts to consolidate part of immigration law at an earlier stage of this Bill? Although those were not successful, there is a general feeling that, if we go on adding statute on to statute and order on to order, immigration law will become extremely difficult to interpret.
The Minister may be contemplating the eventuality that UK law will conflict with some provision of Community law, but could it not be struck down by the courts? Why do the Government need the Henry VIII power? In answering that question, could the Minister say why the Government feel that it is necessary only in respect of Part 5 of the Bill? The draft directives that are to be published by the European Union will cover a wide range of asylum and immigration issues, including support provisions and provisions in other parts of the Bill that may also turn out not to be compatible with EU law.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall answer first the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. EU nationals are free to come and work in the United Kingdom; they have no need to claim asylum here.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the directives that are under discussion. I recollect that they are the reception directive and the qualification directive. They are not yet finalised. I think that the final date for the negotiations is probably next summer. It is hard, therefore, to give a definitive

403
answer until we see exactly what they say. My recollection of them is such that I do not expect any incongruity with UK law. It is unlikely that we will need primary legislation to bring them into being, although that view is subject to the final shape of the directives. We will keep the House aware, through the scrutiny processes, of how the negotiations are progressing.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is right to say that EU nationals have the right to claim work and, therefore, need not claim asylum. Given that, are all the provisions that we have just been asked to pass, denying claims for asylum from people from countries that are about to be admitted to the EU, entirely redundant?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall venture the answer "no". I do not think that there is an exact congruity between EU nationals and EEA nationals. Therefore, there is a need for the law that we are putting through to address the position of people from EEA countries that are not members of the European Union.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 107. insert the following new clause—
"MONITOR OF CERTIFICATION OF CLAIMS AS UNFOUNDED
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to monitor the use of the powers under sections 92(2) and 111(1).
(2) The person appointed under this section shall make a report to the Secretary of State—

(a) once in each calendar year, and

(b) on such occasions as the Secretary of State may request.

(3) Where the Secretary of State receives a report under subsection (2)(a) he shall lay a copy before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(4) The person appointed under this section shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).
(5) The Secretary of State may—

(a) pay fees and allowances to the person appointed under this section;

(b) defray expenses of the person appointed under this section.

(6) A person who is employed within a government department may not be appointed under this section."
[Amendment No. 103A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 103, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 103 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim: transitional provision]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 62, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) In this section "asylum claim" and "human rights claim" have the meanings given by section 109 but—

(a) a reference to a claim in that section shall be treated as including a reference to an allegation, and

(b) a reference in that section to making a claim at a place designated by the Secretary of State shall be ignored."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
"IMMIGRATION PROCEDURE AND WAITING TIMES: ANNUAL REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(1) The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament detailing the measures taken and proposed to improve procedure and reduce waiting times in immigration applications and appeals.
(2) The report shall include details of outcomes relating to any targets agreed or set by the Secretary of State in respect of such applications and appeals."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment in order to clarify and to resolve some remaining uncertainties following the debate in Committee late in the evening on 17th July. And here we are late again. The purpose of my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on his targets and measures to improve immigration procedures. The Bill calls itself a Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, but there seems precious little in it on immigration as such.
It seems appalling that students and those coming for permanent settlement find years of their lives blighted through bureaucratic delay and sometimes, sadly, by incompetence. A trawl through parliamentary Written Answers shows that although there are targets for entry clearance officers, they are not monitored properly. Worse still, there are no targets for, let alone monitoring of, how long an explanatory statement should remain in the Home Office.
There is no doubt that the system is in disarray. I will not at Third Reading repeat the arguments I put in Committee. However, the Government's answer to the amendment I tabled on that occasion was simply that if we all looked hard enough in enough places we could find the information we needed, particularly if we wanted to look in the Home Office's glossy annual report.
I took time during the Summer Recess and subsequently to check with outside bodies which kindly advise your Lordships on these matters and I am assured that they do not believe that the situation accords with what the Minister said. The information is not in a co-ordinated place and in a proper way to be presented to Parliament whereby Ministers can be held properly accountable.
My amendment gives Parliament the important opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in the correct manner. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we support the amendment. Only a few months ago the Home Secretary had to have figures counted by hand in order to determine a number of applications and so forth. Parliament has a right to know precisely what is happening in this area of work and the amendment

405
takes that into account. The more reliable the information we have, the better informed we will be and the better the discussions will be.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, want to add a few words in support of the amendment. I was once at my seminar listening to a guest of one of the speakers. She was a highly successful Canadian businesswoman who had arrived here with one minor irregularity in her papers. She was here on business which might have resulted in a fairly substantial export order to our benefit. She was put straight back on the plane to Toronto. She told me that under no circumstances whatever would her firm bring any further business to Britain.
There are too many such cases and I do not believe that they are to our advantage.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise not always having been in total agreement with my noble friends on the Front Bench whose conduct of our side of the debate has been exemplary. It is therefore a particular pleasure to say how much I support them on this issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it sometimes seems that if we are stuck for an amendment we call for an annual report. This one comes up as a bit of a hardy perennial, or perhaps a hardy annual.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce to Parliament a specific annual report, but this report would include information which is already, in our view, reported in a number of formats. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, quite rightly anticipated my response.
It is perhaps worth detailing what we publish and where these data are. The Home Office annual report publishes the high level targets on immigration and other areas. Aim 6 for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is to regulate effectively entry to and settlement in the UK in the interests of sustainable growth and social inclusion.
The report details the public service agreement targets, which include ensuring that, by 2004, 75 per cent of substantive asylum applications are decided within two months. The report also details IND's objectives under Aim 6, its performance measures, targets, milestones and the latest out-turn figures. The IND produces an annual business plan, which looks ahead, reviews and reports on proposed measures for improving procedures. It also reports on the objectives and targets for the year and reviews performance against targets for the previous year.
In addition, the IND produces an annual report, the main emphasis of which is comparing performance against targets for the past financial year. It also sets out targets for future years. The IND and the LCD are working together with the Treasury on a single asylum
406
budget, which will increase the effectiveness of the overall asylum process and the reporting of it.
So it is all there; the material sought is already in the public domain in an accessible format. I congratulate the noble Baroness on carrying out her researches in the summer, but this would be an unnecessary duplication of something that has already been achieved and would serve no additional good purpose. Sympathetic though we are to ensuring that accountability is reinforced through a series of annual reports, we feel that we are already hitting our own targets on those issues.
Baroness Anelayof St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support. As ever, the noble Earl gave a practical example of where problems bite in this area. I am certainly pleased that I have the support of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Although we on the Front Bench may not have been as much an Opposition to the Government as he liked, I hope that today, at least, he has seen that we have scored some victories over the Government on matters of principle.
The Minister said that whenever stuck for an amendment I might choose one of these. I can assure him that I shall never be stuck for an amendment and I hope that they will always be reasonable and rational. He said that this is a hardy annual. I am a lifer—I do not know whether that makes me a hardy annual, biennial or perennial, but I shall keep going as long as the Government allow this House to hold them to account.
The Minister seemed to perambulate around the subject. He did not give me a single example of where information about immigration figures is collated and to be found so that we can hold the Government to account on them. This is a matter of parliamentary accountability. I have taken the advice of outside organisations. I believe that there is a need for such an annual report and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
11.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No. 8

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goodhart, L.

Attlee, E.

Hamwee, B.

Avebury, L.

Kingsland, L.

Barker, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blatch, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Roper, L.

Burnham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Dholakia, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

407

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Filkin, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gale, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Whitty, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Grenfell, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.23 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 5
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Leave pending decision on variation application]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 107:
Page 63, line 25, at end insert—
"(2A) Leave extended by virtue of this section shall lapse if the applicant leaves the United Kingdom.
(2B) A person may not make an application for variation of his leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom while that leave is extended by virtue of this section.
(2C) But subsection (2B) does not prevent the variation of the application mentioned in subsection (1)(a)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this tidying-up amendment explains what happens to the extension of leave if a person leaves the United Kingdom. It also safeguards the one-stop principle by ensuring that technically there is only one application—although an application may be made and varied on any number of grounds. People who have no grounds to remain in the United Kingdom may be required to leave.
408
Amendment No. 109 allows us to encourage them to explain at an early stage why they should not be so required.
These are minor, technical amendments. I have no real interest in detaining your Lordships' House unless noble Lords wish to raise related issues. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder why there is no discretion in subsection (2A) of the amendment. On occasions, there may be perfectly good reasons for leaving the United Kingdom, even if not for returning to the country of origin. Suppose, for example, the applicant has a mother living in France, it is reported that she is dying, and he goes home to see her. Would not "may" be more appropriate to that case than "shall"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think not, my Lords, but I am sure that good sense will prevail in the exercising of the powers. A person can make a fresh application on return, so I do not think that the problem that the noble Earl foresees is a real one. I hope that the amendments will be supported.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
"DEEMED LEAVE ON CANCELLATION OF NOTICE
In paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (deemed leave on cancellation of notice of refusal) after "and the immigration officer does not at the same time give him indefinite or limited leave to enter" there shall be inserted "or require him to submit to further examination"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under current legislation, if an immigration officer cancels a notice refusing a person leave to enter, that person will be deemed to have been granted six months' leave to enter unless a fresh decision is taken at the same time. This new clause means that the granting of six months' deemed leave can be avoided if the immigration officer, when cancelling the first decision, advises the individual that the case is to be further examined. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Requirement to state additional grounds for application]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 109:
Page 63, line 40, after "from" insert "or required to leave"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Authority to carry]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 65, line 25, leave out "passengers" and insert "individuals known to pose either a security or an immigration threat"

409
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would limit the definition of "passengers" and insert instead,
"individuals known to pose either a security or an immigration threat".
That is in conformity with what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, told us was the purpose of the clause when we discussed it at an earlier stage. He used the words,
"people who are known already to pose a security or immigration control threat".—[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1353.]
The noble Lord repeated that terminology in other contributions at that stage. It was also used in a letter that the then Minister sent to Members of another place when she was commenting on the powers. She said that carriers would normally be given a simple yes or no against each proposed passenger by e-mail or some other means after the Immigration Service had checked that name against warnings.
If the intention of the clause is to prevent known immigration offenders, individuals named in travel bans or people whose passports are listed as stolen or lost coming into the United Kingdom, we do not need the enormous breadth of the powers on the face of the Bill, which ostensibly would allow Ministers to designate whole classes of passenger as subject to the clause. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have debated these provisions a number of times, but I am still struggling to understand fully what is worrying about including in the Bill more effective ways of checking on passengers.
Amendment No. 110 would require carriers operating under an authority-to-carry scheme to seek authority to bring to the UK a person who is known to pose either a security or immigration threat. This amendment would render the idea of authority to carry unworkable as it assumes that carriers would know whether a passenger poses such a threat before making the authority-to-carry check. The clause as drafted requires carriers to check to see if a person poses a threat.
Authority to carry is designed to help carriers to identify unacceptable passengers, rather than to authorise the travel of such passengers. Amendment No. 1 11 would limit the flexibility of any authority-to-carry scheme and remove the scope to apply different versions of authority to carry to different types of passenger.
The ability to apply different criteria to different types of passenger is necessary to ensure that the scheme can be responsive to the different requirements placed by the Immigration Rules on different categories of passenger. An example would be the need to apply different levels of checks on EEA nationals as opposed to non-EEA nationals. Any scheme that applied to EEA nationals would be limited to a confirmation that the document presented by an EEA national was genuine and that it was not known to have been lost or stolen. A scheme covering non-EEA
410
nationals would include that document check but also whether the holder was known to pose a security or immigration threat.
Any regulations establishing an authority-to-carry scheme would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and would be transparent. An authority to carry represents an important potential development in the immigration field, recognising that, across the country, we already handle 90 million transactions through the system each year. So it is important that we allow these ideas to be developed, although we have no immediate plans to roll them out. We therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos. 110 or 111.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell us the cost of operating the policy as he envisages it, and whether that cost falls on the Government or on the carrier? If it is on the carrier, is it in accord with European competition rules?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot tell the cost because there is no specific or detailed proposal at this stage. I would certainly expect that the bulk of the costs, when and if we introduce the scheme, would fall on the Government. The scheme would in fact benefit carriers as it would prevent their transporting to the United Kingdom people who are later discovered not to have a right of entry, in which case the carrier would have the burden of having to return them to the country from whence they came.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry that we were not able at an earlier stage to explain more clearly to the Minister the reasons for our anxieties about this clause. I had imagined, however, that he had taken on board the concerns expressed by the UNHCR, which he himself acknowledged in Committee, when he said:
"The UNHCR has expressed some concern that authority to carry schemes could impede the right to asylum and has amplified that by saying that it might obstruct admission to the asylum determination system".—[Official Report, 17/07/02; col. 1353.]
That is the reason why we sought to insert, rather than the general term "passenger", classes of person to whom the Minister himself referred when he explained how the clause would operate. What we need is an assurance that the provision will be applied to individuals within the categories concerned—that is to say, persons who are known immigration offenders, individuals named in travel bans, and persons whose passports have been listed as stolen or lost.
If we are confining the authority-to-carry scheme to those particular groups and are not going to extend it as the power would allow to general classes—and thereby obstruct admission to the asylum system as the UNHCR fears might be the case—we would be given some reassurance. However, nothing that the Minister has said today has given us that comfort.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we do not feel that the general anxiety about UNHCR is valid in that most of those who come to claim asylum would not be known to the United Kingdom authorities. They would therefore not be caught by these measures and would

411
be able to come to the country and claim. The only ones who would be caught are those with immigration offence records or who are terrorists. They would be caught by these measures.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is to some extent the undertaking that I sought. However, I suggest to the Minister that as those anxieties were expressed by the UNHCR—so far as I know, they have not gone away—his department should take the opportunity to consult with that body to make sure that what is now on the face of the Bill is satisfactory and does not continue to arouse the concerns that it expressed at an earlier stage. I see that the Minister nods. I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 136 [EEA ports: juxtaposed controls]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 76, line 16, leave out "the government of another State" and insert "all member States of the European Union"
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, we are anxious as Clause 136 appeared out of the blue at the last stage. I think I am right in saying that it was never debated. We see a risk of bilateral agreements side stepping any safeguards that might be introduced by the successor to the Dublin convention, or arising as a result of case law. We need to hear from the Government how the bilateral arrangements will operate and why the Government feel that these provisions should appear in the Bill as opposed to what we suggest; that is, agreements with all states of the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment would prevent our establishing juxtaposed controls with another single nation without the agreement of all member states of the European Union. Our argument is simply that that is an unnecessarily cumbersome way of attempting to set up what we see as being sensible and practical arrangements for controls.
As the noble Lord will know, we are working towards such an agreement with the French to establish juxtaposed controls in relation to ferry services at Dover and Calais, with the specific aim of further decreasing the number of inadequately documented passengers entering the United Kingdom from France. That is part of the agreement struck with regard to the closure of the Sangatte centre. The Home Secretary has also agreed with the Belgian Interior Minister, Antoine Duquesne, to work towards juxtaposed controls at Zeebrugge. Establishing this would require a formal international agreement with Belgium. The order-making power is wide enough to apply to future agreements on juxtaposed controls relating to passengers arriving in the United Kingdom by sea from any EEA port (including ports in countries other than France) because experience with the Channel Tunnel has taught us that there tends to be a displacement effect.
412
We anticipate that once we introduce juxtaposed controls at Calais, other ports with ferry services to and from the United Kingdom may see an increase in the numbers of improperly documented passengers attempting to pass through them. In such a situation Clause 136 would allow the establishment of juxtaposed controls, subject to an agreement with that particular state. The juxtaposed controls will not affect the removal of asylum claimants from the United Kingdom under Section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Section 11 would not apply in circumstances where an application for asylum was made to a United Kingdom official at a juxtaposed control outside the United Kingdom in another state. The person would be in the territory of another member state throughout. So it is wrong to allege that they could be returned there without an in country appeal in the United Kingdom, as they would never have entered the UK in the first place.
The establishment of juxtaposed controls is a bilateral matter between the UK and the other nation state concerned. It is the establishment of UK immigration controls in Calais and French immigration controls in Dover. It is not a matter that requires agreement by all EU member states. To pursue the course proposed in the amendment would make the system unnecessarily cumbersome to operate, lead to delay and undermine the principle behind it. For those reasons we cannot possibly accept the noble Lord's amendment. It is unnecessary and would not aid what we are trying to achieve.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, can he give us an assurance that the bilateral agreements will not contain anything contrary to international law?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we work within the framework of international law. That is the whole basis on which we approach issues involved with this Bill and other legislation with an international impact.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this amendment has served the useful purpose of getting the Minister to explain how the juxtaposed controls were intended to operate. If we had not tabled the amendment, none of that would have appeared in Hansard.
The arrangements in Sangatte, which are the motive force behind these provisions, may, as the Minister explained, be extended to other ports of entry to the United Kingdom. As he knows, in Sangatte the UNHCR offered its collaboration. I hope that the Minister has taken that up and that discussions are taking place on how the juxtaposed controls will operate in what we may call this pilot scheme. As the Minister said, that may well be extended not only to other ports in France but to places such as Zebrugge. Would it not be useful in future if, whenever juxtaposed controls were being developed between the United Kingdom and an EEA state, the UNHCR was brought into the picture at an earlier stage, rather than

413
waiting until the situation was a fait accompli? I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment if the Minister gives me this assurance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can give that assurance. Of course we seek to consult widely and the UNHCR is one of those bodies that will be busily consulted in that context.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is very useful. Does the noble Lord's assurance apply to future juxtaposed controls and not simply to those that have already been put in place in relation to Sangatte?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can give that assurance.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is extremely kind of the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 113:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
"ADVISORY PANEL ON COUNTRY INFORMATION

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a group of not fewer than ten nor more than 20 individuals (to be known as the Advisory Panel on Country Information).

(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint one member of the Advisory Panel as its Chairman.

(3) The function of the Advisory Panel shall be to consider and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the content of country information.

(4) In this section "country information" means information about conditions in countries outside the United Kingdom which the Secretary of State compiles and makes available, for purposes connected with immigration, to—

(a) immigration officers, and

(b) other officers of the Secretary of State.

(5) The function of the Advisory Panel shall be shared among its members in accordance with arrangements made by the Chairman.

(6) A member of the Advisory Panel shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).

(7) The Secretary of State may—

(a) pay fees and allowances to members of the Advisory Panel;

(b) defray expenses of members of the Advisory Panel;

(c) make staff and other facilities available to the Advisory Panel."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment gives statutory effect to the advisory panel on country information announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on 11th June.
The country information assessments are compiled from a wide variety of independent, reliable and well recognised sources to give a balanced picture and provide pointers to the relevant source. They do not interpret information, nor do they contain government opinion or policy.
414
Last year the Home Office commissioned a research project to evaluate the content and use of the country information produced by CIPU. We have recently received the results of that research, which, I am pleased to say, in general validates CIPU's work. The research project's findings make it clear that while CIPU's country assessments are effective tools that contribute to the asylum decision-making process, considerable value could be added to the quality of country information by establishing a user panel for those who utilise country of origin information, and an expert panel of topic and country specialists.
As a consequence, an IND users' group has been set up to identify more specifically the information needed to assist in determining asylum applications. Initial discussions have already proved useful. At the same time, we considered a paper by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who discussed the case for an independent documentation centre. His paper also introduced the idea of an "advisory board", with appropriate representation from the different constituencies.
The Government have listened to the concerns expressed in another place and have come to the view that the most constructive and cost-effective way forward would be to establish an advisory panel that will assist in, and inform, the continuing process of improving the quality, impartiality and objectivity of the CIPU country assessments.
We believe that the establishment of an independent panel of external people to provide scrutiny and oversight of the quality and content of the biannual country assessments should help to overcome any adverse perception of CIPU that is held by some external stakeholders. The panel could review the methodology used.
My honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to the right honourable Oliver Letwin MP and to Simon Hughes MP on 21st August, seeking their views on our proposals for the membership and remit of an independent advisory panel and will be pleased to give full consideration to their comments when they contribute them. We certainly want the panel to be established by 2003. I hope that the House finds those commitments and the amendment useful. It addresses some of the issues that we discussed at previous stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the amendment is certainly welcomed, as far as it goes, and I am glad to hear from the Minister that he has consulted Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who is an acknowledged expert on these matters. I hope that the noble Lord will continue to seek his advice in deciding who should be appointed to the advisory panel.
What sort of people does the noble Lord envisage will be on it? Will he invite nominations from human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and so on? Will the advice that the advisory panel gives be published? How will the Government make use of the information that they

415
provide, and, notwithstanding these amendments, will the Government continue to investigate the possibility of a totally independent documentation centre? Does the noble Lord have in mind any other steps to improve the quality of country information? We acknowledge the improvements that have already taken place in the quality of CIPU information. However, we believe that there is a long way still to go and that the advisory panel will be useful in that regard.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in response to the specific questions raised, we set out in the letter to Oliver Letwin and Simon Hughes our thoughts on the composition of the panel in terms of the constituencies from whom people might be drawn. We suggested a leading researcher or academic as the chair, representatives from UNHCR and Human Rights Watch, a senior immigration lawyer to be nominated by ILPA, VSO, the International Committee of the Red Cross, FCO, IND, LCD—this is quite a good list of acronyms—and an independent expert from Chatham House. We do not see a need to go further than that at this stage. We believe that this, combined with the users group, will build on what we consider to be good work thus far. We hope that it will be used even more and that it will be more respected in all fields.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he reply to the question that I asked about whether the advice will be published and how the Government will use it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the country information advice is already posted on the website. I believe that it is updated biannually and that that will continue to be the case.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, again, before the noble Lord sits down, when we discussed this matter at an earlier stage, it was indicated to us that the Home Secretary would consult a suitable body, or bodies, before adding any country to the "white lists" under Clauses 92 and 111. I believe that we moved an amendment to that effect, although it was not accepted by the Government. Is it intended that the advisory panel should be used for the purpose of consultation in that context?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not think so. The advisory panel is intended to give information and expert advice on the country assessments. The assessments are there to document what is known about the countries in a way that might be relevant to making a decision on an asylum application. It is
416
possible—here, I conjecture—that, were the Government to consider extending the list of safe countries, they might well use information in that domain as one source of information. But that is not the central thrust; the central thrust is to aid decision-making on individual cases.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he forgive me for taking just long enough to add to the warm welcome given to the amendment and to his answer?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 6
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138 [Section 137: consequential amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 115:
Page 80, line 23, leave out ""or section 24A"" and insert "", 24A""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clauses 138 and 144 both make amendments to Sections 28B(5) and 28D(4) of the Immigration Act 1971, which relate respectively to the immigration officers' powers of search and arrest and their power to enter and search premises. This group of amendments co-ordinate the changes made by Clauses 138 and 144 so that the amended sections of the 1971 Act will read coherently. As we are all in favour of coherence, I hope that noble Lords will feel able, at this late hour, to endorse the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 116:
Page 80, line 27, leave out "or 25B"" and insert ", 25B""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [Sections 142 and 143: consequential amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
Page 84, line 30, leave out from "warrant)" to end of line 32 and insert "after ", 24A" there shall be inserted ", 26A or 26B."."
Page 84, line 33, leave out from "premises)" to end of line 34 and insert "after ", 25B" there shall be inserted ", 26A or 26B"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
"FALSE INFORMATION
In section 26(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (general offences: "relevant enactment")—
(a) the word "or" after paragraph (c) shall cease to have effect, and
(b) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—"; or
(e) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (apart from Part 5).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is an offence under Section 26(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 to make a return, statement or representation which is false or which the person making it does not believe to be true, to an immigration officer or other person acting lawfully under a relevant enactment.
Amendment No. 119 adds the present Bill, minus the appeals provisions, to the list of relevant enactments. Amendment No. 139 includes the requisite repeal of the word "or"—it is good to be repealing the word "or"—where it appears at the end of the penultimate enactment in the present list in the schedule of repeals to the 1971 Act resulting from this Bill. I have great delight in moving this wholly uncontroversial amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
"DISAPPLICATION OF SECTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION) IN RELATION TO PART 7
Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 121:
Before Clause 150, insert the following new clause—
"CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL PROVISION

1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act.

(2) An order under this section may, in particular—

(a) amend an enactment;

(b) modify the effect of an enactment.

(3) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

(4) An order under this section which amends an enactment shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) Any other order under this section shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had an important debate earlier tonight on this proposed new clause. During the debate the House made clear that it had reservations, certainly about the drafting of the provision and no doubt about one or two other matters.
418
I make clear that the Government will consider the drafting of the clause accepting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. We shall consider how best to clarify the limited scope of the power, reflecting on the precedents identified by the noble Lord. For example, he illustrated that the words, "may by order make consequential or incidental provision in connection with a provision of this Act" were safer and more narrow than the words in our amendment. We are happy to accept that view, subject to any final checking. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction in moving the amendment. As he correctly stated, there was lengthy debate earlier in which noble Lords from around the House expressed serious concerns with regard not only to the drafting but to the content of this clause. I am grateful to the Minister for stating that the Government are now prepared to consider carefully the drafting with a view to clarification, and that they have taken careful note of the points put forward by my noble friend Lord Kingsland with regard to other drafting which may be more felicitous.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister that this is not merely a case of drafting. My noble friend said earlier that there is a matter of setting a precedent which causes concern. These are matters which all parties should consider carefully and quietly over the weekend. The Government now have the opportunity to present to another place another version of this clause. We shall await what another place decides on this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 150 [Interpretation: "the Immigration Acts"]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 122:
Page 89, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) The following shall be substituted for section 32(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)—
"(5) In subsection (4) "the Immigration Acts" has the meaning given by section 150 of the Nationality. Immigration and Asylum Act 2002."
( ) The following shall be substituted for the definition of "the Immigration Acts" in section 167(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)—
"the Immigration Acts" has the meaning given by section 150 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment makes clear that any reference to "the Immigration Acts" in either the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 includes a reference to this Bill. Without this amendment there is a contradiction between the definition of "the Immigration Acts" in the 1971 and 1999 Acts and that definition in Clause 150(2) which suggests something different. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154[Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 123:
Page 90, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) section (Construction of reference to person liable to detention),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 90, line 21, after "Schedule 9)," insert—
"( ) section (Consequential and incidental provision),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 90, line 33, at end insert "(which may include the purpose of the application of a provision to or in relation to a particular place or area);"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125 will broaden the commencement order-making power to Clause 154 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to allow provisions to be piloted on a geographic basis prior to full roll-out.
Amendment No. 126 is of a minor and technical nature to ensure that a regulation made in respect of the oath of allegiance can also be made in respect of the new pledge of loyalty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Citizenship Ceremony, Oath and Pledge]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 126:
Page 94, line 31, after "oath" insert "or pledge"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 105, line 35, at end insert—
"In paragraph 8(2) of that Schedule (time within which directions may be given) after "United Kingdom" insert "(ignoring any period during which an appeal by him under the Immigration Acts is pending)"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a case of, "Are we nearly there yet?" I have to say that we are. Amendments Nos. 127 to 129 are purely consequential amendments arising from provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 127 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that any period when an appeal is pending does not count towards the time limit following the decision after which directions for removal can be given. That saves interim directions having to be given during the course of an appeal to preserve removability should the appeal be dismissed.
Amendment No. 128 simply updates a couple of references in the Race Relations Act 1976 to legislation which is now changed. Amendment No. 129 updates a reference in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act so
420
that it points to a provision of this Bill. These are minor, technical and clarifying amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 107, line 26, at end insert—
"(ii) for -rules under section 5 or 8 of that Act;" substitute "rules under that Act;", and
(iii) for "rules under paragraph 3 or 4 of Schedule 4 to that Act." substitute "rules under that Act."."
Page 109, line 34, at end insert—
" In section 53(4) of that Act (bail) for "this Act" there shall be substituted "the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002"."
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 8 [Carriers' Liability]:
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 131:
Page 116, line 27, leave out "36" and insert "36(1)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.131 to 134 and Amendment No. 138 are all minor and technical. They correct drafting references in the Schedule 8 amendments.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 provide that appeals against civil penalty and carriers' liability charges are to be limited to the county court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the sheriff in Scotland, given the need to allocate judicial resources appropriately. In practice, it is unlikely that the complexity of proceedings involved would merit consideration by a higher court, but the amendment allows the courts to transfer the proceedings to the High Court and the sheriff to the Court of Session should they feel it right and appropriate in the circumstances. I am sure that noble Lords will find these amendments agreeable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos.132 to 138:
Page 118, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) Subsections (12) and (13) of section 35 shall have effect for the purpose of this section as they have effect for the purpose of section 35(1), (7) and (10)."
Page 118, line 40, leave out "Omit"
Page 118, line 41, at end insert "shall cease to have effect"
Page 118, line 42, at end insert "(which becomes subsection (1))"
Page 119, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) omit the definition of "court","
Page 119, line 25, at end insert—",
and
( ) at the end insert—
"(2) A reference in this Part to "the court" is a reference—

(a) in England and Wales, to a county court,

(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff, and

(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.

421
(3) But—

(a) a county court may transfer proceedings under this Part to the High Court, and

(b) the sheriff may transfer proceedings under this Part to the Court of Session.""

Page 119, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 5(1) omit "or 42"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 120, line 14, at end insert—
"In section 26(3) the word "or" after paragraph (c)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is late, so I shall confine my remarks merely to: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Development Agency Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have considered as much of the Lords message of 29th October as relates to the London Development Agency Bill and have made the following orders—
That the promoters of the London Development Agency Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in
422
the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That on the fifth sitting day in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House and, when so laid, the Bill shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.

Enterprise Bill
Returned from the Commons on Wednesday 30th October with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were printed pursuant to Standing Order 50. (HL Bill 120)
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  Prime Minister: Visits to UK Countryside
  Prime Minister: Visits to UK Countryside
  Northern Ireland Office: Security Checks.
  Northern Ireland Office: Security Checks.
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Commissioners' Annual Reports
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Commissioners' Annual Reports
  Housing: Density of New Developments in London and the South East
  Housing: Density of New Developments in London and the South East
  Crack Cocaine
  Crack Cocaine
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  EU-Russia Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Development
  EU-Russia Ad Hoc Working Group on Sustainable Development
  Ituri Province, DRC
  Ituri Province, DRC
  Iran: Death Penalty
  Iran: Death Penalty
  Iraq: Legal Advice to UK Government
  Iraq: Legal Advice to UK Government
  G8 Africa Action Plan
  G8 Africa Action Plan
  Konstantin Grigorishin
  Konstantin Grigorishin
  International Terrorism: British Interests in Sudan
  International Terrorism: British Interests in Sudan
  Sewers and Sewage Treatment Works: Odour Nuisance
  Sewers and Sewage Treatment Works: Odour Nuisance
  United Kingdom: Ageing Population
  United Kingdom: Ageing Population
  Pension Contributions: Tax Relief
  Pension Contributions: Tax Relief
  Pensioners: Taxation
  Pensioners: Taxation